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 - Citylaw

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 56
Distance Education Law Schools / Re: taft law school
« on: August 21, 2015, 07:37:02 PM »
I do think LP makesa  point the few and I mean few lawyers that graduate from a DL and pass the bar have displayed reliance and likely have networks established.  The majority of DL attorneys I have met were non-traditional types with backgroudns similar to those described by LP. However, as I am sure even LP would admit very few people graduate from DL school it is very hard to be motivated in an online environment and for those that do get thruogh it the bar passage rates are minimal, because as LP claims they are not spoon-fed the law as ABA schools do.

The ABA model does a better of educating its students I don't think anyone is debating that. In a DL school you are paying less and getting less and the only way to succeed in that environment would be self-motivation, risk, etc which are the qualities a solo has.

I would never recommend a 23 year old right out of college choose anything other than an ABA school. However, the earlier hypo of the 37 year old living in Boise etc ABA is not actually an option.

I don't think anyone is arguing Taft is a "great" school. However, it can work for the right person, but it is a huge risk and odds are it will not work out as is the case for most DL grads, but it certainly can and does happen.

General Board / Are Lawyers Getting Dumber Aritcle?
« on: August 21, 2015, 04:52:39 PM »

Friend just posted this and thought the board could use a new topic.

I think part of the statistical dropoff has to do with over-enrollment between 2006-2009 it seems like admission rates were at an all time high due to the financail crisis etc. Then everybody bitched & moaned that there were to many lawyers no the student body is a little less qualified and this trend will continue as the enrollment will get so low that there will not be enoug lawyers then to many will jump on the band-wagon etc.

Just my two cents. Plus there are 10 practice MBE questions for anyone dying to take their chance on the bar again.

That is a valid point, but I think a lot of legal practice is more or less going to assist someone rectify a prior bad act.

The bank example is a good analogy.

The Banks engaged in robo-signing, bad mortgages, blah blah, and Bank Attorneys will seek to validate a Bank's authority to foreclose even if was initially done illegally. 

Conversely, the homeowner being foreclosed likely did not make payments and is holding over in the home. Their attorney will represent them to keep them in their home and rectify their failure to pay.

There are hundreds of examples of that and basically any time you are in a litigation scenario you are resolving some prior unlawful act.

A Transnational Attorney is preventive so it is a little different, but even there a client may want to do as little as possible and get to a gray-area of lawful/unlawful.

In summary the legal legal profession is not all Lolipops and Rainbows.

Excellent points.

Basically, if your gong into the legal profession expect your client to have done something wrong.

Something as wholesome as representing the Catholic Church, is not without its illegal activities such as child molestation, taking land from people and god knows what else. Of course they do plenty of good things as well and that is the case with any client.

Very few people are just terrible with no redeming quality. Illegal immigrants I could justify representing them and I could justify forcing them out.

The banks are a perfect example. Did banks do shady stuff that led to the mortgage meltdown? Yep. Are their deadbeats that did not pay these shady organizations? Yep.  I wouldn't say either is some righteous person and I could see arguing for either side.

See I think you are missing a key element, which is the timeline. Of course you cannot aid in the murder, but if someone commits the murder you can defend them.

With an illegal immigrant the act is committed and they are defended. If an attorney forged paperwork to help them enter and achieve the act that is different.

As to the ideology argument that is what most lawyers do argue an idealogy.

There are Tenant Advocates that protect deadbeats, then there are bank lawyers that cover up foreclosure fraud, so on and so on.

As a Judge once told me agreed about everything we wouldn't have any work.

Just to go back I think the whole point of lawyers is to argue for things that are not necessarily legal.

A few months ago helping a same-sex couple get married was illegal now it is not.

Harboring fugitive slaves was highly illegal and I am sure lawyers defended those that participated in that.

American soliders putting Japanesse in Internment Camps were doing so legally, but now that is frowned upon.

Many attorneys advocate for changes in Guantanemo Bay I could go on and on, but the point of a lawyer is to do what they can to protect their clients' interest.

The "law" changes quite often and what is or is not legal can be entirely different in 10 years.

Clearly a lawyer cannot do illegal acts, but they can advice someone how to not get in trouble.  I.E. a Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell their client don't say anything as they are trying to avoid a conviction.

