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 - John Galt

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19
171
General Board / Re: Biglaw to DA
« on: May 04, 2006, 10:29:26 AM »
With the advent of the Family Medical Leave Act law firm associates, biglaw and medlaw, get loaned out to all sorts of places on a limited but regular basis. While they can get loaned out to DA offices and public defenders, being loaned out to in house counsel is not all that uncommon. In most cases it occurs when an in house attorney takes an extended absence (either medical or FMLA) and the organization does not want to hire a new person.

172
General Board / Required and Elective Classess
« on: May 03, 2006, 05:56:17 PM »
I am wondering what classes everyone thinks should or should not be required. I have a generic list of required classes; tell you what think:

Torts
Contracts
Civ Pro
Property
Crim Pro
Crim Law
Con Law
Professional Responsibility
Legal Writing

I left out and legal methods type classes like Trial Advocacy or Mediation.

I think Crim law should be an elective. I have no desire to practice in crim law so I found it substantively pointless. The "critical theoretical thinking" from that class was no different than any other law class, and pretty much exactly like torts.

On the other hand, I think that Administrative Law should be required. It is probably the broadest category of law in the country and its substantive and procedural due process issues apply to most legal disciplines.

Also, I think a business organizations/associations type class should be required, but I couldn’t tell you why. I just think it.

Though I have no authority to do so, I would ask that no law school names be used to avoid the typical “my school has better biglaw job prospects than yours” argument that just about every thread deteriorates into.
 
 

173
Not to be a Debbie Downer, but it probably isn't a good idea to buy a house without any verifiable income. There is a reason legitimate lending institutions require it. Home ownership is definitely more advantageous then renting but there is also very little room for financial error. One late payment, even just 15 days late, can have credit score implications. Also if any major repairs need to be made (roof, hot water heater, major plumbing or electrical etc...) it could cause a spiraling effect economically.

Another concern would be interest rate. Your rate is going to be based primarily on your credit history and verifiable income. Without verifiable income, even a pretty good credit score is only going to get you a prime plus loan, a pretty lousy number. While this would have been manageable years ago when interest rates were going down and you could refinance at a lower rate when you secure a job, now the interest rate may be higher when you have a job and a refinance may not help. 

That being said, it is not impossible to do. But I would suggest only doing it if the price is a steal and affordable and the financing is a good deal. I personally bought a house when I had verifiable income and there were still some dangerous months financially when I really had to sweat it out. You don't really realize the cost of home ownership above and beyond the mortgage and standard bills.

174
General Board / Re: Bush Press Pal Quits Over Gay Prostie Link
« on: May 01, 2006, 08:26:08 PM »
Way to be on top of the news. I think this story broke 15 months ago.

175
General Board / Re: loans. Private loans, that is.
« on: May 01, 2006, 06:43:54 PM »
Private loans are generally not hard to get but are subject to credit based decisions like a car or other private loan. You can get approved relatively easily but a cosigner may be required.

176
General Board / Re: How long to repay student loans
« on: April 29, 2006, 07:04:11 PM »
That has to be the stupidest chart I have ever seen in my entire life. First, anyone who took out Stafford loans, either subsidized or not, after 1998 but prior to the rate increase for this current year is probably looking at an interest rate of 1.62 to 2.67%. That is below the rate of inflation so you would actually loose money by paying of those loans early.

Stafford loans that are below the inflation rate should be paid off over the longest period of time possible, probably 30 years considering a aggregate loan amount of 60,000.

Second, if you are making a "massive" salary and still renting an apartment to pay off loans you are a fool. Even in a large city with a high cost of living, building equity in a home is more important than making extra payments on a private student loan with an 8.50% interest rate.

Third, that chart isn't even remotely accurate enough to give a student an idea of how long it will take to pay off student loans. The fact that some incoming BYU 1L might think he or she can pay off 24K in debt in 1.3 years is blasphemy. Any chart whose living expenses are only a cheap apartment in a mystery city and bus tokens is complete garbage. How about a few expense of the top of my head:

401(k)/IRA or other investment contribution (I would hope at least 10% or gross pay), heath insurance (also significant, especially for an equity partner), phone, electric, cable, oil or gas heat, clothes, food, work social events, family.

177
Roger Williams / Re: RWU--The Good and The Bad
« on: April 28, 2006, 06:06:45 PM »
With a LLM in tax from Denver maybe you didn't get a job because you’re a whining loser who is posting on law school boards almost 10 years after graduation.

178
Transferring / Re: Is it worth it?
« on: April 01, 2006, 05:04:11 AM »
This is the gayest thread I have ever seen on the internet.

179
General Board / Re: Grades v. Moot Court/Law Review
« on: March 15, 2006, 08:53:40 PM »
I'm sure employers would be real impressed with the fact that you chose not to be bothered with the menial tasks that burden law review membership. Its not like a law firm would ever ask an employee to proof read or cite check a document.

180
General Board / Re: NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
« on: February 04, 2006, 09:32:30 PM »
If the defendant is from another counrty you would still have a personal jurisdiction problem in NY if the Defendant has not established sufficient minimum contacts with NY.

I can't comment on this one because we haven't yet gotten to personal jurisdiction.  Would you agree that there doesn't appear to be a subject-matter problem, though?

Most def. I would only add, since we are talking hypotheticals,  if the claim does satisfy diversity jusidiction but was nonetheless brought by the plaintiff in state court, the defendant could remove the case to federal court.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19