Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FalconJimmy

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 67
I was recently involved in a car accident where the other person was at fault as determined by both insurance companies. They paid to fix my car already, but now I want to file a personal injury claim with the other persons insurance company without hiring a lawyer. Where can I learn the proper procedures and forms? Does any body have any sample demand letters I can use? Please help...

This isn't really an answer to your question but just some personal advice.

I deal with insurance companies and settlements every day.  In addition to that, I was hit by a motorist while riding a bicycle when I was younger and sustained some injuries as a result.

Based on this experience, I will offer this:  if you try to do this yourself, the insurance company will whip your ass.  They have lawyers.  They know the rules.  They know their rights.  They know what is a good settlement, what is a bad settlement and what is a fair settlement. 

You don't know any of those things and they're not going to help you with any portion of your desire to get the optimal PI settlement from them.

Not only that, but the first person (and possibly the ONLY person) you will be dealing with is an adjuster.  They're not that versed in the law.  They don't know all that much about this.  They DO know that they're measured on their average cost of claims and how long it takes to settle.  So, they don't know enough to settle PI correctly, and their only incentive is to have measurements that look good to their boss.  Draw your own conclusions about that.  Me?  I'd be thinking that their primary motivation will be to pay as little as possible.

The insurance company was so unreasonable with me in my accident that I ended up hiring a PI attorney who got me a much, much bigger settlement than anything I would have expected.  It was settled without having to go to trial, so the insurance company obviously felt it wasn't that disadvantageous to them. 

People may think little of PI attorneys, but frankly, I think they have their place.  The insurance company has almost all the information and all the expertise on their side and they do this every day for a living.  You, on the other hand are going to try and take them on based on free advice you're asking for over the internet.

Just think about that for a moment.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Prep courses: study before, or no?
« on: April 03, 2011, 03:41:55 PM »
Hmm alright so I am in a somewhat similar situation.

I am planning on taking the June Test and was preparing on my own using the PowerScore books. I've found them helpful so far but was considering taking a class.

I've already invested in the PowerScore books and all of the actual LSAT preptests. Is it worth taking a class at this point or should I stick with the method I've been working on so far?


Kinda depends on what you want.  If you want a top score to get into a top university or to get a top scholarship, maybe the prep courses are worth it.

Personally, I have always done best when I can study material on my own.  The cost of the powerscore books is microscopic compared to the cost of a prep class.

If all you're trying to do is "get in" and the school isn't that tough to get into, I'd say just stick with powerscore.  (Obviously, a lot of factors here, so consider this very general guidance.)

However, if you really, really need a huge LSAT score, maybe the cost of a prep class will be worth it for you.  Heck, the difference between a half ride and full ride for one year, alone, more than justifies the cost of a prep class.

Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students / Re: Admissions chances...
« on: April 03, 2011, 03:09:37 PM »
I don't think admissions committees give much thought to undergrad major.  Otherwise, they'd be giving guidance like, "major in X, not in Y."

As for the LSAT, I had no trouble with any of the sections because they were all essentially reading comprehension, except for the logic games.

I did okay, but could have done much better if I'd prepared.  If I were doing it all over again, I'd buy the powerscore logic games bible and work through it, first.  I probably could have raised my score by 15 points or so if I had.

I think with pretty much any LSAT score, you're likely to gain admission.  Best of luck.

I would advise fellow forum members to be exceedingly careful about dispensing legal advice if you are not yet admitted to the bar.  Perhaps it'd never happen, but you'd be dancing dangerously close to practicing law without a license.

I have passed the bar.  However, this is a hypothetical, and I am not giving legal advice.

Then you have nothing to fear.  Hence the whole "if you are not yet admitted to the bar" thing.  But this scenario doesn't appear to be hypothetical.

The problem is that, when this inevitably gets challenged (as it already did in Baake) in 25 years, it will lose and go away. You're discriminating on the basis of race. The court in Baake explicitly said that this won't be okay in 25 years. It won't be around too much longer.

Grutter v. Bollinger made it very clear that the constitutional basis for AA is absolutely not there.  The strict scrutiny standard is, at least in my opinion, a travesty of justice.  When used, it seems like as often as not, it's used to do something very, very bad.  (For instance, the internment of Japanese Americans.)

I thought the Supreme Court really punted in the Bollinger decision.  They were defending the indefensible:  granting favors based on race is simply unconstitutional regardless of motive.  Also, rather insidiously, the ruling essentially extended the practice for another 25 years due to the language of the majority decision.

I was waiting to hear the constitutional arguments regarding affirmative action back in 2003, and basically, the majority opinion said that affirmative action is clearly and blatantly unconstitutional, but they like it, so it's going to be the law of the land for at least another quarter century.  Absolutely infuriating.  A true picture of how sometimes the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have zero basis in the law and it's just a personal opinion that they are going to impose, even though they know the opinion is contrary to all the rules of a free and fair society.

 I would advise fellow forum members to be exceedingly careful about dispensing legal advice if you are not yet admitted to the bar.  Perhaps it'd never happen, but you'd be dancing dangerously close to practicing law without a license.


I owe you an apology for calling you out your name. I don't agree with you or your opinions, but I was wrong to resort to name calling.Sorry.

