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  4 5 6 7 8 ... 40
« on: July 09, 2015, 04:28:09 PM »
No, that case doesn't really help.
P&I means that if you live in one state, you can still take (and pass, and keep) the bar membership in another. But it has nothing to do with reasonable requirements, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
So, for example, a state can require anyone (in or out of state) to have good moral character and fitness. A somewhat evolving question is the compatibility of that with the ADA (specifically, regarding mental health).
A state can have minimal educational requirements- such as graduation from an ABA law school. Note that in the Massachusetts example you cited, it was the Supreme Court, not granting a general rule, but giving a special waiver to one person- many states, including Florida, have provisions for same (I cited Florida's provisions- 10 years, documents, and prayer).
More simply- the requirements at issue don't have to do with residency.
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:28:10 AM »
While I cannot mindread the original question (what would be the point?), I think I can expand on it.
The ABA accreditation acts as a de facto, if not de jure, barrier to entry to most federal court practice. For example, let's take Florida (really, please, take Florida).
If you wanted to practice in M.D. Florida, you would need Florida bar membership. Florida has *no* reciprocity with any other state. Florida requires ABA accreditation (*or* you could have practiced for at least 10 years without having graduated with an ABA degree, and you must provide samples of ten years of work, and you must get approval). This is similar to many other states.
So, the basic rule is that you either need to have graduated from an ABA accredited law school (since the states farm out this requirement), or you need to start your practice in a state that allows for non-ABA accreditation, and work your way to another state. The takeaway is that it is much easier to do the ABA-accredited route, because it's hard enough to move around even with an ABA-accredited degree due to bar regulations.
« on: July 08, 2015, 04:45:04 PM »
I haven't done a systemic survey, but it's not very rare.
Florida and California federal courts require local membership. New York federal courts, for example, will allow Connecticut or Vermont. Appellate courts are, of course, different (I'm talking D.C. only).
« on: July 08, 2015, 04:22:08 PM »
It is true. Admission to the C.D. Cal. requires you to be a member in good standing with the California Bar. Federal courts often have a local practice requirement; see, e.g., M.D. Fla. One reason for this is that they handle a high volume of cases that require knowledge of the state law, so they assume out-of-state practitioners will pro hac, and if you will be practicing regularly in front of the Court, you should pass the local state bar.
Different federal courts have different rules, but it is odd.
« on: July 08, 2015, 09:07:36 AM »
I'm just going to add that Groundhog is right, and I can't believe that your professors don't know this (well, actually, I can believe that).
First, as a general rule, you need to get admitted to a state bar somewhere. You don't just get admitted to federal practice.
Then, you need to get admitted to *every single federal court* in which you want to practice regularly. So, for example, if your state has four federal court jurisdictions (say, a southern, an eastern , a central, and a northern), then you need to get a separate admission to each of them, as well as a separate admission to the overall COA if you want to practice there. While that sounds intimidating, it isn't.
In practice, many attorneys just get their federal admissions as needed. So, for example, if you are practicing in LA, you get your CalBar, then C.D. Cal. if you need to practice in federal court, then the 9th COA if you need to take an appeal up. If, for some reason, you need to take a case in another state (federal), you get admission to that court- either as a one time thing (pro hac) or on a continuing basis. If you have some cases in N.D. Cal., get your admission there.
Once you have your state admission, federal courts are usually pretty simply to get admitted to; while the standards are different, most involve paying a fee, taking an oath, and/or a short test on the CM/ECF system or the local rules.
« on: July 07, 2015, 04:06:47 PM »
Regarding your point, Maintain, it has been a while since my UG experience and LSAC experience, but my recollection is as follows:
1. The weighted uGPA matters a great deal. That is to say, the uGPA you have as compared to your school's (average) GPA. I went to a relatively non-GPA inflated school, so while my uGPA was, well, pretty mediocre, my weighted institutional uGPA was quite good. And my experience working with (one) admissions office is that the weighted uGPA (by undergraduate school) matters.
