i believe this is the first time in my history on this message board that anyone has agreed with a statement i made. im pretty proud of myself.
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 - RootBrewskies
« on: June 19, 2006, 10:40:34 AM »
just like those people on dateline. i thought about how this could be considered entrapment when i saw the tv special and read this, but guess what....i dont care. probably anyone in law school or considering law school shouldnt think this way, but the law can be pretty ridiculous, when it protects people who are obviously guilty. i hope all those people get thrown in jail and never get to deal with kids again.
« on: June 19, 2006, 10:36:08 AM »
to take the patent bar u have to have a undergrad or grad school degree in engineering or something? i wasnt aware of that.
what are the specifics for this?
i think alot of schools use a combination of grades and write competition.
i think its a little off base to say that some one on law review is a 'great writer'. its probably more accurate to say, that someone on law review is a hard worker and good legal writer. i dont think there is necessarily a corelation between being a 'good' writer and being on law review. its not shakespeare. its legal writing.
« on: June 18, 2006, 06:45:24 PM »
yes, lsat scores are arbitrary when it comes to class ranking to some extent, but in the overall scheme of things your lsat score does predict your success to some extent. otherwise schools wouldnt even require the lsat.
the saying goes that you should go to the best possible school you can get into. the only reason i can see doing otherwise is financial. if you have a large scholarship awaiting you at another school or if staying in your location will save you alot of money.
to me there are only a few schools that are really worth taking huge amounts of loans and stepping into debt to go to. so if you get into a top school, id say go there, take the loans. if your debating between a TT or TTT or a TTT or a TTTT, then visit them and pick the one that is the best for you on a number of aspects, including fincial aspects.
i think you are a little off base to state that going to a lower ranked or less regarded school will result in you being much smarter than everyone else. to think that you wont be able to have intelligent conversations at a TTT as oppossed to a T14 or something is pretty ridiculous. overall most everyone in law school is intelligent.
the law school i committed to offers interships to its students. so everyone can spend time working for an extended period of time before graduating and actually hitting the real world.
anyway, an option has been presented and it is to defer for a year, and work at one of the law firms that offer the internships to students. it would provide for a year of real world work at a firm and i imagine it could eventually end up helping you get a job with the firm (or pretty much any firm).
so what do u think? i'm relocating for school and i already have sent in my money for my apartment, so ive committed to moving to the area, but what do u think about defering a year to work before going to law school at a firm that provides internships.
oh, the work would be paid, i'm not sure how much but its not a work for free kinda deal.
my school is gathering info to put into a packet for incoming 1L's. filled with information about the school and stuff that is supposed to help us transition into a new environment better, some of the info is supposed to be 'insiders' knowledge that you wouldnt get to know until you had been in the area for a while. Examples are: transportation, food, safety, student organizations, professor interviews, parking.
is there anything more you would think important (or you would have liked to have known) before arriving at school? i'll be shipping off to philadelphia and i'm fairly unfamilar with the city, so it will be nice to have some info on the city/school and stuff but what other stuff would you have liked to have known before showing up?
put a little more consisely:
An idea I've heard of for allowing removal of partners is this: At any time partner A may offer to buy out partner B for any amount of money. Partner B must immediately either accept the offer, or may turn around and buy out partner A for the exact same amount of money.
Thus you're either out a partner, or out a business for what you must have thought was a fair price (or you wouldn't have offered it, right?).
is this a legally binding issue in regards to all LLC's or is it something that would only effect those LLC's that put it in their partnership agreement originally. In that case would it being in the partnership agreement make it legally binding?
I'm not sure if anyone can help me out on this but I'm at work and the question was thrown at me and I dont know the answer, its legal/business related:
If one of the partners at an LLC offers to buy out the other partner for lets say 1 million dollars. If the partner turns down the offer, does this partner now have the right to buy out the other partner?
like does making an offer to buy out a partner in a LLC and the offer is rejected obligate you to have to sell your part of the company for the same price if the other partner wants to buy you out (after he turns down the orginal offer)