Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
 51 
 on: August 21, 2015, 10:59:44 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
Interesting link, but 10 questions will likely have no major effect.

As for the article, its boomer rants. They made the exam harder. Its the same mentality you get when they say "I paid for law school by working summers and had no debt" Really gramps? How much was tuition? It sure has risen more than inflation. Just like the "I had a job day one even before I graduated" really old top? Gee, tell me more about how little you know about compare and contrast...............

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.


 52 
 on: August 21, 2015, 10:56:57 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.
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.

 53 
 on: August 21, 2015, 07:37:02 PM 
Started by sekagirl - Last post by Citylaw
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.

 54 
 on: August 21, 2015, 04:52:39 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-20/are-lawyers-getting-dumber-

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.

 55 
 on: August 21, 2015, 02:02:42 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
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.

 56 
 on: August 21, 2015, 01:37:48 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.

 57 
 on: August 21, 2015, 12:01:29 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
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.

 58 
 on: August 21, 2015, 09:49:52 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

What? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Let's take an easy example. How about a foreclosure. Let's say we have two "bad" actors in a judicial foreclosure state-
A bank that, arguably, doesn't have requisite standing at the beginning of the case. (Issues with the note)
A borrower that hasn't been paying.

So, by your argument, neither side is entitled to representation? And any deeper analysis is only "justificiation?" The bank shouldn't have representation, because no attorney should help a bank try to establish standing to foreclose when it appears the bank lacks standing. And no attorney should help the borrower, because no one is entitled to keep living in a place they have no right to (sound familiar)?

I'm having serious trouble understanding your views, other than you don't like something, so you don't feel the need to think about it.

 59 
 on: August 20, 2015, 05:46:19 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

 60 
 on: August 20, 2015, 04:03:51 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Maintain, I didn't say anything about notarios. Soy de Los Angeles, so I am certainly familiar with them. I was more shocked that the poster was alleging that attorneys were violating their professional responsibilities by advocating for immigrants.

Indeed.

Advocating for an immigrant, even an illegal immigrant, is not in itself a violation of any professional duty.

Pie:

Your argument is that by assisting the illegal immigrant in becoming legal, the lawyer is furthering the illegal activity? I see the logic, but no. And this isn't just an issue of politics or political correctness.

Lawyers are permitted to assist clients who are currently afoul of the law but wish to become compliant. Think of a client walking into a tax lawyer's office and saying "I haven't paid income tax in five years, but I want to get right with the IRS and avoid jail." As long as the lawyer does not assist the tax fugitive in hiding assets, or setting up offshore accounts, or producing fake returns, he can assist the client in clearing up his legal problems with the IRS.

So, if an immigration lawyer tells an immigrant to claim political asylum when he knows it's a bogus claim, or tells the client to lie about how long he's been in the country to take advantage of an amnesty, or whatever, then he's breached his ethical duties. But not just by representing and advocating zealously on behalf of the client.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?
 

Yes, definitely. Notarios are common in Latin America and usually have some degree of training or certification. They have very clear roles, and can only perform certain tasks. How well this is regulated varies according to the country.

The problem in the U.S. is that many people calling themselves "notarios" and running storefront offices have zero training in American law. I believe Calbar was looking into some sort of training or regulatory action, but I don't know what came of it.

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