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 - LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 196
101
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMich vs. UCLA
« on: May 15, 2008, 08:50:08 AM »
I'm being "insistant" because you're a liar.  Forgive me if I don't believe you after you conveniently "forgot" about Cornell, and even Georgetown as you admit. 

Your "point" is that the top firms care about small differences in prestige, i.e. that between UMich and UCLA.  When your firm interviews at GULC (and GW) level schools this argument is undermined.



And you're an idiot. The prestige difference between UCLA and Michigan is not small.

You're an idiot and you miss the point.  How surprising.  Your "argument" was that a difference in ranking of about 10 points is enough to effect one's employment prospects.  This is presumably why you mentioned your firm (though we all know you were just attempting to brag).  Your self-styled "top firm" recruits at schools around and below UCLA's level, hence your argument is undermined. 

It's no secret that people with Michigan degrees have better employment prospects than people with UCLA degrees. I never said my firm was a top firm. And I never said it was representative. 

102
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMich vs. UCLA
« on: May 15, 2008, 08:11:52 AM »
I'm being "insistant" because you're a liar.  Forgive me if I don't believe you after you conveniently "forgot" about Cornell, and even Georgetown as you admit. 

Your "point" is that the top firms care about small differences in prestige, i.e. that between UMich and UCLA.  When your firm interviews at GULC (and GW) level schools this argument is undermined.



And you're an idiot. The prestige difference between UCLA and Michigan is not small.

103
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMich vs. UCLA
« on: May 15, 2008, 08:02:50 AM »
I am not sure why you are being so stupidly insistant about this. We don't interview at GW. We have interviewed at Gtown before, and there is an associate here who was hired as a result of that interview, but we do not interview at GW. The person who submitted the paperwork made a mistake. You aren't pwning anyone and you're wasting the time of the OP an other people here who are far less interested in seeing you pwn me than in whether it's worth attending UCLA over Michigan.

104
Black Law Students / Re: Life As An Associate
« on: May 15, 2008, 03:16:10 AM »
This is too ironic to pass up...I'm representing a Pro Bono client who is from India.  I have to visit him tomorrow in the federal prison here for phony passport charges.

So I guess some of that work is coming to America afterall.




Hey Sands, question about applying to the NY Bar. Do you send that $350 application fee to the appropriate judicial division with the C&F application or do they ask for it once you've passed C&F review?


It depends on the department.  I'm in 1st department and I beleive the charge comes after the C&F interview.  I think its like that for the second department as well, and then the opposite in the other two depts although I could be wrong since our firm sends the payment in for us so we don't exactly see it.

I didn't even think about asking my firm to pay for it. Good thinking, sir!

105
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: UMich vs. UCLA
« on: May 15, 2008, 03:12:49 AM »
I wouldn't call the opportunities "slightly better." What I would say is that you may, but may not, have very significantly better opportunities, depending on grades.

What if he ends up at the bottom of Michigan's class?  Wouldn't that still be better than UCLA?
Yes, he still gets to hang a Michigan degree on his wall. Law firms don't post your law school GPA on their websites, but they love to post those fancy school names. Whether justified or not, the OP will have substantially better opportunities at Michigan regardless of where in his class he ends up.

Just to provide an anecdotal exaple, my firm doesn't iterview outside the top 10 schools.

What lies.  According to Nalpdirectory, Norton Rose interviews at Cornell, George Washington and NYLS.  Why do you lie about such stupid, easily verifiable things?  It reminds me of when you said you knew many people who got into YLS with LSAT scores below 160.

That hasn't been updated properly. I know for a fact we did not interview at GW last year or the year before that. We've never interviewed at NYLS. (We do interview at NYU and it's likely that the British woman who did all our marketing and such just filled out the form incorrectly because she didn't know the difference. We used to do Gtown and that could explain the GW listing for the same reasons.) Cornell was the only non-top 10 I forgot. We do go there because one of our partners is an alum.

