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 - Maintain FL 350

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 95
Law School Admissions / Re: LSAC is confusing
« on: January 07, 2016, 03:02:16 PM »
This is easy, just call LSAC and ask what's up. They may simply mailed it a little late.

As far as the law school waiting until they have your next LSAT score, Citylaw is correct. It has to do with scholarships and (possibly) admission. If your numbers are already sufficient for that particular school, but you plan on re-taking anyway, they just want to see what you end up with. If you get a higher score, they may increase the scholarship offer. Don't worry about it. 

Studying for the LSAT / Re: Is Kaplan's course worth it?? PLEASE HELP!
« on: January 06, 2016, 08:28:10 PM »
I took Kaplan and found it to be sufficient. Not awesome, but definitely helpful. For me, the classes were okay, but what I really liked was the Kaplan study center.

They had one nearby, and I was able to spend all day studying in relative peace and quiet (as opposed to the college or public library). They also have tons of old LSATs that you can take and get immediately graded with a breakdown on your strengths and weaknesses. Also, there was always at least one LSAT instructor available as well as the other students, so you could always get feedback.

I know a lot of people don't like Kaplan, but I found it useful. My score went up quite a bit from my diagnostic, which I think was 154. Specifically, I found Kaplan to be helpful with reading comp. I don't think I would have figured out the best approach to that on my own.

Anyway, your mileage may vary.

Law School Admissions / Re: C&F Question
« on: January 04, 2016, 06:55:35 PM »
Check with your state bar and see what they require. Just remember: when in doubt, disclose. The bar can be forgiving of many things, but if they think you're being dishonest you're in trouble.

You will almost certainly need to disclose on the bar app, not sure about the others. Maybe.

You will probably have to send in an addendum to the bar app, and it may hold things up. They may ask follow up questions. Again, as long as you are completely honest I doubt that this will be a serious problem. People get admitted with far bigger issues.

Contact the NC state bar and get the info straight from the horse's mouth, don't rely on anyone on the interwebs to provide more than casual commentary. Good luck, I think you'll be fine!

Law School Admissions / Re: C&F Question
« on: January 04, 2016, 04:33:36 PM »
I don't what state you're in (the rules vary), but this sounds like a VERY minor issue. The main thing with the C&F is to disclose everything up front: the good, the bad and the ugly.

For the most part, the bar is looking for major red flags: arrests, academic discipline, expulsions, that type of thing. Even those issues might not be a barrier as log as the applicant is completely honest. Be sure to check with your specific state bar, but as long as you are honest about it and fully disclose, I doubt if it will be an issue.

Current Law Students / Re: Use of a mall as a public place for protests
« on: December 29, 2015, 09:06:11 PM »
In my experience, trial court judges follow the law 99% of the time. They usually lay down entirely predictable opinions, even when you really hope that they'll stretch it just a little bit in your favor. Nobody likes to get reversed on appeal.

Current Law Students / Re: Use of a mall as a public place for protests
« on: December 28, 2015, 07:46:43 PM »
Agreed, I was merely responding to Trinitite's earlier post.

This would be like someone saying that Dodger Stadium is a state actor because LAPD patrols the parking lot, and county inspectors occasionally check up on the corndog guy. Not gonna happen. 

Current Law Students / Re: Use of a mall as a public place for protests
« on: December 28, 2015, 01:00:52 PM »
Supreme Court? Maybe not. But you know there are a few steps inbetween right?

Of course you're right, and I should have been clearer in my approach.

What I mean is that the Mall of America scenario is so far from meeting the "state actor" definition, that only a reversal by the SC would offer any hope for the protestors.

Simply having public law enforcement officers patrolling the mall, having people live there (for what?), and even taking on a few other public functions is not sufficient to convert a mall into a state actor. If that were the case, every stadium in America would be a state actor. So would Radio City Music Hall. Not gonna happen. It would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Could a lower court do whatever it wants and ignore the law? Sure, and they'd be quickly smacked down on appeal.   

Current Law Students / Re: Use of a mall as a public place for protests
« on: December 23, 2015, 12:57:01 PM »
If it was ANY USUAL mall I'd be more inclined to believe that, BUT they are assuming the "regular state duties" in a lot of ways. Remember the cases with the privately owned towns? This is pretty much that. The place is HUGE, with full time residents living inside of it, STATE PAID police/post office/etc. It feels like a private town to me.

Let's not get lost in the weeds here.

There is NO WAY that the current Supreme Court is going to consider the Mall of America as a company town or state actor. Not even close. The company town cases are fairly old and obscure, and the level of control exerted by the parent corporation was far, far beyond anything that Mall of America is engaging in.

The mall is simply private property, open to the public for commercial retail purposes. Can you really imagine that there are five justices who will say "Yeah, we think that the mall is essentially a state actor even though it's private property, and BLM has the right to disrupt commerce." Who would be that fifth vote? Kennedy?

No, as Loki stated, this will end badly for the protestors.

Current Law Students / Re: Use of a mall as a public place for protests
« on: December 22, 2015, 06:00:47 PM »
The case will turn out badly for the protesters.

They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.

I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.

Yes, that sounds right.

I'm drawing on conlaw that I haven't studied in several years, but I seem to remember that the "mall case" had to do with an outdoor, uncovered shopping center. An indoor covered mall is significantly different, if for no other reason that it's more difficult for shoppers to avoid noisy protestors if they don't want to be subjected to obnoxious chanting and ridicule.

The parking lot and sidewalk in front of the mall may be different, but inside is clearly private property.

Current Law Students / Re: 1L First Semester Grades
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:04:23 AM »
I think it all traces back to your point about opacity (great word). If people actually knew what lawyers did for a living, there would be less law school applicants hence less supply.

I think the point that Citylaw is making isn't so much "Hey, anybody can be a successful lawyer!", so much as if you possess certain attributes and skills you can succeed regardless of the statistical averages. In other words, you will be in that 50% of employed lawyers.

The problem that I see again and again, however, is that 22 year olds are very poor judges of their own capabilities. I'm sure that 100% believe that they will be successful, without a serious objective evaluation of their own strengths and weaknesses. How can that be instilled in them? I don't know. Special snowflakes don't like to hear that stuff.

4. And they should never, ever, ever go with the vague idea that "A JD can be used for all sorts of things," or "I'm not sure what I want to do, so I might as well go to law school."

This point in particular is noteworthy. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard this from undergrads or even law students. People greatly overestimate the value of a JD outside of the legal market. I mean, it is a useful degree and people usually look upon it favorably (in my experience), but unless you have other job-specific experience a JD alone is not going to land you a gig as Human Resources Director or Amnesty International Spokesperson, or Congressman.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 95