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 - loki13

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49
General Board / Re: Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 24, 2015, 12:27:33 PM »
"the test isn't any different" It has changed SIGNIFICANTLY (even in the last few years) heck that's like saying that the GED didn't get harder (it did too) its par for the course.

As for the other schools, they didn't exist back then for the most part (especially not the online ones, kind of hard to have online schools pre internet)

Snakes formerly known as Pie-

Your antecedent is unclear. I assume you mean that the LSAT has changed significantly to be made harder. Since you have made this assertion, please provide a citation that I might verify it. While doing so, please provide an explanation as to why, concurrent with the decline in applicant LSAT scores, and overall test takers, and overall applications, there has been a decline in applicant uGPAs (while, overall, uGPAs have been trending up).

I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

I am not sure where you would get the information that a majority (either capitalized or uncapitalized) of immigration attorneys behave in such a manner. Of course, you have the qualification that it is the attorneys that you know- do unethical people gravitate toward one another? :P

General Board / Re: Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 22, 2015, 10:20:32 AM »
"But yeah admissions are lower and more lower tier schools out there. That much is true. But those at Harvard are no dumber today than those from Harvard when boomers were enrolled listening to Madonna and getting excited about having theater tickets to Top Gun."

You're partially correct but draw the wrong inference. LSAT scores and uGPAs for average candidates are dropping, as are the number of overall applicants. But, for the most part, the number of schools has stayed the same.

So, sure, your average Harvard Law Grad will be roughly the same. But it's at outside of the T100 where those differences are the most acute. The incoming students, on average, performed worse on the LSAT and in UG (per uGPA). Check out some historical figures for random schools from 2010-14 for incoming classes... it's not pretty.

The test isn't any different- it's the people sitting for it. It's natural supply and demand. The schools need to fill seats, so they are lowering their standards. Ideally, law school will become a more attractive option again, and this problem will self-correct. Or, in another ideal solution, many of the worst law schools will just go under.

you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm still confused by Artist formerly known as Pie. First, your continued use of the phrase "non-legal" is carrying a lot of freight, as you appear to be conflating civil and criminal infractions (malum in se and malum prohibitum). Second, you aren't being specific, at all, as to what you are alleging, or what the fact pattern could be. Facts can make a huge difference. Third, ethical rules do matter- they are not "justifications." Rules regarding, inter alia, confidentiality. 

So let's take an easy example culled from your fear of undocumented individuals in America. A student from England has overstayed their student visa, and is currently working in a bar in New York City. She goes to an immigration attorney. What advise, if any, would it be acceptable, in your mind for this attorney to give? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

Now, contrast that situation to this one- a business owner goes to an attorney regarding a tax issue. During the course of the conversation, the attorney learns that the business owner is non-compliant with a local ordinance (which is an entirely separate issue). To comply with this local ordinance (which only involves the spacing of his buildings on his property) would require millions and millions of dollars to rebuild, while his business could not operate, costing millions more. In your analysis, what can this attorney ethically do? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

I'm really curious- after all, real life isn't always so neat. Now, if your argument was that immigration attorneys (but not others?) were lying in court, I would completely agree with you, but now I am even more confused as to what your point really is.

I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

What? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Let's take an easy example. How about a foreclosure. Let's say we have two "bad" actors in a judicial foreclosure state-
A bank that, arguably, doesn't have requisite standing at the beginning of the case. (Issues with the note)
A borrower that hasn't been paying.

So, by your argument, neither side is entitled to representation? And any deeper analysis is only "justificiation?" The bank shouldn't have representation, because no attorney should help a bank try to establish standing to foreclose when it appears the bank lacks standing. And no attorney should help the borrower, because no one is entitled to keep living in a place they have no right to (sound familiar)?

I'm having serious trouble understanding your views, other than you don't like something, so you don't feel the need to think about it.

Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.

If you mean the notarios issue, it is a genuine problem in CA. Notarios operate almost exclusively within the immigrant community and act as quasi-lawyers.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?

So many things to respond to...

Never heard of these rules of professional procedure and I'm from a border state.

Not sure those lawyers are advocating anyone break the law either or what exactly this supposed epidemic of illegal legal advice is.

This side issue confused me, as well. And I can't speak to it, specifically, since I am unaware of the particulars of these claims. That said, I am familiar with immigration attorneys, and they will zealously represent their clients' interests. Which is what they are supposed to do. If there is a particular claim made that a certain action violates a rule of professional conduct, I'd be open ears.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 20, 2015, 09:16:28 AM »
Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?

Heh. Bridge and tunnel crowd. I try not to make too much fun of New Jersey- after all, some topics are too easy.

"The un PC reality is no one wants someone that fat from Jersey in charge of anything outside of that area, other than maybe Waste Management."

Maybe. I think Christie blew his (possible) opening in 2012. He is far too liberal for the GOP base, has too many unfortunate associations, no longer has an "electable" argument, and has seriously angered parts of the establishment- he doesn't play well with other GOP figures.

Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

Now, I don't buy this for a number of reasons. It gets really vague around (2) - (4). And I think that the licensing is for the protection of the consumer, and given the information asymmetry, this would be a very, very bad idea. But I have heard it.

What I would be more amenable to is loosening the UPL strictures. There are certain things that, perhaps, a fully licensed attorney is not needed for. I realize that I'm arguing against self-interest, but devolving certain extremely basic legal services might be worth exploring.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49