F. Media loves him and will keep reporting that he is ahead my wide margins in the polls they make up and then people will vote for the name recognition then 2020 a Kardashian will win and the world will end.
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
« on: August 03, 2015, 06:16:12 PM »
Cal-Bar is shortening the exam from three days to two. Maybe they will hand out participation ribbons next.
If I could pass a 3 day exam plenty of people can. I don't think the bar exam needs to be easier there are plenty of jokers out there capable of passing a three day exam. What will this bring on.
Probably just more pissed that I had to take a 3 day exam and others will not.
« on: August 03, 2015, 04:09:34 PM »
I am not even defending it.
Just saying the school does not want to dismiss people. They have lower admission standards, which means statistically there will be more academic dismissal, but no school anywhere wants to lose a paying student.
No law firm wants to lose a paying client, no Bank wants to lose a paying customer, etc.
Schools actively try to recruit students and they want to keep them. Particularly a school like Florida Coastal that is dealing with fringe students in the first place. However, if a 1L cannot get the basics of IRAC on an easy torts exam they got to go, but if everyone at Florida Coastal nailed their exams and it seemed each was fully capable of passing the bar Florida Coastal would love to keep collecting money.
Since you seem so adamant against this may I ask what a school gains by dismissing a student? Why would a school want that to happen?
It happens of course, but a school would rather have paying students unless you can think of a reason they wouldn't. I can't.
« on: August 03, 2015, 02:37:58 PM »
But you have to look at the facts with more depth. Yes 30.5% is the attrition no question, but it does not mean 30.5% failed out. http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/official-guide-2014/aba5320.pdf
The total attrition was 207 students.
83 of the 207 were for academic purposes.
123 was for other and 114 of these other were transfers.
So at the end of the day the academic attrition was a little over 10% not 30%.
The majority of the students that did really well transferred to other schools, which Florida Coastal probably did not like. 114 students transferring means they lost millions of dollars and they would certainly have loved for the 83 that were dismissed for academic reasons to stay, but they have an obligation to dismiss someone that clearly will not pass the bar. However, if they are dismissed and show that they can learn from their mistakes a second chance is looming as again losing 83 students is millions more dollars lost in tuition.
People just look at attrition and assume it means everyone failed out, but at most T4's with high attrition the majority of it is due to transfers not failing out.
« on: August 03, 2015, 01:31:00 PM »
Yes they do.
Even Cooley and Florida Coastal would rather have students pay two years of tuition opposed to fail them out. If a student is clearly and I mean clearly not going to pass the bar at some point they have to fail them out, but flunking out students costs money and the reputation of people flunking out and telling everyone they know how much X school sucks is worse than even a poor ranking.
Cooley and Coastal know they are never going to be elite schools and there is no school that wants to kick any student out, but it of course happens. However, even if someone is academically dismissed and puts work in, shows competence, etc they are likely to let the student back in.
At my school I knew a girl that failed out 1L. She never attended class and when she did facebook the whole time, never did the work etc. She slacked off 1L and to no surprise she was dismissed. However, the school said she could reapply if she passed the baby-bar. She got her sh*t together and passed went on to graduate, passed the Cali bar, etc.
Other students didn't get the wake up call and were not readmitted.
Each student brings a school upwards of $30,000-$40,000 a year. They don't want to lose $60,000-$80,000 of income by dismissing a student that is capable.
As for the scholarships schools do entice students to enroll and make it hard to maintain the conditions. Again, it is mostly about money above all else as everything in business ends up being.
No school wants a student to fail out. Ideally, a school would love all their students to graduate (while paying full tuition), pass the bar, get a job so the school can hit up the grads for donations later.
« on: August 03, 2015, 11:59:20 AM »
That's great and yea I know there are a bunch of people that claim schools have to flunk you out etc, but that is as usual random internet b.s. Law schools are businesses they want to make money from their students who pay tuition. They are also not a-holes and want their students to succeed. If you did well enough on the LSAT and had a decent UGPA then you have the intelligence to pass the bar and have a successful legal career. That doesn't mean you will, but the potential is there and if you struggle 1L, but realize there are things you can do differently they are happy to readmit you.
It sounds like you learned a lot from the experience and will probably be a better attorney. You got your ass kicked 1L most lawyers don't get that kick in the ass until after the bar exam.
Keep working hard and good things will happen!
Sure privileges & immunites, equity, some local bar rule whatever legal theory you want to use. If a licensed attorney in one state simply wants to take the bar exam odds are they will end up being granted the right to take the exam. This is what occurred in the actual case. The only point I tried to make from the start was that if a state-bar prevents an attorney licensed in one-state from being allowed to take a bar exam in another state and the licensed attorney challenges it odds are they will be allowed to take the exam.
Of course states can implement their own requirements etc and it is not unconstitutional to do so. Each state has different bar exams, requirements, etc so of course they can differ. However, to simply ban someone licensed in one state from being allowed to take the exam would likely not fly. The one instance it was challenged it did not fly and he was allowed to take the exam. He was not automatically licensed of course he had to prove competence in the state and satisfy all the regulations of the Mass State Bar.
The other state might charge more to take the exam, or a variety of other obstacles to make it more difficult for the non-aba grad, which is fine. However, a blanket "no" to taking the licensing exam is unlikely to fly. This is why I posted the other link from SJCL's law website that explains the additional rules a non-aba grad have to overcome to take the exam. There are more stringent than if you simply had an ABA degree.
So in the end we have been agreeing the whole time. If you want to practice in multiple states and don't want to go through uncertain litigation for only the possible right to take a bar exam, then attend an ABA school. If you attend a CBA school and are hellbent on getting licensed in another-state after passing the California Bar odds are you will be given the right to take another state bar exam, but of course there are no guarantees.
They did. That is the second case I have posted multiple times where a Concord Law Grad (non-aba) and licensed California Attorney petitioned the Mass State Bar and was allowed to take the exam.
I posted several links to it already, but who cares anymore.
Anyways, the thread is way of topic the original question was are the Federal Courts one and done. The answer was yes once you are licensed in most instances you can waive into most Federal Courts. However, Loki pointed out a distinction in Florida and apparently there is one in the Central District of California that require you to be admitted in that particular state. Each State and Federal District have their own rules and they vary, but generally speaking most Federal Districts will admit you for a Fee.
Yep r u?
Just giving examples of when courts granted this. I am assuming you never go to court by your responses.
If someone really wants to take a bar exam to the point of filing a lawsuit and has license to practice law from another state a Judge would likely say take the test.
Real life is not an ivory tower.
However, there is an argument to the contrary and the two lawyers I know of that challenged it won. If there are other cases where the right to take the bar exam was denied and a judicial opinion was written I would be interested to know.
I think most Judges w probably would use their equitable power to simply allow someone to take the Bar Exam if this case was presented to them.
It looks like almost every state has a rule that allows a non-aba Grad to eventually practice. http://www.sjcl.edu/index.php/prospective-students/why-sjcl/practicing-outside-ca (If they comply with the state requirements)