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 - Eugene Young

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 34
71
chances at HLS with 3.77 from MIT with 174?
See answer to Docesq.

72
Isn't Yale a reach with a 3.3 UGPA?

Not when you have a 172 LSAT and a Ph.d from MIT in biochemistry. Which actually now to me begs the question, "Why law school?" Seems like you'd be set in biochem as a researcher or teaching somewhere.
Hmm...I'm obviously no Yale expert, but I thought that the lowest GPA in the 2008 entering class was a 3.54?

Reread the bolded.

73
Isn't Yale a reach with a 3.3 UGPA?

Not when you have a 172 LSAT and a Ph.d from MIT in biochemistry. Which actually now to me begs the question, "Why law school?" Seems like you'd be set in biochem as a researcher or teaching somewhere.

74
Current Law Students / Re: Sample Contracts Exam
« on: November 27, 2008, 07:59:33 PM »
S probably has a promissory estoppel claim if you find there's no K. L would raise a SOF claim as a defense if there's found to be a K b/c K can't be performed in a year. S could come back with an SOF exception b/c L undertook partial performance when they made timely payments for 10 years with the correct amount. S would also point to the letter as irrevocably referrable evidence of their agreement. Obviously, you need to analyze whether there was a K first before you start addressing the above. You also need to raise the enforceable agreement issue before you address the P/E  and SOF claims. I would approach it like this:

Is there a K b/w S&L?
A. Offer (IRAC)
B. Acceptance (IRAC)
C. Consideration (IRAC)

If you conclude there's no K, move to P/E, then damages if P/E found.
If you conclude there is a K, move to damages.
I would address both possibilities.

Then I would raise L's defenses.
SOF (IRAC)
Then I would hit a C/A for S with what I mentioned above.
Go through an enforceble agreement analysis also.

There may be other stuff, but that's off the top of my head. Also, I'm a 1L who's yet to take an exam, so take everything I just said with a grain of salt.

75
Current Law Students / Re: Stanford Law Exam
« on: November 26, 2008, 06:11:32 PM »
never mind, found it.

76
Current Law Students / Stanford Law Exam
« on: November 26, 2008, 05:57:39 PM »
Anyone have the link for Stanford's model exam answers? I just finished an exam and I want to compare mine with the model answer. I can't find the link I snatched it from. For all you smart asses, I already googled it several times. It's a Contracts I exam from Jan 11, 2002. Professor Radin, Section 5.

Thanks in advance

77
Black Law Students / Re: Post Your Interesting News Articles Here
« on: November 21, 2008, 12:56:26 PM »
 I saw this earlier and thought most of that editorial was a real crock of *&^%.  First of all, why should the bar be expected to help fund PD programs? They would never whatever the bar equivalent is in medicine to help fund Medicare/Medicaid programs or similar state programs. They didn't make the AICPA donate money to stockholders who invested in Enron and WorldCom.  Stockbrokers don't have to make donations to all those folks who have lost thousands in their 401(k) funds recently. They make it seem like it's the legal profession's sole responsibility to provide indigent defense. That's not the holding of Gideon.  Again, no one requires the medical community to provide medical care for the indigent. Then the editorial says the State bears ultimate responsibility. If the State was really interested in helping out PD offices, they could start by decriminalizing drugs, st least misdemeanor possession.  That would probably clear half of most courts' criminal dockets. They could have more DAs really committed to the pursuit of justice instead of improving their conviction rates for their political gain. But we know that's not going to happen.

Secondly, the editorial board the legal community hasn't done anything to help indigent defense. The private criminal defense bar has stepped up to the plate repeatedly to help PD offices, and defense of the indigent generally. The very nature of private criminal defense makes a lot of attorneys give low bono or inadvertently pro bono work frequently, certainly much more than the civil defense bar.

The Times dropped the ball on this one, not that I'm surprised.

78
Other than Biglaw, in my opinion a JD is a waste. 

assuming that one wants to maximize one's earning potential, right?

Flawed premise, indeed.

79
Current Law Students / Re: bad news for law grads
« on: November 19, 2008, 03:54:38 PM »
a lot of people go into the law to use it as a means of public service, not solely to print money. Some of them even become POTUS. ;)

i find these two sentences amusing when read together because the new president in all likelihood will essentially be printing a LOT of money.

The irony was intentional. Notice the winky.

80
Current Law Students / Re: bad news for law grads
« on: November 19, 2008, 03:19:45 PM »
There's nothing sillier than a bunch of non-top law school students trying to justify their adaptive preference that you don't need a top school to excel and they're happy.

Listen, I'm not at Yale, but I don't go around saying how much better Chicago is, because Chicago kids at the top actually earned their clerkships.  That would make me seem stupid.  And I sure as hell would not say things like "BigLaw is soul-sucking" if I didn't have any chance of working at one of these firms and trying to actually know what I'm talking about.

Be happy with your path and leave everyone else alone, but don't try to justify it.  What's next?  Kobe Bryant is actually sad because he has pressure to score 30 points every night?  Gimme a break.   ::)

I don't think anyone here is saying that, at least not Tasha, Matthies, or myself. Read critically. Don't they teach that at UChic? (i'm joking, don't get all sensitive and mansy pansy on me)

At the bolded, if that's what you want, whatever. do you. but not everybody is "biglaw or bust." Everybody couldn't (nor shouldn't)want to be a PD, just like everybody couldn't (nor shouldn't) want to be a biglaw associate. There's more than one way to skin a cat. There's plenty of other ways to make money in law (if that's what you want) than to be an associate at biglaw, llp. And, believe it or not, a lot of people go into the law to use it as a means of public service, not solely to print money. Some of them even become POTUS. ;)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 34