Ask a law student questions about things he's not qualified or interested to answer

1. Apart from allowing lawyers to make a living does the law have a function?

2. Do lawyers have any fun, at all? Other than drinking and looking smug?

3. What questions should you ask a lawyer?

4. What questions shouldn't you ask a lawyer?
 
1. Apart from allowing lawyers to make a living does the law have a function?

2. Do lawyers have any fun, at all? Other than drinking and looking smug?

3. What questions should you ask a lawyer?

4. What questions shouldn't you ask a lawyer?

1. It allows us to arrogantly explain how the law really works to people who think they know how the law works.

2. Drinking and looking smug are required in the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Character and Fitness Committee frowns on fun.

3. How much do I owe you for that?

4. How many ethics violations have you had? Have you ever been disbarred?
 
Do law students in other countries have the same reputation as in Germany ?
Over here the stereotype goes that they are selfish, competitive pricks who are more likely to sabotage than help each other. They're seen as the kind of people who will rip out pages from books they borrow in the library just to have an advantage over other law students.
 
Do law students in other countries have the same reputation as in Germany ?
Over here the stereotype goes that they are selfish, competitive pricks who are more likely to sabotage than help each other. They're seen as the kind of people who will rip out pages from books they borrow in the library just to have an advantage over other law students.

That's already happened in my school. They caught somebody for it. It's the curve man. The curve. It makes people animals. Don't leave your laptop unattended. People will delete your notes.
 
Is it true that a law degree is one of the easiest degrees to get?

Barring golf course management and ... er...
 
You should be prepared for catastrophic hard disk failure at any time.

Dropbox is my god.

A shot? Some sort of caffeine - red bull?
Or some sort of exam upper i've read about ?


starbucks-doubleshot-espresso-drink-12-6-5oz-cans.jpg


+

BaileysCoffee.xxlarge.jpg


=Exam success

Is it true that a law degree is one of the easiest degrees to get?

Sure, there used to be a time when law schools would fail people. Harvard for instance would kick out up to 1/3 of the class. Now its against policy. If you get into law school unless you drop out yourself you're going to get a law degree.

And there are so many no-name schools handing out degrees like candy. Cooley is the most notorious degree mill.

Also I want to point out this a perfect example of market failure. Right now law school applications are at an all time low because people are realizing the utility of the degree doesn't equate with the job prospects or salary you get when you come out. The US graduates something like 100,000 law school graduates with 40,000 jobs available.

Now there upwards of 200 law schools in the US. Think about that upwards of 200. China by comparison has like 20 or 30. Same with India. Canada has it in the teens and so does Brazil. It boggles your mind.

Now you'd think the proliferation of what we call craplaw schools would drive down the cost of a legal degree right? Wrong. Costs are increasing and the craplaw charge MORE for their legal degree than some of the T-14.

Now applications are down. You'd think that would force law schools to lower prices or force some of them to shut down right? Wrong. They merely lower standards and admit larger numbers of people. With the result that you have less demand for a law degree, a high supply of law schools but no decrease in price of a law degree despite its decreasing utility and the supersaturated legal job market.

It's also a perfect example of the failure of letting an industry regulate itself. The American Bar Association whose job it is to prevent this kind of thing from happening has certified all sorts of new schools. Drexel recently opened one, U Mass Dartmouth, Chicago-Kent etc....

These are low ranked law schools that are in already heavily penetrated markets and the ABA is still allowing them to open. The ABA also does nothing when law schools LIE and misrepresent their employment and salary figures.

The ABA has too much skin in the game, being made up of lawyers and legal professionals to start de-certifying and closing down law schools.

And that children is why you don't let markets self-regulate.
 
Why is the law such an attractive profession to go into in the states?
Certainly, I don't think law has such the same status in the UK as it does over the pond.

Is it really these live broadcast trials (OJ Simpson, Micheal Jackson et al) which has made it so popular? Plus the many programmes which take place in the court room. I've always found it dull...
 
It's also a perfect example of the failure of letting an industry regulate itself. The American Bar Association whose job it is to prevent this kind of thing from happening has certified all sorts of new schools. Drexel recently opened one, U Mass Dartmouth, Chicago-Kent etc....
.

Chicago-Kent was established in 1888 and has a very strong relationship with city government. I've had multiple clients specifically request candidates from there. It isn't a diploma mill.
 
IIT Chicago? I might be thinking of Indian Tech Law School.

Yup, it's the one with IIT. I don't know if the IIT affiliation is recent, but Kent law has been around for over a hundred years. For continuing education students, its a perfectly fine regional law school.
 
No offense Ace99 but this "Above the Law"-esque blogosphere attitude about law school is tiring. Is this the attitude of law students these days?

Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. End of discussion.

Figuring out if you really want to practice law is the hard part. The rest is details.
 
No offense Ace99 but this "Above the Law"-esque blogosphere attitude about law school is tiring. Is this the attitude of law students these days?

Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer. End of discussion.

Figuring out if you really want to practice law is the hard part. The rest is details.

