Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: What area of law do you want to pursue?  (Read 9054 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #70 on: March 11, 2009, 09:40:46 AM »
[blah blah] What is illogical about telling people to withhold judgement and exercize their brains...look at an issue from multiple angles since, as I aptly pointed out, that's what we all supposedly hope to do in our life's work? [blah blah]

What part of speculating that Rihanna was a "crazy female dog" who deserved to be beaten up and expressing your enthusiasm about the prospect of getting Chris Brown "off the hook" was withholding judgment?  While I agree with the others that you are confusing legal concepts -- burdens of proof, innocence until proven guilty -- with moral values and analytical skills, I also think you're terribly inconsistent.  If you're withholding judgment, you're not rooting for him to go unpunished and inventing, out of thin air, affirmative defenses.

ETA: As someone who is about to be a criminal defense lawyer, I will add that you are not thinking like any (criminal defense) lawyer I know. 

Oh yeah? Let me tell you what's going to happen to you when you get to law school: [lengthy diatribe]
 

You = 0L

Miss P = 3L

So yeah, I think I'd be more prone to listen to her than your hypothesizing about what law school might be like.

I am technically not an 0L. And many a 3L graduate knowing nothing about the law. And...did you read that I have had some law school? Read th post, fool. I have been through a semester and taken real graded exams and done moot court. I have written a major brief. Plus, my outside experience puts me far ahead of the curve.

Your shefriend is not making arguments, she's crying about women's rights. And there's no argument there, b/c I agree with those rights. I have been a domestic violence advocate. I was a theater major and I co-directed a domestic violence and date-rape project.

But this is not about that. it's not about who's a student. It's about what people are demonstrating by their remarks.

I didn't say anything about women's rights.  I honestly don't know what you're on about.  I said that you are confused about what "innocent until proven guilty" means.  It does not mean that you, as a member of the public, must withhold moral judgment. 

I also tried to suggest, rather mildly, that you refrain from insulting other pre-law students for not "thinking like a lawyer" when (a) you are not thinking like a lawyer and (b) nothing in this situation calls for thinking like a lawyer.

I don't see the need to defend myself further.  The people who know me here know that I have worked in criminal defense and related fields for about a decade.  My first post in this thread is about my plan to be a public defender.  I am currently interviewing with PD offices across the country.  I haven't said anything stupid.

I don't know if you're telling the truth about your experience in the criminal defense world (I'm sure you did go to that pre-law program you reference constantly), but if you are, you have picked up some strange messages about the field.  Yes, criminal defense attorneys must be creative and try to think through all of the plausible defenses for their clients.  Yes, criminal defense attorneys try to secure good deals, the least serious convictions, the lightest sentences, and acquittals for their clients.  But Chris Brown is not the client of any of us here.  And more important, Chris Brown is an a-hole.  Were he my client, I would surely work to get him the best possible deal, or an outright dismissal or acquittal is possible, but he's not.  And I don't need to be gleeful about the possibility that he'll get off the hook just because I believe everyone should have the best defense possible.  Indeed, since my clients frequently receive harsh punishments for victimless crimes, if Chris Brown gets out of this unscathed, and it's not for a good reason (constitutional defect in proceedings, etc.), I will likely harbor a small amount of class resentment toward him.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2009, 10:00:32 AM »
I'm just quoting this for posterity.

[blah blah] What is illogical about telling people to withhold judgement and exercize their brains...look at an issue from multiple angles since, as I aptly pointed out, that's what we all supposedly hope to do in our life's work? [blah blah]

What part of speculating that Rihanna was a "crazy female dog" who deserved to be beaten up and expressing your enthusiasm about the prospect of getting Chris Brown "off the hook" was withholding judgment?  While I agree with the others that you are confusing legal concepts -- burdens of proof, innocence until proven guilty -- with moral values and analytical skills, I also think you're terribly inconsistent.  If you're withholding judgment, you're not rooting for him to go unpunished and inventing, out of thin air, affirmative defenses.

