Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Todd

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
31
General Board / Re: What was the hardest thing about your 1L?
« on: August 03, 2005, 04:48:46 PM »
Better than work? I have work experience and I think law school is way harder. I work 9-5 in the Public Guardian's office now and it's a break compared to law school. Mainly because I can go home and not worry about anything. The stress stops when I get on the elevator.

32
Transferring / Re: Kent (2nd tier-66) or Depaul (3rd tier)?
« on: August 03, 2005, 02:12:17 PM »
Well, I attend DePaul and have visited Kent.

Kent has much better facilities than DePaul, but is known to more competitive and less friendly than DePaul. I enjoy most of the students at DePaul.

However, DePaul has a less than stellar administration, poor in fact. I sat knee to knee w/fellow students in several of my finals, that is extremely uncomfortable and completely unnecessary. There is some kind of animosity between the university and the law school that prevented the law school from borrowing adequate room space during finals.

In addition, they tend not to stock books in a timely fashion, and getting ISBN's for the books is very difficult to do in time to order them for class (the book store is generally over priced).

On the other hand, the professor’s are very approachable.

Go with your gut.

33
General Board / Re: Hardest 1L Class?
« on: August 02, 2005, 06:15:05 PM »
Legal Writing was not pass fail it was graded on the curve like all the other classes. The amount of work required for that class made it extremely stressful and yes the the teacher was aweful. In fact, my class was that teachers last clas....

34
General Board / Re: Hardest 1L Class?
« on: August 02, 2005, 01:37:54 PM »
No legal writing?????? What law school? Maybe I should've went there. Legal writing is by far the most demanding class I took my first year.

35
FYI, a quick glance showed these cards citing RT2d, 292, 278 270, 267, 294, 499, 526. Who knows if the law has changed.

36
I bought the "law in a flash" series for wills and trusts which I'm taking this fall. DO NOT BUY THEM!!! Ok enough shouting. They are grossly inaccurate. They often cite the RT2d (restatement 2nd of trusts). When the 3rd has been published since - get this - 1992!!!

Worse, I'm going through these cards and about half-way through I get a question from one of the lawyers I'm clerking for. It seems our client is the beneficiary of a trust and we need to shelter the funds to qualify for certain public services. The trustee is being uncooperative and we'd like to force his hand. I look at the records we have and realize that his investment strategies are rather poor and I recall that what I have learned indicates the trustee must at least invest in a savings account (card 505). I look up that card RT2d 207 and low and behold the RT3d withdrew that entire section!!! It's no longer good law. I look up the statute in IL. and sure enough it follows the RT3d.

It turns out all right because t-bills are the actual standard (now don't quote me on that, I'm not a lawyer).

The point is that any supplement that fails to update from 1992 needs to be tossed.

...

37
General Board / Re: Do you hate law?
« on: July 20, 2005, 11:06:11 AM »
I posted the following in the wrong thread initially...

Not to throw a curve ball or anything, but at my first summer position I did research to force an 80+ year old women to undergo ECT (electroconvulsive therapy), and research to take money from Mother Theresa. Now I'm conducting the investigation to have a lady declared legally incompetent.

So I agree that lawyers often advocate for positions they don't agree with.

My first summer position I did research to force a 80+ year old women to undergo ECT (electroconvulsive therapy), and research to take money from Mother Theresa, both successfully. Now I'm conducting the investigation to have a lady declared legally incompetent.

The 80 year old women was so depressed that she stopped eating and the ECT snapped her out of it. That or just getting a decent meal at a hospital rather than the crap she ate at a public nursing home. I'd guess the latter. Quote "I don't remember the last time I had grapes! and melon!, and cottage cheese!"

Mother Theresa was named as a remainder beneficiary in a trust where our client was the primary beneficiary. Our client is 50 and living in a community home and the cost was extensive. We wanted to shelter her funds (including the trust) so that the home would give her a break and so she could begin receiving government benefits. But that would mean cutting out Mother Theresa. It really didn’t matter because the trust was so small that our client would have to die suddenly for there to be any money left for Mother Theresa anyway. So I proceeded to point out that Mother Theresa is dead and our client is very much alive.

The alleged incompetent lady is crazy as a loon. I mean she has $200k stashed away and she lived without a functioning toilet or toilet paper, among other things. I believe she has been exploited as well. You better believe I’m not shaking her left hand.

Socially I don’t agree with what I’m doing, but for these clients bending the rules is beneficial. So my moral compass is changing, but I knew it would.

38
Pointless Arguments / Re: Illegal Immigration
« on: July 19, 2005, 10:27:41 AM »
Maybe, but if people have those problems then they should apply for asylum, not immigration.

But, of course we should welcome the tired, poor, hungry and sick.

39
Socratic Method / Re: Asking questions in class.
« on: July 18, 2005, 02:54:42 PM »
Well after a year of law school I learned that taking lots of notes is a good thing. Just make sure you note who is saying what and add your own thoughts. It helps in making outlines because they jog your memory and give you insight into particular cases. I use ctrl-F to search my notes for what I need kind of like a database search, I never go through and read them all.

40
Pointless Arguments / Re: Illegal Immigration
« on: July 18, 2005, 02:36:06 PM »
I am for greater immigration with a few regulations.

I recently went to NY and saw the Statute of Liberty. It made me think. I believe we should allow immigration as we once did.

The following regulations make sense to me.

1. No criminal background, unless proven to be unjust by our standards.
2. No disease, nothing communicable period
3. Pass a cultural/basic language test. We should provide the class teaching our viewpoint of history and Basic English. "Thank you" would be a good place to start.
4. A loyalty pledge, stating they will follow our laws and if convicted of a felony they will leave.

If I thought about this more maybe I'd add a few regulations, but these seem like enough.

On a side note, illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes. Even if they are on a payroll they simply claim 10 dependants so few taxes are taken out and they never file a tax return. I worked in a restaurant for 5 years, 1 year with payroll, I know. Some legal immigrants do the same. I knew the illegal immigrants only because they told me they were illegal.

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