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 - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 83
« on: July 10, 2015, 03:06:05 PM »
I have some experience with family court, and can tell you that there is rarely a good and a bad guy. The reason that these situation end up in need of adjudication in the first place is because the parties are incapable of coming to reasonable terms.
It could be that the mother is manipulating the children by poisoning their minds against the father, and it could also be true that the father doesn't care about the kids beyond their utility as a way to pester the mother. Who knows.
However, I have never, EVER even heard of a judge sending a nine year old to detention because they refuse to comply with court ordered visitation. Even if the kids are being unreasonable and are being manipulated, this is a crap way of handling it.
« on: July 10, 2015, 12:21:52 PM »
The Supreme Court declared practicing law is a fundamental right so it is not routine rational basis.
What level of scrutiny is used, then? Admittedly, I haven't read the cases you linked, but have courts actually articulated a modified form of rational basis review? That would be interesting.
« on: July 10, 2015, 11:27:40 AM »
I'm not arguing that this is an easily overcome issue, or that the hypothetical plaintiff has a great case, etc. Rational basis review is as low as you can go, and it's pretty easy to establish.
I'm pointing out an angle that simply challenges whether the state's actions are in fact rationally related to a legitimate interest. Personally, I don't think they are but I concede that the state would win anyway.
« on: July 09, 2015, 08:18:56 PM »
I have to generally agree with Groundhog and Loki insofar as the courts almost always uphold bar admission requirements as long as they are reasonable.
How far does this right go and want state interest is served from preventing a San Joaquin College Law Grad from taking the South Dakota Bar, which is a state so desperate for lawyers that it is paying for lawyers to move there.
strikes me as a potentially successful angle of attack.
Think about the scenario. A lawyer shows up and says "I passed the toughest bar exam in the country on my first try, passed the C&F, passed the South Dakota bar on my first try (assuming you could sit for the exam first), and can demonstrate that my alma mater follows the standard ABA law school curriculum. We use the same books, take the same tests, and have similarly qualified professors."
argument can South Dakota make for keeping that guy out? Library too small? Not enough financial aid staff? ABA accreditation is based on many non-academic factors, but if the grad could demonstrate that the academics were substantially the same...I dunno, maybe.
With an online or correspondence course South Dakota may be able to demonstrate that the education is somehow deficient. But San Joaquin has a higher pass rate than some CA ABA schools. Seems like the San Joaquin student would at least have shot at winning.
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:27:18 PM »
Yes, I agree that ABA is certainly the surest (and sometimes only) path.
My question was playing off of Pie's comment, and pondering whether or not it would make sense to exclude non-ABA grads from federal practice. I don't think it would.
There are some courts which will require state bar membership, and a non-ABA is going to face an uphill battle. But for courts that don't require state bar admission, as long as a non-ABA grad has passed the CA bar (or one of the other few states that allow non-ABA degrees) and met the C&F requirements, I don't see the problem.
« on: July 08, 2015, 08:13:14 PM »
These are first time takers only, no repeaters. But yeah, schools like Berkeley had only a few takers. Others had 50+, though, so that's probably at least somewhat reflective of their overall performance.
« on: July 08, 2015, 07:12:34 PM »
Some here may find this interesting, some won't. Oh well, this is what happens when I'm bored. Here are the just released numbers for the Feb bar.
Note: some schools (the UCs, Stanford) had very low numbers of test takers. USC had only 1, (passed) so I didn't bother including them.
The schools with part time programs had more takers, as they often admit people in both Spring and Fall. So these are regular students as opposed to students who have had some problem which required them to stick around an extra semester. Thus, some schools' numbers are probably more reflective of their "actual" performance than others.
CA has too many damn law schools.
San Diego 74%
La Verne 67%
Golden Gate 36%
Western State 32%
« on: July 08, 2015, 05:28:12 PM »
I am kind of surprised that fed courts don't required ABA grads only and tell non ABA to stay out IMHO
What would be the point?
« on: July 08, 2015, 04:28:09 PM »
Yep, just looked up the Attorney Admission local rules for the Central District and CA bar membership is indeed required.
That surprises me. I assume this is a very rare requirement?
« on: July 08, 2015, 04:08:00 PM »
I met an attorney a while back who told me that one of the federal courts in LA had a local rule requiring CA bar admission in order to be admitted to the court. I haven't checked into it, so I can't confirm.
I was completely surprised by that. I always thought that admission in any state qualified you for admission to any federal court as long as you filled out the paperwork and paid the fee.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 83