What area of law do you want to pursue?

[Sebastian11]

Not sure whether this thread will get much feedback, but I thought I would throw it out there, and figured it might be one helpful starting point for 0Ls such as myself who are going into law school as a sort of blank page, unsure of which area of law to pursue.

My question is, for students going into law school, those in law school now, and those already out of law school: What type of law do you intend (or do you already) practice? Be as general or as specific as you would like. I just thought it would be interesting to find out what other LSDers are going to law school for. Hope to hear from you!

In my own case, I did an internship in health law (malpractice defense) that really sparked my interest in going to law school. I truly feel that if we, as a society, do not protect our doctors, young people will no longer become doctors. There are certainly worthy malpractice cases, but I think there is some sort of balance that needs to be reached here.

So don't be shy, let us know, what kind of law do you want to pursue, and why???

[thegourmetpig]

Yeah, young people are running away from the medical profession in droves because of malpractice suits.

Seriously??? That's what we need more of, effing ambulance chasers and malpractice lawyers. Please.

This is the reason we don't have universal health care.

[zippyandzap]

Yeah, young people are running away from the medical profession in droves because of malpractice suits.

Seriously??? That's what we need more of, effing ambulance chasers and malpractice lawyers. Please.

This is the reason we don't have universal health care.

Did you read the post?  The OP would likely agree with you.  He wants to go into malpractice DEFENSE.

[FalconPunch]

ugh, so much is wrong with your post.

i was a plaintiff in a malpractice case, and will suffer lifelong consequences from doctors failing to diagnose a condition. not only did they fail to diagnose, but were extremely dismissive when i described my symptoms and lied about available specialists.

i had a very good case, yet i had almost exhausted the statute of limitations trying to find a lawyer who would take my case. there were not thousands of ambulance chasers knocking down my door begging for my case, like you seem to believe is the case. i almost exhausted the statute of limitations trying to find someone to take my case. BTW i generated about 175k in fees for my atty.

but think whatever you want to think. whatever makes you sleep at night, i guess.

[FalconPunch]

i'm going to further explain it.

even if malpractice was as big of a problem as you claim (which it isnt), it's simply the chickens coming home to roost for the doctors.

the ama, through the state licensing boards they control, has deliberately tried to limit the supply of doctors despite the skyrocketing demand for health care. They effectively guaranteed higher pay for their members at the expense of the healthcare of everyone else. there are a couple new med schools opening up right now, but prior to that not a single new medical school had opened for almost 100 years.

there simply are not enough doctors. the current doctors we have make the mistakes they do because they are rushed and do not have time to see all the patients they need to see.

this article really saddened me about the state of our medical care. http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2009/01/use_of_simple_o.html the biggest reduction of doctor errors was forcing them to take the time, check their ego and use a simple checklist. I sincerely doubt that all of those preventable "deaths and complications" sued their doctors and hospitals, btw.

edit: to keep it on topic, i eventually want to do tax or trusts and wills, but that is just from my current professional experience. there might be some other area of law that i find interesting that i'm not familiar with.

but i do feel that you have the potential to be a great insurance defense lawyer. the most important quality to have for insurance defense is a lack of empathy, and it looks like you have no problem with that.

[thegourmetpig]

Yeah, young people are running away from the medical profession in droves because of malpractice suits.

Seriously??? That's what we need more of, effing ambulance chasers and malpractice lawyers. Please.

This is the reason we don't have universal health care.

Did you read the post?  The OP would likely agree with you.  He wants to go into malpractice DEFENSE.

I was being sarcastic in the first line.

In my point, I was saying that on both ends (plaintiff and doctor), loose lawsuits based on nothing cost the system tons of money and get in the way of doctors providing good care to as many people as possible. Well, at least, it's ONE of many things that get in the way of that.

[dashrashi]

If every person who brought a medical malpractice lawsuit were to have a meritorious claim, then every such plaintiff should win their case (simple norms of compensation and corrective justice would dictate this--uncontroversial stuff). However, if that were to actually be the case, you would likely hear the AMA screaming that the system is stacked against doctors--how can it possibly be a fair system if plaintiffs win every case?

Of course, if that weren't the case, if the plaintiffs didn't win every case, according to the premises set out above, that would mean some people, injured by medical malpractice, wouldn't be appropriately compensated--and we can all agree that that's bad, strictly on fairness and corrective justice grounds, as mentioned above.

Ergo, it seems actually not so bad that there are non-meritorious claims being brought to trial, so long as tort law is relatively good at weeding those out from the meritorious ones (which it does seem to be: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/19/2024). In that case, non-meritorious claims are not rewarded, because a full airing of the facts finds that they should not be compensated; meritorious claims ARE rewarded; and the system looks fair because it has winners and losers on both sides.

Therefore, "loose lawsuits based on nothing" are not only a definitionally-necessary aspect of, well, our entire legal system, but also normatively important to maintain legitimacy.

