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 ... 55
31

Perhaps they did, but they still went to law school and your whole premise is that anyone that goes to law school is awful. So one way or the other they went to law school, but lets get in a frivolous internet debate its Friday afternoon : )

They wouldn't have gone if they knew what law school and the law were really like.

You're right. If they hadn't have been able to go to law school, they'd probably be a sad and stressed internet troll.

Instead of rising up and becoming President.

Choices, man. They're hard.

32


Just a bunch of legalese gibberish. That's all unable-to-empathize lawyers do, lie lie lie using fancy words and sentences, and harass people hoping to extort money, making the world a worse place. Lawyers are literally the most hated subgroup of people in the country, and only the worse people would aspire to be one and post on a forum like this (and thank you for confirming that law school applicant websites, whether autoadmit or this one, are notorious. just because you haven't been sued for harassment yet doesn't mean you're any better)

You feeling stressed, bro?

33
Just to add to the flame post for shi*s and gi**les undeniably these two people are awful!

1. Abraham Lincoln

and

2. JFK

F'ing lawyers freeing slaves and fighting for civil rights. Despicable!

They weren't lawyers. They were presidents of the united states when they did good things. Completely different jobs. They probably went into the law, saw it was horrible, and went on to a better job.


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I missed this! This is priceless.

I don't think anyone should bother going through the whole list of people with him. Because, um, different jobs. Heh.

34
No one knows why you are stressed. Instead, you come on the board, say nothing, ignore the one solicitous post, and make attacking generalizations.

So, yeah, I have no sympathy for you. Now, if at some point you ever feel like saying why you're stressed, it might be different. Based on the evidence to date, I'd have to assume it was self-inflicted.

That's the point. Because I didn't say why I was stressed, it could have been something super serious, yet it did not garner an ounce of sympathy. I recall reading that a law school applicant board (this one?) was sued a few years ago for emotionally abusing people, which makes perfect sense.

The world agrees that lawyers are awful people. That's not up for debate. But they should pay more attention to the type of person that goes to law school in the first place.

Wow. You're, like, a super troll. First, as was explained to you, you didn't say anything. You said, "Hi." Most of us skim through the messages. "Hi," doesn't mean much.

Second, you did a response, and you attacked that. Which shows what kind of person you are.

Third, you're thinking of autoadmit. So even your trolling is both factually incorrect and not even close to on-base.

But sure, come on to a law school discussion board, post "Hi," ignore the person who responds to you, and attack the entire legal profession. The only thing the world might agree on is that you are an awful person. Now, I would say to go someplace that a person might care, but they won't. So why not engage at a place more suitable for you, like, say, the youtube comments? That should be up your alley.

35
The only "proof" I saw was that some people are too mentally unstable for law school.
For YOUR sake I HOPE you are a troll. If not.....................MEDS.

Wow not an ounce of sympathy for another person's stress. A board of people whose brains are incapable of feeling empathy, basically full-blown psychopaths who have no qualms about torturing the world with lawyer bs.

They say 4chan is bad, but a board of law school applicants is far far worse.

No one knows why you are stressed. Instead, you come on the board, say nothing, ignore the one solicitous post, and make attacking generalizations.

So, yeah, I have no sympathy for you. Now, if at some point you ever feel like saying why you're stressed, it might be different. Based on the evidence to date, I'd have to assume it was self-inflicted.

36
Job Search / Re: 2L Summer & Post-Grad Employment Search & Alternatives
« on: January 21, 2016, 02:32:05 PM »

The answer is a qualified "no", BUT...

You will obviously be far more likely to get hired at a job if you have specific experience in that field.

If your first job is in family law, are you barred from ever working in corporate? No, I'm sure that some people make that leap, but why would they hire you when they have experienced applicants to choose from? It's not impossible, it's just harder. 

The other aspect is this: as you gain experience in a particular field, you will naturally gravitate towards jobs that need those skills. It's just easier. You already know the law and procedural stuff. If you do family law for a few years and want to make the jump to corporate, you're going to have to learn corporate law somehow.

I do people who have made the jump from stuff like family law to government positions (county counsel, city attorney, etc), but that's different. Even then there were similarities. Like they went from family law into setting up trusts on behalf of the state. Still somewhat related. 

If you can get into a firm that does general business litigation, contract disputes, that sort of thing, that can be a little more generally marketable. Stuff like family law, criminal law, juvenile law etc is more specific.

Again, just my opinion. Others here may have a different view.