I never claimed I knew many who got into Yale with sub 160's, but I did say I knew a couple, one of whom is a rising 3L at Boalt.

106
Black Law Students / Re: Black Law Student Discussion Board
« on: May 14, 2008, 01:41:27 PM »
Wow, congrats! Seems just like yesterday... ;D

107
Black Law Students / Re: Life As An Associate
« on: May 14, 2008, 01:40:42 PM »
Hey Sands, question about applying to the NY Bar. Do you send that $350 application fee to the appropriate judicial division with the C&F application or do they ask for it once you've passed C&F review?

108
Current Law Students / Re: Gearing up for the bar exam
« on: May 14, 2008, 10:33:20 AM »
Question for those of you who took BarBri: would you say knowing the outlines in the Conviser book (I think that's what it's called) cold is all that you need to know to pass, or is it a must to study cover to cover the in-depth outlines in the other books as well?  I ask because someone - who passed the bar the first time - said that all he did was study the Conviser  to get the substantive law down cold, and the rest of the time, he just did practice essays/MBE questions.  I hope what he said is true, for it seems downright impossible to memorize all of the stuff in the 8 BarBri books.  It would also help ease the pressure, for I have to go out of town 5 days before the bar exam, and won't return until the Sunday before the bar exam; I plan on studying by listening the audio lectures I have uploaded to my iPod, and I'm hoping that is enough.

The thicker outlines are just more narrative than Conviser, but it's all the same thing. You should memorize Conviser and only look to the thick outlines if you don't understand something or if you missed a lecture. Otherwise, Conviser plus MBE practice should be enough.

Which Bar are you taking?

109
I haven't disparaged your firm. What's relevant to the discussion is that most ny based v10-v20 firms don't have any billables requirements and its not because you don't work much. The reason to be worried about a high billables requirement is that if it is slow you won't be able to get a lot of work. You are better off with a 1500 hours requirement as opposed to a 1900 hours requirement so that if you are working in a practice group that is having a slow year, you are not running around trying to get assignments b/c you are falling short. I'm sure you work long hours and you work at a good firm. My point is that a minimum billables is relevant in some circumstances. It is also relevant whether or not pro bono is counted towards the minimum.
 Also, I am calling BS on your statement about firms limiting themselves to the top schools. Find me firms other than the very small ones that do not interview at a whole lot of law schools.

What do you mean by a "whole lot"? Many of the top CA firms go to the CA schools and only a few of the top east coast schools. Wachtell's OCI schedule is fairly limited. And you probably know that your V10 doesn't bother with third tier schools in southern Georgia. Most large national firms will go to the top schools and then a few of the lower-ranked schools in their own area.

110
I haven't disparaged your firm. What's relevant to the discussion is that most ny based v10-v20 firms don't have any billables requirements and its not because you don't work much. The reason to be worried about a high billables requirement is that if it is slow you won't be able to get a lot of work. You are better off with a 1500 hours requirement as opposed to a 1900 hours requirement so that if you are working in a practice group that is having a slow year, you are not running around trying to get assignments b/c you are falling short. I'm sure you work long hours and you work at a good firm. My point is that a minimum billables is relevant in some circumstances. It is also relevant whether or not pro bono is counted towards the minimum.
 Also, I am calling BS on your statement about firms limiting themselves to the top schools. Find me firms other than the very small ones that do not interview at a whole lot of law schools.

MY point was a less obvious one than you make above. Obviously min billables matter in that if you don't meet them, there's a problem. What I was saying was that the number of hours you work will depend on the market. That is, if it's busy, you may well bill substantially above the min. I started making this point in response to a question by a poster who wanted to know if his life was going to be easier because his firm has low min billable requirements. The obvious answer to that is no. That is not to say that billables are completely negligable. Yes, they matter for bonus and for partnership track, but the point I was trying to make (which is not, btw, inconsistent with your point that if there isn't work you may bill under the min), is that the market will dictate how much you actually work. And I am sure that you well know that it is far more likely that an associate bills above the min than below it in a given year.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 196