As a more philosophical matter, you're sort of begging the question (in the strict sense, not the loosey-goosey sense of "raising the question"), by calling these "loose lawsuits based on nothing"--the trial and/or the legal system is what is charged with determining whether they are meritorious or not, know what I mean? You can't deny someone the chance to get their claim heard and ruled on by ruling on it in advance and finding it lacking--that's precisely what the court/jury are supposed to do at the thing you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Also, just as a note: the percentage of actual victims of medical malpractice (as determined by an independent panel at a later time) who do go ahead and file lawsuits is shockingly low--something like 12% (http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/). Given that statistic, I think it's ridiculously unfair to paint medical malpractice victims (and their attorneys) as uniformly greedy, stupid, and grasping, which I think is too often the portrait. Admittedly, there are cases that aren't meritorious, but I tend to think that A) very few of those claims are brought in bad faith, as a percentage of the whole; and B) the tort law system does seem to do a good job of weeding those out--which is precisely what we say we designed it to do: weed out the undeserving and compensate the deserving.

[Resident CLS Troll]

If every person who brought a medical malpractice lawsuit were to have a meritorious claim, then every such plaintiff should win their case (simple norms of compensation and corrective justice would dictate this--uncontroversial stuff). However, if that were to actually be the case, you would likely hear the AMA screaming that the system is stacked against doctors--how can it possibly be a fair system if plaintiffs win every case?

Of course, if that weren't the case, if the plaintiffs didn't win every case, according to the premises set out above, that would mean some people, injured by medical malpractice, wouldn't be appropriately compensated--and we can all agree that that's bad, strictly on fairness and corrective justice grounds, as mentioned above.

Ergo, it seems actually not so bad that there are non-meritorious claims being brought to trial, so long as tort law is relatively good at weeding those out from the meritorious ones (which it does seem to be: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/19/2024). In that case, non-meritorious claims are not rewarded, because a full airing of the facts finds that they should not be compensated; meritorious claims ARE rewarded; and the system looks fair because it has winners and losers on both sides.

Therefore, "loose lawsuits based on nothing" are not only a definitionally-necessary aspect of, well, our entire legal system, but also normatively important to maintain legitimacy.

As a more philosophical matter, you're sort of begging the question (in the strict sense, not the loosey-goosey sense of "raising the question"), by calling these "loose lawsuits based on nothing"--the trial and/or the legal system is what is charged with determining whether they are meritorious or not, know what I mean? You can't deny someone the chance to get their claim heard and ruled on by ruling on it in advance and finding it lacking--that's precisely what the court/jury are supposed to do at the thing you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Also, just as a note: the percentage of actual victims of medical malpractice (as determined by an independent panel at a later time) who do go ahead and file lawsuits is shockingly low--something like 12% (http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/). Given that statistic, I think it's ridiculously unfair to paint medical malpractice victims (and their attorneys) as uniformly greedy, stupid, and grasping, which I think is too often the portrait. Admittedly, there are cases that aren't meritorious, but I tend to think that A) very few of those claims are brought in bad faith, as a percentage of the whole; and B) the tort law system does seem to do a good job of weeding those out--which is precisely what we say we designed it to do: weed out the undeserving and compensate the deserving.

This is all very well thought out, but I couldn't help but notice that you failed to answer the question posed by the OP.

Myself personally, I'm planning on becoming a public defender.

[dashrashi]

If every person who brought a medical malpractice lawsuit were to have a meritorious claim, then every such plaintiff should win their case (simple norms of compensation and corrective justice would dictate this--uncontroversial stuff). However, if that were to actually be the case, you would likely hear the AMA screaming that the system is stacked against doctors--how can it possibly be a fair system if plaintiffs win every case?

Of course, if that weren't the case, if the plaintiffs didn't win every case, according to the premises set out above, that would mean some people, injured by medical malpractice, wouldn't be appropriately compensated--and we can all agree that that's bad, strictly on fairness and corrective justice grounds, as mentioned above.

Ergo, it seems actually not so bad that there are non-meritorious claims being brought to trial, so long as tort law is relatively good at weeding those out from the meritorious ones (which it does seem to be: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/19/2024). In that case, non-meritorious claims are not rewarded, because a full airing of the facts finds that they should not be compensated; meritorious claims ARE rewarded; and the system looks fair because it has winners and losers on both sides.

Therefore, "loose lawsuits based on nothing" are not only a definitionally-necessary aspect of, well, our entire legal system, but also normatively important to maintain legitimacy.

As a more philosophical matter, you're sort of begging the question (in the strict sense, not the loosey-goosey sense of "raising the question"), by calling these "loose lawsuits based on nothing"--the trial and/or the legal system is what is charged with determining whether they are meritorious or not, know what I mean? You can't deny someone the chance to get their claim heard and ruled on by ruling on it in advance and finding it lacking--that's precisely what the court/jury are supposed to do at the thing you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Also, just as a note: the percentage of actual victims of medical malpractice (as determined by an independent panel at a later time) who do go ahead and file lawsuits is shockingly low--something like 12% (http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/). Given that statistic, I think it's ridiculously unfair to paint medical malpractice victims (and their attorneys) as uniformly greedy, stupid, and grasping, which I think is too often the portrait. Admittedly, there are cases that aren't meritorious, but I tend to think that A) very few of those claims are brought in bad faith, as a percentage of the whole; and B) the tort law system does seem to do a good job of weeding those out--which is precisely what we say we designed it to do: weed out the undeserving and compensate the deserving.

This is all very well thought out, but I couldn't help but notice that you failed to answer the question posed by the OP.

Myself personally, I'm planning on becoming a public defender.

Making fun of me, or a kindred spirit?

[Resident CLS Troll]

Myself personally, I'm planning on becoming a public defender.

Making fun of me, or a kindred spirit?

No reason it can't be a little of both.

I'm jealous of the courtroom time you'll be getting, is all.