Seriously, no problem.  You were pushing my buttons, so I pushed a few of yours.  No harm, no foul.  I didn't really mean any offense and I doubt you did, either.  I apologize if I offended you.  It took a big person to apologize and I tip my hat to you.  I shouldn't have let this thing get to the point that it was this out of hand.  Peace.  Best of luck with all you are trying to do.

I was recently involved in a car accident where the other person was at fault as determined by both insurance companies. They paid to fix my car already, but now I want to file a personal injury claim with the other persons insurance company without hiring a lawyer. Where can I learn the proper procedures and forms? Does any body have any sample demand letters I can use? Please help...

You do realize that a board full of law students is probably the worst possible place to ask for this type of help.  We are, almost certainly, a population of people who are deathly afraid of being accused of practicing law without a license. 

Current Law Students / Re: Is Law School the new "College?"
« on: April 01, 2011, 04:29:12 PM »
If you are going to law school simply for the exclusive title of "Esq."

Personally, I tend to hold a dim view of people who use the Esq. title after their names.  It seems silly to me, like a dentist who demands that people outside his office call him "doctor" and he makes all his restaurant reservations that way.  I don't think anybody views this title as exclusive anymore, or at least not very.

which allows you to charge $250 per hour in your job, you're an idiot.

Oh, I wouldn't be so dismissive of that.  I know a handful of attorneys who I would not characterize as being at the top of their profession who regularly bill $250 or $300 an hour.  Granted, the number of hours they bill isn't particularly impressive, but it appears that it's not that difficult to get these rates.  The tough part is getting the clients.

Is it a valid reason to go to law school as "something to do" for the next three years? 

If you want to, my opinion is, why the hell not?  You seem to be somebody with some real world experience who understands the risks here.  I've seen people waste a lot more time and money than is involved in law school on things that ended up not working out.  You don't seem to have any unrealistic delusions about the profession.  If you want to go for it, go for it.

I am interested in law, but I know that jobs are scarce,

My father once said to me, when I was a very young man, "There is always room for the best".  Yeah, jobs are scarce, but there will always be a lot of money to be made by attorneys who bring true skill and give true value to their clients.  If this is something you really want to do, I wouldn't let this dissuade you.

and I can't say there is one area of law I definitely love yet. 

If a person shows up to the first day of 1L already knowing exactly what area of the law they want to practice, before they have so much as cracked a single law book or sat in a minute of lecture, then more power to them.  Personally, I think a person will make a far more enlightened decision on what they want to do within the law after they've been to a year or two of school.  For that matter, they may spend the first 10 years of their career trying to find an area of the law that they want to work in.  Nothing wrong with that.

But I don't know what else to do.

There, I'd say open your horizons a bit.  There is ALWAYS something else you could do.  You could get an associate's degree and be an RN.  You could join the Navy and be an EOD tech and jump out of airplanes and scuba dive for the next 20 years.  The reason to go to law school is that you want to go to law school.  However, if this is truly THE ONLY THING YOU CAN THINK OF THAT YOU CAN DO, I'd say that you might want to think about it a bit more.

Is it incorrect to look at law school as something to do for the next three years? 

Only if you think it's incorrect.  This is a decision only you can make, for yourself.

Somewhere to meet new people, have some new opportunities, etc.? 

It would certainly be that.  If that's what you're after, law school is a good place to do it.

I understand there is a boatload of debt with law school,

Maybe, but you could get a scholarship.  Even if you go $100,000 in debt, that's not nearly equivalent to a house payment.  (house payments have PMI, Insurance and taxes added to them.)  It's more like paying off a brand-new accord every 5 years for the next 15 years.  So, you drive a crappy car for the next 15 years, worst-case.  Best case, you get a nice job and drive a nice car.

In some sick sense, it's like f*** it I'm already screwed. 

Yep, most psychology works that way.  Your cherry is popped.  No need to guard your virtue, now.  I mean, no need to go skank yourself all over town, but you've seen that a little bit of vice won't kill you.  Keep it to a reasonable amount and you'll probably be just fine.

Is law school the new college? (albeit with less parties and fun)  Kind of like a college where you have more time to concentrate on what you want to do with your life?

If you want to see it that way, it doesn't sound unreasonable.  However, I would add one caveat:  the only reason to go into the law is to get a job in the law.  If you don't intend to go to the best school your circumstances will allow, and place as high in the class as possible, I'd say don't do it.  It may very well prove to be a regrettable waste of time.  However, there are bigger mistakes you can make.  You can do a lot in life with a law degree.  It's a credential that you will have for as long as you live.

Again-work on your research skills-Your article states select universities,I'm talking about affirmative action -period.

Ah, sorry.  I made the grave error of thinking we were talking about admission to universities on a discussion forum devoted to Law School.

I'll work on my research skills, but I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to assess them.

While we're telling each other areas where we should improve, how about not being such a whiney, self-entitled, confrontational ass?

All the research skills in the world won't ever overcome the fact that a person may be a crass jerk with an entitlement mentality. 

Sometimes being of a certain race is a real obstacle in life.  However, that pales in comparison to having a personality that other people detest.  Fair minded people will always give a person a shot, regardless of their skin color.  That's only skin deep.  Obnoxiousness?  That's to the bone.

Or, heck, just stay the smart and unique person you are.

Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 67