ETA: As someone who is about to be a criminal defense lawyer, I will add that you are not thinking like any (criminal defense) lawyer I know. 

Oh yeah? Let me tell you what's going to happen to you when you get to law school:

A professor is going to give you a fact pattern on an exam that looks just like the CB and Rihanna situation (on the surface, it will seem obvious in some way), and then he's going to tell you to defend Chris Brown! And you will have to find a way to do it effectively or fail the question. The question will be 40% of the exam. And he's going to ask you to consider as many angles as you possisbly can before concluding. And you are going to be completely disheveled b/c of your inability to think outside of the lines and consider what is missing, of potential counter-arguments to your position.

Or that same professor might "cold-call" you (aka, blast you with the Socratic Method) for 45 minutes on ways to defend CB, and you, with your prejudices and inability to analyze issues from multiple angles, will be frozen. Your classmates will reject you as "ovdermatched" and will not want you in their study groups b/c you will have nothing substantial to add. You will be branded a one-note player.

Or, in appellate Advocacy, you are going to get completely spanked by your opponent at the end of the quarter/semester in mock trials b/c you cannot anticipate the opposition's arguments. You grade will be a C or lower because your exam, brief and essays will exhibit the same closed-mindedness you show here.

You are missing the fundamentals of what I am saying. And you are making assumptions. I already said I do not agree with beating up a woman, but that isn't what we should be discussing. A real law student...a future lawyer would be thinking of how to hypothetically defend CB, not out of compassionm for him or contempt for women, but out of a sense of the craft of law. Law is a craft, people. You should respect it, b/c it's the only one of its kind.

But, you sound sad with your prejudgements, emotional rants and (in a few cases) hidden biggotry.

None of that garbage you wrote above applies to me. There's nothing inconsistent about what I am saying...AT ALL. And my law teachers at Georgetown thought I sounded a lot like a lawyer, especially when I beat a future GULC Law Review editor in our moot court.

Let me tell you what you do not know:

You don't know whether or not she will be charged herself for hitting CB with the keys or the phone.

You don't know whether she threatened CB first or not, which would make a reasonable person yell out a threat back.

You don't know what their relationship history is.

You don't know if Rihanna has a medical history, for instance, that causes her to bruise easily. That weakens arguments about the briutality of the attack.

You don't know how much weight a jury will give to the "post-traumatic stress" CB allegedly suffers from, if any, and how that would or should affect his sentence.

There's so much more that you don't know; you don't know the case! As an 0L, you likely don't know any of the "elements" for 1st degree assault or attempted murder. You likely don't know what "elements" are. I do, b/c I have been trained to look for the elements and break them separately.

You also do not know that I worked on a domestic violence project for two years in the Seattle Area with the New Beginnings Women's Shelter. I have also had one semester's worth of actual graded law work (where I held an A- average), which is more than most of you have. I have won cases pro se in actual court, once taking on an ADA's myself and whipping the pants off of her...mostly b/c she was like you...she could only think from one angle and didn't do that very well.

Look...the easy thing to do is rush to judgement and side with Rihanna. If you practice dsoing that, that is exactly the type of lawyer you will become. You'll only be able to handle easy cases and you won't make your firm better. You will have an unremarkable career. The great lawyers don't take the easy cases; they seek out the hard ones. They get the hard calls and they get all the well-deserved accolades b/c they win the hard cases. They make all of the real money.

You want to make emotional decisions? Go ahead. But, you're better-off selling real estate. 

You know nothing about my history and you are arguing points that cannot be argued. You sound absolutely stupid. I am telling everyone to wait for the evidence. You have none...no "facts". You have pictures and speculation by mass media. That's it. I doubt you know any criminal defense lawyers, if you think I am inconsistent. I sit next to a lawyer every day and type this stuff, and he laughs at you guys.

