Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - loki13

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 47
" My point is we don't have any real power despite what loki was saying."

Really? I think you haven't practiced very long, or (perhaps) you're in an odd jurisdiction. Sure, a person can represent themselves (pro se). But this isn't just about the little "niceties" like, you know, being able to testify in court without swearing in (officer of the court) or registering for efiling. Or about "optional stuff" (quick- name a pro se prosecutor).

Can random person issue subpoenas without a case? Liens against property? Have you recently looked at the statutory allowances in your jurisdiction for what an attorney is allowed to do in your jurisdiction?

If your friend gets arrested, and says that you are his attorney, what happens when you show up at the precinct? How is that different than, say, if you don't have that meaningless license? Shall I keep going on, or will confess error?

"I hate to break it to you..."

Everything you wrote it is incorrect. I gave you specific examples. I am quite aware of my power, both under the rules (without requiring any court intervention) and, in general, as an officer of the court. If you are not aware of this, I don't know what to tell you.

Next, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how to analyze this as a barrier to entry. So let's look-
First, does it work to prevent too many attorneys from practicing? Empirically, the answer is no. If anything, the bar (heh) is set too low.
Next, let's look at your argument re: ABA schools getting a free pass. Initially, this argument can be dismissed for the same reason you dismiss the bar exam, but at an even deeper level. Many ABA schools teach you nothing substantive about the practice of law in a particular jurisdiction. They are filled with electives, and don't have a set curriculum after the first year. Even if your school offers jurisdiction-specific classes, that will not account for people that want to practice, initially, in a different jurisdiction. Finally, and worst of all, there are two types of schools- those that work hard to keep their students in (in other words, you really have to affirmatively screw up to fail out), and those that fail out large numbers *because they admit to many that cannot pass the bar and they need to keep their ABA accreditation.*  IOW, for both types of schools, the bar exam operates as a necessary filter.
In short, your analysis is just that the bar exam isn't perfect. No, of course it isn't. Neither is the LSAT. Neither are the exams given to LEOs for admission (!!), training, certification, and promotion. But I'm glad we have them. Given the state of the profession, I think the least of the concerns is that barrier to entry is too high.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 19, 2015, 09:53:36 AM »
"I'll follow up later.  Not sure why you dont find me credible? Or incredible for that matter.  This isn't spin or partisanship playing because we are talking an actual federal criminal investigation not"

Because you don't seem to get basic facts correct? Let's take this, for example. Bridgegate was an actual criminal investigation, despite your "lol." A person might reasonably disagree with how "serious" they found it, but you do realize that-
1. There was a *federal* investigation.
2. There were indictments of key Christie officials.
3. There has already been a guilty plea.

So, um, yeah. This is why I don't find your facts very credible. More importantly, though, getting back to the OP, I have followed politics long enough to not get too concerned about day-to-day. For example, the reason that Christie is doomed isn't because of bridgegate- it's because he has no GOP support- either with the establishment any more (he burned those, um, bridges) and certainly not with the base.

In an ideal world, I would prefer that Clinton not be the nominee for the Democratic party (nor would I want Sanders, who is unelectable). But I am realistic enough to know that Clinton has the support of the party establishment, and while the House GOP is doing their darnedest to leak information that they believe will damage her, it is unlikely that anyone else will get the nomination, and it is 99% certain that *no one else currently running for the nomination for the Democrats* will.

I ate Pie-

"The FAA? Lets not pretend we are anywhere near that important."

So? I hate to break it to you, but attorneys have the power to put people in (and keep people out of) prison. They are officers of the court, and have the power (in many jurisdictions) to compel attendance and testimony without any further court order. Are they as important as pilots? Who knows. But can have power, just like many other professions that require licensing.

"The MBE tests on stuff that is NOT the law in your home state"
While a person might disagree with aspects of the MBE, it tries to distill generally applicable principles of law. No, they do not apply specifically anywhere, but they are usually slightly helpful everywhere.

"Then make it tested on real life stuff. Make it a real life series of court hearings after real life pretrial draftings for both civil and criminal cases in both district and circuit court."
I'm not sure how many times we've been over this, but many attorneys are not litigators. My friend couldn't draft a motion for extension of time to save his own life; on the other hand, when it comes to real estate closings on complex commercial developments, he's the man.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 18, 2015, 01:28:53 PM »

The FBI is not investigating Clinton. You understand that report was corrected, right?

The FBI is looking into the path of certain documents, that were not classified correctly, at the State Dep't.

Shorter version- the issue would not be whether or not Clinton herself did it incorrectly, it would be whether or not the documents should have been classified to begin with.

