Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
 31 
 on: August 24, 2015, 06:19:47 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.

Exactly.

I have no clue whether immigration lawyers are any more or less ethical than other lawyers, but I think you'll find that are unethical bums in every branch of law. I mean, c'mon, you think OJ came up with that stupid alibi all by himself?


 32 
 on: August 24, 2015, 03:51:38 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
Don't aid someone in a crime that is unethical.

Hypo #1
Lawyers contacts Mexican family and tells them don't bother filling out paperwork just sneak across the border and into my office, once you have entered illegally then I can fix everything. (No good he encouraged them to break the law and then he will fix it.)

Hypo #2
Mexican family illegally enters country and obtains housing, employment, etc then employer wants verification of immigration status. Family goes to attorney office and asks for help.  Attorney fills out paperwork goes to court do whatever he can within the law to keep the family employed and in America.  (Ok clients broke the law without attorney knowledge and committed the act attorney can advocate to protect them.)

If you create crime your in trouble, if the bad act already occurred then  an attorney can  use the legal tools available at their disposable to assist a client.




 33 
 on: August 24, 2015, 12:27:33 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
"the test isn't any different" It has changed SIGNIFICANTLY (even in the last few years) heck that's like saying that the GED didn't get harder (it did too) its par for the course.

As for the other schools, they didn't exist back then for the most part (especially not the online ones, kind of hard to have online schools pre internet)

Snakes formerly known as Pie-

Your antecedent is unclear. I assume you mean that the LSAT has changed significantly to be made harder. Since you have made this assertion, please provide a citation that I might verify it. While doing so, please provide an explanation as to why, concurrent with the decline in applicant LSAT scores, and overall test takers, and overall applications, there has been a decline in applicant uGPAs (while, overall, uGPAs have been trending up).

 34 
 on: August 24, 2015, 12:21:42 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.

Snakes formerly known as Pie,

I am not sure where you would get the information that a majority (either capitalized or uncapitalized) of immigration attorneys behave in such a manner. Of course, you have the qualification that it is the attorneys that you know- do unethical people gravitate toward one another? :P

 35 
 on: August 22, 2015, 10:02:47 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
"the test isn't any different" It has changed SIGNIFICANTLY (even in the last few years) heck that's like saying that the GED didn't get harder (it did too) its par for the course.

As for the other schools, they didn't exist back then for the most part (especially not the online ones, kind of hard to have online schools pre internet)

 36 
 on: August 22, 2015, 10:00:37 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
I don't doubt that people can justify any act, but I am glad you get what I was trying to say (even if it took awhile to get there) My point is that the MAJORITY of immigration attorneys I know do that, and I know law school Profs who get mad if you even question the idea of it.

 37 
 on: August 22, 2015, 02:58:05 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm not sure that anyone here would disagree with you on that, but you earlier comments seemed more broadly construed.

Telling a client to ignore the court and not show up is definitely a breach, and I'm sure that there are some unethical immigration lawyers who do it. I've heard stories about shady lawyers telling people to claim political asylum just to slow down the process, etc., just like I've heard about crooked criminal lawyers, even family law. There was a case here in CA recently where an immigration attorney was disbarred and sent to federal prison for running a scam to bring people in illegally.

But I think this kind of stuff can be easily distinguished from a lawyer who simply uses legit avenues to zealously advocate for their client.


 38 
 on: August 22, 2015, 10:20:32 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
"But yeah admissions are lower and more lower tier schools out there. That much is true. But those at Harvard are no dumber today than those from Harvard when boomers were enrolled listening to Madonna and getting excited about having theater tickets to Top Gun."

You're partially correct but draw the wrong inference. LSAT scores and uGPAs for average candidates are dropping, as are the number of overall applicants. But, for the most part, the number of schools has stayed the same.

So, sure, your average Harvard Law Grad will be roughly the same. But it's at outside of the T100 where those differences are the most acute. The incoming students, on average, performed worse on the LSAT and in UG (per uGPA). Check out some historical figures for random schools from 2010-14 for incoming classes... it's not pretty.

The test isn't any different- it's the people sitting for it. It's natural supply and demand. The schools need to fill seats, so they are lowering their standards. Ideally, law school will become a more attractive option again, and this problem will self-correct. Or, in another ideal solution, many of the worst law schools will just go under.

 39 
 on: August 22, 2015, 10:05:55 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Groundhog
I don't think they made the exam harder. The NCBE is right to point at significant declines in LSAT scores, which is one of the best predictors of bar success.

 40 
 on: August 22, 2015, 07:56:07 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm still confused by Artist formerly known as Pie. First, your continued use of the phrase "non-legal" is carrying a lot of freight, as you appear to be conflating civil and criminal infractions (malum in se and malum prohibitum). Second, you aren't being specific, at all, as to what you are alleging, or what the fact pattern could be. Facts can make a huge difference. Third, ethical rules do matter- they are not "justifications." Rules regarding, inter alia, confidentiality. 

So let's take an easy example culled from your fear of undocumented individuals in America. A student from England has overstayed their student visa, and is currently working in a bar in New York City. She goes to an immigration attorney. What advise, if any, would it be acceptable, in your mind for this attorney to give? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

Now, contrast that situation to this one- a business owner goes to an attorney regarding a tax issue. During the course of the conversation, the attorney learns that the business owner is non-compliant with a local ordinance (which is an entirely separate issue). To comply with this local ordinance (which only involves the spacing of his buildings on his property) would require millions and millions of dollars to rebuild, while his business could not operate, costing millions more. In your analysis, what can this attorney ethically do? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

I'm really curious- after all, real life isn't always so neat. Now, if your argument was that immigration attorneys (but not others?) were lying in court, I would completely agree with you, but now I am even more confused as to what your point really is.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10