I'm going to make some wild guesses about you:

-You graduated before 2008
-You have a job
-You've paid off a good deal or most of your student loans

Guess what? It's not the good old days anymore. Some of us have to face a far more grim reality. So well done in graduating in 1990something or whatever. If only I had the foresight to go to law school in 1980.

The legal industry is in trouble, a reckoning is coming, there will either be a need to entirely reform how law is taught, how many law schools are permitted to be open and to solve the problem of cost. Or there will be a crash that will make 2008 look like a joke.

People like you, established lawyers are part of the problem. Go to law school if you want to be a lawyer is terrible advice. Because the cake is a lie:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/87251/law-school-employment-harvard-yale-georgetown#

This month, thousands of ambitious young people are asking themselves the same question: Does it make sense to invest $100,000 to $250,000, and the next three years of my life, to become officially qualified to work as a lawyer? For most people considering law school, this question is hardly an easy one. Law schools, however, make it much harder than it needs to be by publishing misleading data about their employment statistics. Many law schools all but explicitly promise that, within a few months of graduation, practically all their graduates will obtain jobs as lawyers, by trumpeting employment figures of 95 percent, 97 percent, and even 99.8 percent. The truth is that less than half will.

There are two main sources of information on post-law-school employment rates. One is U.S. News and World Report (USNWR), which publishes statistics for individual schools as part of its annual law-school rankings. These rankings, of course, are much reviled but even more greatly feared by deans and admissions officers. (Prospective law students pay very careful attention to the rankings, which means law schools must as well.) Until little more than a month ago, almost all 198 ABA-accredited law schools were reporting nine-month employment rates of more than 90 percent, and it was a rare top 100 school that had a rate of less than 95 percent. But last month, in the wake of criticisms that these figures were literally incredible, USNWR revised its employment statistics in an effort to combat some of the legerdemain law schools engaged in, such as excluding from their calculations graduates who described themselves as unemployed but not seeking work. The new USNWR percentages are therefore somewhat less inaccurate: Schools that, until a few weeks ago, were claiming one in 500 graduates were unemployed now claim one in 30 are, while those who were advertising 95 percent employment rates are saying one in six graduates don’t have jobs, and so on down the hierarchical line.

The other source is the National Association for Law Placement (NALP)—the group to which the ABA delegates the compiling of employment statistics that ABA-accredited law schools are required to report. According to the NALP, 88.2 percent of all law school graduates are “employed” within nine months of graduation. If we exclude people employed in non-legal jobs, and people doing part-time work, the NALP number drops to 62.9 percent.

There are a few problems, however, with even this lower number. The first is that it is only reported for law schools as a whole. NALP does not provide this number for individual schools, while USNWR does not report it at all. This means that the only school-specific information currently available to students is extremely misleading.

But the bigger problem is that the 62.9 percent figure is still too high. While it excludes non-legal jobs and part-time work, it does not exclude people in temporary positions. So it seems worth asking: How many of the graduates who report doing full-time legal work have permanent jobs—in the employment law sense of permanent—as opposed to doing temp work, such as being paid $20 an hour to proofread financial documents in a warehouse, or $12 an hour to do slightly glorified secretarial tasks?

In this regard, the public NALP data is of little use—while the NALP collects information from graduates about whether their jobs are permanent or temporary, it makes no distinction between the two in the information it publishes. In order to calculate this figure, I used employment data drawn from 183 individual NALP forms, in which graduates of one top 50 school self-reported their employment status nine months after graduation. This data suggests that fully one-third of those graduates who report they are working in full-time jobs that require a law degree are in temporary, rather than permanent, positions. (Some of these graduates are temporarily employed as judicial clerks, and, in those cases where the clerkships were with federal courts or state supreme courts, I have treated this as equivalent to permanent full-time legal employment. Such clerkships are difficult to obtain, and considered desirable credentials by legal employers. I have treated state trial court clerkships as genuinely temporary employment, since few law graduates will accept such a clerkship if they have the option of taking a full-time permanent legal job instead. I have excluded the tiny percentage of graduates in state appellate court clerkships altogether, because the desirability of such positions compared to a full-time legal job is ambiguous.)

When we take temporary employment into account, it appears that approximately 45 percent of 2010 graduates of this particular top-50 law school had real legal jobs nine months after graduation. And the overall number is likely lower, since it seems probable that the temporary employment figures for the graduates of almost any top 50 school would be better than the average outcome for the graduates of the 198 ABA-accredited law schools as a whole.

Even this grim figure, however, may be unduly optimistic. All these statistics are based on self-reporting, and neither law schools nor NALP audit the data they publish. In the course of my research, I audited a representative sample of individual graduate responses and found several instances of people describing themselves as employed permanently or full-time, when in fact they had temporary or part-time jobs (I found no instances of inaccuracies running in the other direction). Perhaps some graduates exaggerate their employment status out of embarrassment, or for strategic reasons, but, whatever their reasons might be, this apparently not uncommon practice suggests that the true employment rate should be lowered even further.

Yet even this does not exhaust the dire news for those about to enter the legal profession. Some schools have adopted the practice of placing their graduates in temporary positions, which, whatever the rationale, has the benefit of helping to inflate their employment numbers. For example, this winter the top 50 school referenced above hired at least two unemployed graduates for short-term internships. Last year, Georgetown’s law school paid three unemployed graduates $20 an hour to spend six weeks working in, of all places, its admissions office.