Lawyers represent their clients needs. Of course if a client asks a lawyer to kill someone that does not justify it, but helping illegal immigrants stay in the country is not something I would want to work on, but there are certainly rational arguments supporting helping immigrants come to America.

I do think I saw some idea about that floating around with the California-Bar. Certain areas of the law people need representation i.e. Family Law.   Family Law is by no means rocket science and anyone with a J.D. for the majority of cases could fill out the appropriate Judicial Council Forms and if they had a stint of ethics they might eve tell both parents in a custody battle that every dime and minute you both spend and court is time and money not going to your kid.

From my understanding of the difference between Osteophatic Medicine and a full M.D. it would be a similar setup. You don't need a brain surgeon to tell a Hypochondriac that the small wart on their hand is not terminal cancer and so on.

The Osteopathist is competent and knows a lot, but just not as much as the full M.D.

The law already does this for Patent Law and screens many licensed lawyers from this process. So minimizing standards for less complex, but more emotionally charged areas of the law might be a good idea.

Most important of all just take the test. Study your ass-off and as Loki points out plenty of people just buy books and study for it, while others do a Prep Course. I did the former, but if you have the time and money I don't see any harm in taking a Prep Class.

It is also important to realize odds are your not going to get a 180 on the LSAT. I hope you do, but there is a 99% chance you will not finish in the top 1% of test takers. More likely than not you will get somewhere between 150-160, which will allow you to get into numerous law schools. You will again be certain that you will finish in the top 10% at your law school, but again 90% chance you won't finish in the top 10%.   Basically, law school will not make you feel like a special snowflake you will probably get a solid LSAT score and probably finish in the middle of your class at an ABA Law School and pass the bar on your first try.

Getting your first job will be a female dog and you will be overworked and underpaid. If you pay your dues for years and enjoy the practice of law you can likely have a good legal career, but it is not some get rich quick skeem.

However, many people never do the first step of simply taking the LSAT and put it off time and time again, which puts their whole life on hold. Study as hard as possible for a few months show up and take the exam if you get a 140 law school is probably not for you. If you get between 150-180 you can get into an ABA school and I would be on my description above happening, but maybe you will finish as Valedictorian at Harvard and taking Scalia's job when he retires, but I wouldn't be on your or anyone else to have that fact scenario play out.

A little harsh, but the point of a licensing exam any licensing exam is to protect the public. To a lawyer anyone can be a lawyer it is not hard, because after all we choose to be lawyer. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and they think it is easy being a doctor, but are amazed that I passed the bar, etc I conversely am amazed that they became doctors.

I also have friends that are pilots they think anyone could be pilot again not something I could learn.

The point is that the bar should be and is hard. Medical school should be and is hard. Being a Police Officer should require an extensive background check and it does. Becoming a pilot should be hard and it is. So on and so on.

I think shortening the bar, because people were complaining about its difficulty is a bad decision, but obviously the people in charge of making the decisions think otherwise. There are reasons to make the change, but reasons not to.

Perhaps with this shortened exam it could be the difference between Osteopathic medicine and an actual M.D. 

I get that there are plenty of times when someone needs a lawyer to provide basic info, such as in Loki's point about the friend being charged with a crime. Any lawyer would know to tell your client/friend/etc that is being held to not stay anything other than clearly say "I want a lawyer" to invoke your right to counsel and not incriminate themselves. Not rocket science, but Jay-Z in 99 Problems, but a bi**ch ain't one ain't passed the bar, but he knows a little bit can attest to.

Apparently, this will go to the California Supreme Court for a final decision and we will see what happens. I think a three day-exam sucks, but it is a good way to keep people out. Honestly, if I could pass the bar anyone with enough competence to practice law can.

General Board / Re: Case Briefings
« on: August 19, 2015, 12:50:48 PM »
Sold input yea I know one professor made us submit our case briefs for the first few weeks and number #1 lesson of law school is do it how the professor wants.

When you get into law practice do it how the Judge wants it.

However, for the most part you could not brief a single case or have the most beautifully detailed case-briefings ever drafted if you don't learn the material you don't learn the material. I think I like most people remember more if I write down what I read, which is why case-briefing is so popular and you can also back to whta you write down to jog your memory when studying, but that is all a case-brief is a study-aid.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 56