I'll add to this. This is an interesting one, and it relates to a concept called "path dependency." It's a useful concept, both in law and in general. The easiest way to think about path dependency is to think about the qwerty keyboard. Originally, it was developed to slow down typists and keep common letter combinations apart (to keep the old typewriters from jamming). This may or may not be true (it's commonly said, but there's no contemporaneous support), but the point is that once that layout was picked, it stuck. Typists learned it, manufacturers made it. Whether or not it made sense, that was the path taken (cue Robert Frost). You see this happen in the law a lot, whether it be stare decisis or reliance interests, a path taken at one point can be hard to overcome.

So, what does it mean with experience? The more experience you gain in a particular field, the harder it becomes to move into something different. Especially in the law. Yes, some skills are transferable. Civil litigation in one area can be civil litigation in another. Trial experience. But family law (for instance) tends to be very specialized.

The longer you go on, the harder it becomes. In all areas. I know amazing attorneys who won't practice in federal court because they have spent 35 years in state courts - so even though the case is exactly the same, they procedure is so different that they just won't do it.

Now for the counterpoint - this is just a summer job. It is preferable to get something in a field you would like to work in. But any legal experience is better than no legal experience.

37
Wow really? Only one reply in 24 hours to a stressed out person asking for humanity's help?

Holy *&^% this forum is evil. No wonder you're going to law school, to pursue a career where you will LITERALLY make money by flaming disputes for profit and causing misery for others.

Proof that law school is where you go when you don't have an ounce of decency left in you.

A few points-

First, this board is, unfortunately, not very active. There are a few regular (well, three or four regulars) but we're attorneys who joined a long time ago when we were law students. We do pop in to help with the law school students and/or 0Ls who ask questions.

Second, you didn't put in any content in your post. I can't speak for anyone else, but my default view is to scan new posts by the content. So if I see a post that says, "Hi," I would tend to ignore it.

Third, it's really hard to help people who don't identify the problem. "Hi," isn't a problem. If something in particular is stressing you out, tell us.

Fourth, you did get a response, and you ignored it.

Fifth, if you wanted humanity's help, you shouldn't post on a law board.  8)

38
Job Search / Re: 2L Summer & Post-Grad Employment Search & Alternatives
« on: January 19, 2016, 12:32:34 PM »
I agree with what Maintain wrote. I will add a few and emphasize a few things-

2L summer employment is important. But you are still quite a ways away. At a similar point in my law school career, I didn't have a 2L summer job. For various reasons, I had gotten *screwed* by a potential employer. But it ended up working out, as I worked my connections and ended up with my dream BigLaw job. But it wasn't through my school, and it wasn't OCI. Does this mean you'll end up as a BigLaw summer? No. But it means you have to create your own opportunities, and even the best ones don't get handed to you. And we're still some ways away from the summer.

Next, OCI is, for most students, not a great option. It's a cattle call. Yes, academic superstars will get offers. Others are just seat-fillers. Don't let it get to you.

Do not even think about another degree right now. That's crazy talk. ANOTHER DEGREE WILL NOT HELP YOU IN THE LEGAL FIELD. That's a pretty definitive statement, and there are exceptions (JD/MDs that practice medmal, or an LLM is tax law from a good school, for instance), but a generic, "Another degree will help me get a legal job?" No.

Ask around. Ask professors that you are friendly with. Use on-line tools. Friends. Colleagues. Send out resumes and good cover letters (how many? more than you think you should). Keep at it.

If it comes to it, take an unpaid legal position. But get something "in the law" under your belt.

39
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 01:13:03 PM »

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.

Well, to start with, a 165 (top 9% of so) on your LSAT won't get you into a Top 14 by itself (that's what you mean, right) Law School by itself. Cornell and GULC, for example, have a median score of 167/8. The Yales and Harvards of the world are at 173 (anything from a 171 on is the 98th percentile of testakers).

Really, your comment makes no sense. Look, if you want to say that your best chance of a BigLaw job (assuming that's what someone wants) is to go to a T14 school, that's fine. That's not very interesting. On the other hand, BigLaw is filled with people that didn't go to T14 schools (that's almost like a logic game, there).

I believe your earlier statement was that if you didn't score a 165, you shouldn't even consider law school, which is also a bizarre statement- and this is coming from one of this board's foremost proponents of the "don't go to law school" line of argument.

If a person can get into a law school, wants to practice law, and can minimize their costs, it's a good choice.


40
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT Score Theory
« on: January 07, 2016, 12:16:41 PM »
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners.

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55