And putting together well-written sentences that SOUND like they are making cogent critiques does not make you a scholar, nor does it win this debate for you. I am 100% correct in what I am saying below and it all makes sense. Moreover, you should never have jumped on the topic in the first place. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2009, 10:09:09 AM »
I'm just quoting this for posterity.

[blah blah] What is illogical about telling people to withhold judgement and exercize their brains...look at an issue from multiple angles since, as I aptly pointed out, that's what we all supposedly hope to do in our life's work? [blah blah]

What part of speculating that Rihanna was a "crazy female dog" who deserved to be beaten up and expressing your enthusiasm about the prospect of getting Chris Brown "off the hook" was withholding judgment?  While I agree with the others that you are confusing legal concepts -- burdens of proof, innocence until proven guilty -- with moral values and analytical skills, I also think you're terribly inconsistent.  If you're withholding judgment, you're not rooting for him to go unpunished and inventing, out of thin air, affirmative defenses.

ETA: As someone who is about to be a criminal defense lawyer, I will add that you are not thinking like any (criminal defense) lawyer I know. 

Oh yeah? Let me tell you what's going to happen to you when you get to law school:

A professor is going to give you a fact pattern on an exam that looks just like the CB and Rihanna situation (on the surface, it will seem obvious in some way), and then he's going to tell you to defend Chris Brown! And you will have to find a way to do it effectively or fail the question. The question will be 40% of the exam. And he's going to ask you to consider as many angles as you possisbly can before concluding. And you are going to be completely disheveled b/c of your inability to think outside of the lines and consider what is missing, of potential counter-arguments to your position.

Or that same professor might "cold-call" you (aka, blast you with the Socratic Method) for 45 minutes on ways to defend CB, and you, with your prejudices and inability to analyze issues from multiple angles, will be frozen. Your classmates will reject you as "ovdermatched" and will not want you in their study groups b/c you will have nothing substantial to add. You will be branded a one-note player.

Or, in appellate Advocacy, you are going to get completely spanked by your opponent at the end of the quarter/semester in mock trials b/c you cannot anticipate the opposition's arguments. You grade will be a C or lower because your exam, brief and essays will exhibit the same closed-mindedness you show here.

You are missing the fundamentals of what I am saying. And you are making assumptions. I already said I do not agree with beating up a woman, but that isn't what we should be discussing. A real law student...a future lawyer would be thinking of how to hypothetically defend CB, not out of compassionm for him or contempt for women, but out of a sense of the craft of law. Law is a craft, people. You should respect it, b/c it's the only one of its kind.

But, you sound sad with your prejudgements, emotional rants and (in a few cases) hidden biggotry.

None of that garbage you wrote above applies to me. There's nothing inconsistent about what I am saying...AT ALL. And my law teachers at Georgetown thought I sounded a lot like a lawyer, especially when I beat a future GULC Law Review editor in our moot court.

Let me tell you what you do not know:

You don't know whether or not she will be charged herself for hitting CB with the keys or the phone.

You don't know whether she threatened CB first or not, which would make a reasonable person yell out a threat back.

You don't know what their relationship history is.

You don't know if Rihanna has a medical history, for instance, that causes her to bruise easily. That weakens arguments about the briutality of the attack.

You don't know how much weight a jury will give to the "post-traumatic stress" CB allegedly suffers from, if any, and how that would or should affect his sentence.

There's so much more that you don't know; you don't know the case! As an 0L, you likely don't know any of the "elements" for 1st degree assault or attempted murder. You likely don't know what "elements" are. I do, b/c I have been trained to look for the elements and break them separately.

You also do not know that I worked on a domestic violence project for two years in the Seattle Area with the New Beginnings Women's Shelter. I have also had one semester's worth of actual graded law work (where I held an A- average), which is more than most of you have. I have won cases pro se in actual court, once taking on an ADA's myself and whipping the pants off of her...mostly b/c she was like you...she could only think from one angle and didn't do that very well.