Now, I understand you enjoy your breathless "But she's Nixon," reporting. I don't really care for her myself. But given your postings, you will have to excuse me if I find you, well, not credible.

You'll have to be even more understanding when I say that you seem to have acquired POO (politically-obtained obtuseness) when it comes to reading. There is a difference between saying that my opinions have not changed, but they might change *if* a major Democratic player enters the field (because that would mean that there is actual currency to the issue beside your fevered imagination), as opposed to "hedging my bets." This is no different that if I were to say, "My opinion has not changed, but if Clinton was to die, I doubt she will be President."

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 18, 2015, 08:03:00 AM »
"Now, like Clinton you are changing your story.  First Clinton was a sure thing--even gambling odds"

I haven't changed my story. You seem incapable of reading. And her odds (either 1-5, or 1-6 for the Demcoratic nomination, even odds for Presidency) are the same. Status quo, remember.

The only way that will change is that if enough eventually comes out that a real player in Democratic politics comes out to challenge her (because that means that she has lot support where it matters, and the powers that be know it). That's when you will know that any of this stuff actually matters outside of your own echo chamber.

That's also why I'm not overly concerned that the GOP field has Trump, Carson, and Cruz as the frontrunners right now. We can check in again later.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 17, 2015, 04:52:28 PM »
 "Barring a Republican part[y] that shoots itself in the foot."

The three leaders for the GOP nomination, currently, and the only ones polling in double digits:
Trump, Carson, Cruz.

In order to shoot itself in the foot, the GOP would have to take said foot out of its mouth. Wouldn't want a headshot, after all.

"Clinton is legal toast."

Nope. Now, if you wanted to make a case that a drawn-out accumulation of innuendo might draw a serious challenger into the race, that would be interesting (no, Sanders and O'Malley are not serious). There's certainly time for that, and, inter alia, Biden's camp has floated the rumor. But unless and until that happens, I'd bet on the status quo. You rarely lose money with that.

Distance Education Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: August 16, 2015, 10:54:36 AM »

Well, if I concede your priors, that the DL learners in question have an aptitude for the law since they successfully learned it, have self-reliance, have focus, and, moreover, already have a great deal of experience with the court system from their prior careers... then, yes, the transition might not be as difficult.

There's a lot of assumptions built in there.

Distance Education Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: August 16, 2015, 09:09:58 AM »
Woah.... somehow, this thread devolved into the battle of the coprophages. :)

Anyway, I'll throw in my two cents. Solo practice is always an option after law school. But it it's a lot harder than just needing some gumption and practice manuals. I cannot speak for every jurisdiction, but it's an issue with my (current) state bar and a topic of conversation with local bar ass'n that there just aren't a replenishment of solo practitioners coming out of law school. I would say that ths issue is a little different than, say, 1992.

Next, it will be even harder with the DL option than with in-person, because you're not getting any connections, chances for internships, summer positions, etc., that often lets you learn to practice. What you learn for the bar exam is not what you need to practice.

Then there's the actual practice. As LP wrote, there are practice guides. These can be invaluable. But early on, there are a lot of things you just will not know. Does your court have local rules? What about this particular judge? What are the deadlines that can change... and what can't change? And so on. There's a lot of play in the system, but try to make connections and get some other attorneys who have already climbed that mountain to offer some advice.

Finally, the practicalities of being a solo practitioner involve business .... something many people are unprepared for. The tax issues, setting up client trust accounts, scheduling (and.or hiring an assistant)... all of these small things. Make sure you see if there are resources to help if you chose this route, or you could end up with a client complaint to the Bar early on in your career.

Working as a solo practioner (so I've heard- I'm more of the firm type) can be a wonderfully rewarding experience, allowing you to chart your own destiny. But it will be very difficult to go straight out of law school. If it was easy, then instead of hearing of all of those unemployed attorneys duing the last recession, we would have heard of a lot of solo practitioners.

I ate Pie-

Again, if you have a better link to national bar averages, that would be great. The original comments, as we discussed, was about jurisdictions other than California.

Next, February traditionally has the lowest bar passage rates. So it doesn't make sense to:
1) Use February bar passage rates; and
2) Use California stats; and
3) Misconstrue the ones you use (First-time Pepperdine takers in Feburary had a 70% rate on that exam- you were looking at the "repeaters" table- IOW, the students who already had failed the exam).

Having taken, and passed, more than one Bar exam (including California), I will reiterate that the problem is not the difficulty of the exam. They are rather trivial to pass, and amount to nothing more than a minor barrier to entry.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 47