2. IIRC, back in the day, they broke out your "major" GPA as well, but I don't recall them breaking out class-specific weighted grades (they didn't get that granular). Maybe it's different now. The admissions office I worked with didn't care as much about that, with some exceptions (STEM majors tended to get the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to yet another PoliSci major).
This is from a while back, so someone else might have more updated info.
EDIT- I just looked at the LSAC website- they no longer weigh the scores. They do convert, but undergrad difficulty etc. doesn't matter.
« on: July 07, 2015, 01:19:51 PM »
You know, I'm going to offer a slightly divergent opinion.
Try to challenge yourself a little and have fun. See, if you go through UG worrying about your class rank, you're doing it wrong. No offense, but... UG is easy. There is no way you should be sweating failure in UG. If you are, you probably shouldn't be considering post-graduate work (well, at least not without some time off to experience the real world and learn to take life a little more seriously).
You are paying money for those classes. So learn. Do you want to take a credit here or there "learning" frisbee golf? More power to you, I guess. But that's not what makes you succeed in life. Yeah, you might have a little more fun with that blowoff class, but don't be surprised when you find that you, precious and unique snowflake that you are, are struggling to keep up in law school (or other endeavors).
As for law school itself, I give the same advice. Sure, you can take the "&" classes. Law & Basket Weaving, Law & Poverty, whatever. But they probably won't be quite as ... helpful as secured transactions. Or conflict of laws. Or some other class that makes you dig a little deeper.
Maybe this advice doesn't work for everyone- all I know is that I tend to believe that when I pay for something, I want something out of it. YMMV.
« on: June 21, 2015, 04:10:25 PM »
First, I would point you to my advice to you in the other thread.
Next, take the approach that maximizes the value for you. Some people do just fine buying books and doing lots of practice questions. Other people prefer a more strutured environment (a class), so that they can feel that they have easily attainable objectives and a requirement to meet. Still others do better with personal one-on-one, and those people might look into hiring someone to help them out. No approach works best for everyone. For me, doing it on my own was great- but each person is different.
My only other advice is that you should maximize your attention on logic games, because that is the area where, for most people, you can achieve gains through prep work.
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:08:40 AM »
Unfortunately, I cannot give specific advice. But I do have general advice I give to people when they ask about LSAT prep, so maybe this helps-
The LSAT is a test of aptitude, for the most part. That means that you won't magically increase your scores from a 150 to a 170 (unless, say, the real barrier was learning English). That said, preparing for the test, IMO, can increase your scores primarily in two areas-
1. Understanding how testing works. All tests work with their internal logic (some deduct points for wrong answers, some don't, etc.). You need to know the rules to maximize your success. In addition, repeated exposure to the format and administration of the exam will give you an added level of comfort, kind of like muscle memory. A lot of people have nerves when these sorts of exams- practice will help you with that. So it's a combination of exposure and maxmizing your efficiency.
2. The logic section. In my experience, no test prep is going to magically increase your overall vocabulary or ability to critically reason. They might help you with a few strategies, but it will be de minimis. The logic games section (analytical reasoning or something?), OTOH, is different. Very few people have had exposure to some of these sorts of problems before. They can be learned. They can be worked at. Scores can improve here. Not a huge amount (again, there is an underlying base), but a significant amount that makes it worth it.
In general, beware of places that overpromise.
« on: June 20, 2015, 06:37:38 PM »
Okay, let's try this.
Before, it was not a big deal because digital watches didn't really do much for cheating. Now, they can be much useful. In addition, from even a short distance, a "digital" watch can look very much like an analog watch.
Ounce of prevention, etc. Point is, this just makes it easier to administer. Before, no big deal (even if the occasional digital watch did get in by accident). Now, the presumption is just simply ban on all watches. Because the *usefulness* of a watch as a cheating device has gone up so much.
But, sure. Maybe my theory is bunk. And maybe they just revised the rules, now, completely indepedently of what's going on with watches, which just happens to coincide with time. I'm sure you've worked this out with a Bayesian probability.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 40