Look...the easy thing to do is rush to judgement and side with Rihanna. If you practice dsoing that, that is exactly the type of lawyer you will become. You'll only be able to handle easy cases and you won't make your firm better. You will have an unremarkable career. The great lawyers don't take the easy cases; they seek out the hard ones. They get the hard calls and they get all the well-deserved accolades b/c they win the hard cases. They make all of the real money.

You want to make emotional decisions? Go ahead. But, you're better-off selling real estate. 

You know nothing about my history and you are arguing points that cannot be argued. You sound absolutely stupid. I am telling everyone to wait for the evidence. You have none...no "facts". You have pictures and speculation by mass media. That's it. I doubt you know any criminal defense lawyers, if you think I am inconsistent. I sit next to a lawyer every day and type this stuff, and he laughs at you guys.

And putting together well-written sentences that SOUND like they are making cogent critiques does not make you a scholar, nor does it win this debate for you. I am 100% correct in what I am saying below and it all makes sense. Moreover, you should never have jumped on the topic in the first place. 

Wow.  Just wow.

Apparently, in his frenzy to attack you, he forgot to do his homework. 

Don't you know anything about Miss P, lawdog?  She would eat you up and spit you out, son.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

dashrashi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3601
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2009, 10:09:38 AM »
He really is one of the worst. He strikes me as in-need-of-meds.
This sig kills fascists.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=dashrashi

Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2009, 10:16:10 AM »
He really is one of the worst. He strikes me as in-need-of-meds.

Oh come on you know nothing about the legal world

dashrashi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3601
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2009, 10:20:08 AM »
He really is one of the worst. He strikes me as in-need-of-meds.

Oh come on you know nothing about the legal world

I dare you to find one instance where I have known nothing about the legal world
This sig kills fascists.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=dashrashi

Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2009, 10:22:45 AM »
He really is one of the worst. He strikes me as in-need-of-meds.

Oh come on you know nothing about the legal world

I dare you to find one instance where I have known nothing about the legal world

Eff. You've bested me.

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #77 on: March 11, 2009, 10:23:23 AM »
Well, GULC said I'm a really good lawyer and they gave me a piece of paper that says I'm aweseome.  I beat an editor of law review with my words, because I have talent from birth.  Law is born, not made.  

You guys just make fun of me, but I know you are jealous.  Jealous!  
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

dashrashi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3601
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #78 on: March 11, 2009, 10:30:30 AM »
He really is one of the worst. He strikes me as in-need-of-meds.

Oh come on you know nothing about the legal world

I dare you to find one instance where I have known nothing about the legal world

Eff. You've bested me.

It was the bolding. God, that's so weird.
This sig kills fascists.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=dashrashi

Saw dashrashi's LSN site. Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

Matthies

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5988
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: What area of law do you want to pursue?
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2009, 02:42:38 PM »
Wow, um WOW at this thread.

LawDog listen to Miss P, she knows whatís she talking about. Iím not an expert on criminal law but I have clerked for a criminal lawyer for the last year plus. I donít know what CBís lawyers are doing or how they plan to proceed, but I have a good idea how my boss would respond. He would not come up with any farfetched defenses, why? Because that stuff rarely works in real life. Instead he would do what we normally do for our clients who have a ton of evidence against them, chip away at small parts to get the best deal.

Very rarely do we have clients who are A) completely innocent or B) think they can get away with the crimes. Most often the role of a criminal defense attorney is to explain to his client what the prosecution has to prove, and given the evidence, how likely it is they can prove it. Guilt or innocence is rarely the primary issue in criminal defense in real life, its more the factors of the evidence and the possible end results if you take this or that path. In many situations itís the wrong move to try and defend against a claim, when the odds are good they can make that claim, its better offense to play good defense and try to get that claim bounced down or a deal done.

Lastly as my boss has said to many of our high profile clients in the past, you really donít want this to go to trial because it all becomes public info then and you will get crucified in the media. Sometimes its best for your client and their rep to not challenge a crime if they can make it disappear quickly out of the lime light rather than go through a widely publicized trial.
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.