Law School 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 - camelbx

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
1
I just graduated and passed the bar in my state.  I am starting my own practice now, and I believe I will be successful.

To some of the people above, practicing out of law school is not necessarily malpractice. Limiting your practice and engagements to tasks you can do or learn to do is important.  Anyway, I do carry insurance, I "go bare" as it were.

To the OP, my law school does not have a class on Solo practice after LS, but one of its unofficial mottos is that students will be able to do so after graduation, especially litigation.  When you couple that will preparing to be a solo in law school, by reading, collecting sources and contacts it doesn't seem so impossible.

If anyone has any questions for me I'll try to check this sooner or later.  Its important that students think about this option, especially if your family has an ongoing professional practice that you could "hook into" for a law firm.

Anyway, it *can* be done, and *is done* ALL the time.

2
Current Law Students / Re: HELP ME WITH PROPERTY *&^%
« on: March 08, 2005, 07:53:11 PM »
I know everyone knows RAP, but I'll go ahead and post this:

RAP=

(1) Might
Is it possible

(2) It
   a. Executory Interest
   b. Option Contract
   c. Contigent Remainder
   d. Vested remainder subject to open (partial divestment)

(3) Vest
   a. become possessory
   b. be acted on
   c. vest (person become known)
   d. class closes.

(4) Too late?
  More than 21 years after all the death of all life in beings.

   All people mentioned in the document are life in beings.

Remember: Gestation is added to the 21 years so technically with births its 21 years 9 months.

3
Current Law Students / Re: PROPERTY: Tenancy at Will
« on: February 03, 2005, 01:45:35 PM »
Incorrect. There is a case in the Dukenminer casebook that says the opposite, a contract provision that allows termination by only one party at will IS enforceable. And that makes sense, termination clauses in contracts (leases) do not make a contract unenforceable, as an illusory promise. A contract provision can say pretty much whatever the hell you'd like it to and is 99.999% enforceable, although the common law tenancy at will does comport with what y'all are describing.

4
Current Law Students / Re: Best School for Students Who Hate Law School?
« on: February 01, 2005, 08:00:17 PM »
Baylor is the marine boot camp of law schools.

5
Current Law Students / Re: NSL: Chronicles of a TTT
« on: January 18, 2005, 12:23:49 PM »
"Well I had a 117 on the LSAT and and 2.3 undergrad and I was admitted.
Is it cold up there today Downy?"

Is this supposed to make you sound better? What is the point of saying that you made a score below the possible range? Are you so stupid LSAC invented a score for you? Really, DOWNY doesn't have to try very hard with you people does he?

6
Current Law Students / Re: How is much is Cooley & Michigan per year?
« on: November 16, 2004, 07:18:00 PM »
How are those two schools, in any way up for comparison by any single person?

7
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 13, 2004, 11:07:29 AM »
Out of curiousity how much have y'all covered in Contracts thus far?

8
Current Law Students / Re: Detrimental Reliance Hypo
« on: November 13, 2004, 10:59:11 AM »
If that were the case (and theres objective evidence to that effect, not just her subjective idea) then the reliance would not be reasonble

9
Current Law Students / Re: K's
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:44:01 PM »
(a) Well its four classes a week, and each class is about an 1:05 but usually ends up at least 1:15 per class.

Contracts being a year long is about equivalent to our 2 quarter class. Property and Torts are also two quarter classes.

(b) Really? I'm assuming y'all go into more detail but we've read something like 150 or so RSKs that were part of the final for K I.

10
Current Law Students / Re: Funny Contract Hypo...
« on: November 11, 2004, 09:29:05 PM »
(a) I mean I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with you.
(b) Contracts I, for us addressed, Formation, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Parol Evidence, Warranties, Statute of Frauds, Battle of Forms, couple of other things I can't recall. We're on the quarter system and Contracts is two quarters long.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11