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 - Coregram
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
« on: September 05, 2005, 08:09:21 PM »
I agree with squarre and would add a couple other points.
Majority decisions written by the majority to give the reasoning and support for their decision. As such, the facts, rules, and reasoning included in the opinion are what the they felt necessary to justify the decision. And it is that reasoning, more than the actual decision, that counts. That's why the power to assign the writing of a decision is so important (one of the few real powers of the Chief Justice.)
The arguments the minority supported are often noted and the reasons for dismissing it given, but the full weight of the minority arguement isn't there. Also, the dissent often includes facts the majority thought were irrelevant to its decision. So I don't think it's correct to say you get all the issues, facts, and arguments for both sides in the majority opinion.
Also, an initial majority on a decision can turn into a minority, or be increased, based on drafts of the written opinion. So what you are reading as a dissent may in fact started out as a majority opinion.
Concurrences also can be important as some justices may have agreed with the ruling but disagreed with the majority's reasoning.
As a side bar, a good read on the Supreme Court, and the interactions of the judges as an opinion develops, is "The Brethern" by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. You might try that on a break or summer vacation.
Keep in mind, given the editors don't usually include the dissent/concurrences (or highly edit them,)they must feel there is a good reason to include any dissents/concurrences they do include, and I doubt the reason is to get the book up to 1,400 pages. LOL
I wouldn't spend most of my time on them majority opinion, but definitely spend a little time on dissents and concurrences.
« on: July 25, 2005, 07:34:00 PM »
Sorry to hijack this thread... I didn't do sell well in the grades dept. (not good but not bad--curve) but I did manage to write-on to the law review. How will this affect OCI?
I think it depends if you are talking about grades after 1L or after 2L.
If your grades aren't too good after 1L, you have your 2L year to improve them. 1L grades are most important for a 2L summer position that can lead to a post-graduation offer. That seems to be everyone's ideal track. But the reality is that only the high ranked students follow that path. And often, the summer job doesn't lead to an offer or leads to rejecting the offer.
If that path isn't available due to 1L grades, then you have to look on your own for a 2L summer position. I'm sure if you look, you will find something.
As for post-graduation, I imagine you will find plenty of firms, including BigLaw, that come on campus the fall of your 3L year to recruit. By that time, you will have 2 years of grades to offer and they will use your grades at that time to screen the interviewees. If your grades are good then, plus you have law review, you should be in good shape.
Also, many students don't get their jobs through OCI (on campus interviews.) Your career services probably has info on what other resources to use in a job search. And contacts you make, summer jobs, internships, etc. will give you contacts.
« on: July 22, 2005, 04:56:26 PM »
Based on my experience interviewing and being involved in hiring in the CPA firm I worked in, I would guess that hiring decisions are a two step process.
Good grades get you the interview (serving to screen out people firms definitely wouldn't hire) similar to the way a good resume does, but it is how the interviewer feels about you from the interview itself, and perhaps other experience you bring to the table, that they will use to make the decision as to which candidates from the pool of interviewees they will hire. That's why people with lower ("borderline") grades sometimes get hired over people with top grades.
After spending a day interviewing 10 people for 1 or 2 people, what stands out in the interviewer's mind when making recommendations is how the inteview went, not what was on the person's transcripts. If grades alone were the criteria, they wouldn't bother to spend the time and money on interviews. Where grades may be a factor is as a tiebreaker between two people who interviewed equally as well.
« on: July 21, 2005, 01:38:26 PM »
If you have a post-graduation job lined up next year at this time (which quite frankly would be the exception, not the norm,) then obviously it didn't matter you weren't on law review. So you don't need to try again. But if you don't have a job lined up and have to look during your 3L year, or if you think participation on law review will help you down the line, then try again next year. Being on law review even for one year will be a plus on your resume.
In the meantime, you should have someone review and critique your submission to see why it wasn't enough to get you on law review. That way, you can identify and work to improve your weak areas. That will help you in any legal writing you do in the future, whether it be for a law review write-on or in an employment situation.
« on: July 18, 2005, 09:05:26 AM »
Don't spend too much time on discussion boards and take most of our advice with a grain of salt.
« on: July 18, 2005, 08:53:19 AM »
Personally, I put the facts, or alleged facts, that led up to the dispute (crime, suit, etc.) the original, lower court action was about in my Facts section. I put what happened at each stage of the process leading up to the case in the court I was reading about in a Procedure section.
But remember, you won't be graded on your case briefs so as long as you have both in the brief (or noted in the book) where you can remember them or find them if necessary, you are fine. And while it is important to know all the facts, focus on the facts the court applied the law to in reaching its decision. Also, if you try to think about what facts could be changed to have the court reach a different conclusion, you can begin to think about some new hoypotheticals.
Also, as you attend classes you will get a better feel for how each professor approaches the case discussions. For example, my contracts professor always asked for the facts first and usually didn't care about what happened in the lower courts. But my civil procedure professor always started a case discussion by asking "who sued who, where, and why?"
« on: July 13, 2005, 01:43:27 PM »
I agree that full-time is quicker and easier only in that you have more time to study. The coursework will be roughly the same. But I disagree about the prestige of the degrees. I doubt your diploma will note the difference and 2 years after graduation employers won't either. Some employers may prefer full time vs. part-time when recruiting graduates because most part-timeers are older; you won't be much older than full-timers when you graduate. If you can do internships, clinics, etc. while working, that reduces the differences. And your work exprerience may help you with other employers.
You really should check with the career services people at the school to see what, if any, differences they have seen in placing full vs. part-time students in opportunities and pay.
Do the math. Assuming you get a $125K job at graduation, not likely given the career info posted on the Rutgers-Newark website, in the next 4 years you will have earned a total of $125K (the one year out of school) and incurred substantial debt. If you go part-time, in the next 4 years you will have earned $260K which may allow you to graduate with no debt. That's a $135K difference. I doubt being a second year associate vs. a first year associate or have a full time vs. part-time degree can ever make that difference up.
And once you are employed as an attorney, you are an attorney. Nobody will care on your second job if you went to school part or full-time, only how good an attorney you are.
« on: June 28, 2005, 05:05:45 PM »
E&E books are not hornbooks. They are a textbook-like books that cover the basic concepts, rules, terminolgy, etc. with explanations and various examples. They also include questions to test you with and answers. They are geared for the student.
Hornbooks cover the topics in much more depth and are really geared for advanced students and practioners; students might use them to clarify things or for a more indepth understanding of a specific topic.
« on: June 28, 2005, 09:10:31 AM »
I agree about not using the canned briefs as a substitute for your own reading. Professors know about them and get them as well; so don't be surprised if you get asked about some facts or issues that are in the case but not in the canned brief. Also, sometimes they miss the points the professor is emphasizing.
However, I found reading and briefing cases easier and more efficient if I read the canned brief first as a preview for the case.
And "for emergency use only," when circumstances prevent you from doing a thorough job on the reading, they give you a quick read of the case so you can follow along in class.
« on: June 27, 2005, 07:28:56 PM »
Tennessee and Alabama also have law schools that are state accredited but not ABA accredited.
Many states also will admit an attorney to their bar on motion an attorney who is licensed in another state regardless of where they went to law school; some immediately and some after a period of time. Or some will recognize certain state accreditations and not others.
Each state has its own requirements that people who want to practice there should investigate.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 16