Nor have we considered how the “lucky” winners in the big law lottery often accept jobs that make them miserable, featuring insane hours and unfulfilling work, but which these graduates conclude they must take in order to pay their often astronomical educational debt (adjusted for inflation, public law school tuition has quintupled, and private law school tuition has nearly tripled, since the mid-1980s). If you’re a law professor and you want to get depressed, try to figure out how many of your recent graduates have real legal jobs that pay enough to justify the tuition that funds your salary, and also involve doing the kind of work they wanted to do when they went to law school.

All of this suggests the extent to which prospective law students need more and better information. Of course, such information will make law school look like a far worse investment than it does at present. Still, if we assume that the point of academic work is to reveal the truth, rather than to engage in the defense of a professional cartel from which law professors benefit more than almost anyone else, then this work needs to be done.

Law schools, almost all of them are running a racket. A scam. It's a travesty and you should stop defending it. At least 50-100 schools should be de-certified for starters. Penalties imposed for schools that are pulling rackets like this. Stiff fines. The 3rd year of law school should be dropped entirely. Law courses reformed teach practical things like how to file a motion. And apprenticeship-like work with law firms that give a track to employment, not unpaid internships.

It'll be painful for the industry but it needs to be done. Or else whats going to happen will be much worse.
 
I don't see why schools should be de-certified, let the free market deal with the problem.

Quoting myself from before:
Also I want to point out this a perfect example of market failure. Right now law school applications are at an all time low because people are realizing the utility of the degree doesn't equate with the job prospects or salary you get when you come out. The US graduates something like 100,000 law school graduates with 40,000 jobs available.

Now there upwards of 200 law schools in the US. Think about that upwards of 200. China by comparison has like 20 or 30. Same with India. Canada has it in the teens and so does Brazil. It boggles your mind.

Now you'd think the proliferation of what we call craplaw schools would drive down the cost of a legal degree right? Wrong. Costs are increasing and the craplaw charge MORE for their legal degree than some of the T-14.

Now applications are down. You'd think that would force law schools to lower prices or force some of them to shut down right? Wrong. They merely lower standards and admit larger numbers of people. With the result that you have less demand for a law degree, a high supply of law schools but no decrease in price of a law degree despite its decreasing utility and the supersaturated legal job market.

It's also a perfect example of the failure of letting an industry regulate itself. The American Bar Association whose job it is to prevent this kind of thing from happening has certified all sorts of new schools. Drexel recently opened one, U Mass Dartmouth, Chicago-Kent etc....

These are low ranked law schools that are in already heavily penetrated markets and the ABA is still allowing them to open. The ABA also does nothing when law schools LIE and misrepresent their employment and salary figures.

The ABA has too much skin in the game, being made up of lawyers and legal professionals to start de-certifying and closing down law schools.

And that children is why you don't let markets self-regulate.
 
-I graduated in 2008
-I went to what you would likely call a "craptastic" law school based on your posts thus far
-I still owe a lot on my student loans
-I have a great job that I love and I don't work insane hours
Icing on the cake:
-I grade the California Bar Exam as a part time gig on the side, not without a sense of irony that I hold the fate of the "T1" law students that constantly insult students of non-elite schools in my hands. (Said insults always occurring safely behind the anonymity of online posts on blogs like ATL and their ilk.)


Yes, employment statistics are gamed. By every tier of law school. I am not defending law school (I am not attacking it either), I am attacking the over-generalization that going to law school is a universally bad idea simply because your chances at success might not be as grand as some sell it to be. Yes, it is not a good idea if you are you just want to go back to school and you think a fancy looking degree is simply a meal ticket. I don't think that is a deficiency in thinking and character limited to prospective law school students however. That is just generally stupid. Do you just want to go to school and rely on academic credentials forever to cruise for the rest of your life making some money without much effort? Don't go to law school.

All too often this sort of "woe is me" stuff is simply a cover to make the law student who now lacks a job feel more secure that their current situation is not entirely their fault, when really, yes it is almost entirely your fault. I saw this stuff regurgitated on all of these law student websites and it comes off as whiny and sort of pathetic, to be honest. Suck it up, you made a decision. Deal with it.

People are trying to be lawyers and they are complaining about things they could have figured out had they thought critically and read the fine print. Sorry, not buying it. And for every person that is steered away from law school for good reason, the danger is you're still also steering away people who would genuinely be good at it and be passionate about their practice and who would be a genuinely positive addition to the profession. Which is why the question "do you want to be a lawyer" is the only question that really matters.
 
Quoting myself from before:

Sounds to me like the free market is working, just sticky wages are the problem, long-term we should see lawyer salaries lower more.

And for every person that is steered away from law school for good reason, the danger is you're still also steering away people who would genuinely be good at it and be passionate about their practice and who would be a genuinely positive addition to the profession.

Well, I happily encourage people to stay out of my profession, the less competition I have, the better my wages are.
 
Back
Top Bottom