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

[Zelig]

Well that's not mutually exclusive from law school.

 

[illram]

@illram: You asked if mine was a common sentiment among law students these days, well this showed up on my FB feed, I usually find at least one or two of these every week so I guess the answer is yeah...

What does a law student know about quality of legal service? Answer: close to nothing.

 

[ace99]

All you do is acknowledge its a problem and dismiss the concern. Little surprise.

 

[illram]

I definitely do not agree with your perception of what the problem may be, or even that there is a singular problem. There are a lot of issues with the legal profession.

I do think the current lazy, scared and/or insecure attitude of some law students is a problem--for them.

 

[downtown]

Why do we need a Northwestern grad to handle divorce filings in rural Indiana?

 

[ace99]

Why do we need a Northwestern grad to handle divorce filings in rural Indiana?

Well....

 

[BvBPL]

In other countries (England and Ireland are the ones I am aware of) the terms Solicitor and Barrister are used. For those using those terms in this thread, could you explain the difference? Is solicitor a trial attorney while a Barrister is more of a behind the scenes guy? I have always been confused when people use these terms instead of simply Lawyer or Attorney.

It is the other way around. A barrister is a trial litigator in court and a solicitor is the behind the scenes guy. The solicitor works directly with the client, and it is solicitor who generally employs the barrister on behalf of the client.

I don't know about the relationship between barristers, solicitors, courts of law, and courts of equity that ace spoke to.

When the Revolution comes, before they shoot all the lawyers, I hope they shoot your kind first.

Though lets face it, lawyers will probably be up against the wall right after bankers and politicians.

My friend, if the Dick the Butcher has his way, the first thing they'll do is kill all the lawyers.

 

[really]

It is the other way around. A barrister is a trial litigator in court and a solicitor is the behind the scenes guy. The solicitor works directly with the client, and it is solicitor who generally employs the barrister on behalf of the client.

I don't know about the relationship between barristers, solicitors, courts of law, and courts of equity that ace spoke to.

Broadly this.

In Ireland barristers are individuals who work in the higher courts. They can represent someone in any sort of trial (criminal, civil, family law or whatever) They aren't supposed to be approached directly so they get their work from solicitors (they are instructed by them). There aren't many of them and some move into other areas such as politics, journalism, business and the like.

Solicitors can work as individuals or in partnerships. They do the day to day stuff of wills, property transfers, drunk driving or whatever. They can represent someone in the lower courts. If their client is accused of something big they instruct a barrister on the case. There are a lot more solicitors than there are barristers.

Personally I think the split is a bit of an anachronism - there is no reason why a solicitor with a specalism in contract law shouldn't be able to represent a client directly in the High Court rather than whispering in the ear of a barrister.

Our system is a left over from our time in the UK - I think the solicitor/barrister split in the UK has changed over the years - ours hasn't.

I am not a lawyer - any of the above could be totally wrong.

 

[Camikaze]

Barristers are those called to the bar. Top barristers take silk (becoming QCs, or SCs here). Solicitors don't join the Bar Association, but rather the Law Society. Being a barrister is considered much more exclusive/sought after (pretty much all High Court judges will have been appointed QC/SC before their judicial appointment), but most lawyers are solicitors, doing all the grunt work; if you need probate or a contract drafted or something, you go to your local solicitor.

I think the division was from when courts were really a business, competing against each other for customers (i.e. litigants). A group called serjeants were given a monopoly on appearing before the Court of Common Pleas, and barristers appeared before the King's Bench, whilst solicitors were litigators in the courts of Chancery (equity), which didn't have advocacy in the same way. I guess these were kinda like guilds. When the courts of equity and law were merged, solicitors must not have been allowed to practice in the courts of law, so instead did the work of an attorney (i.e. everything but litigating). And equitable stuff they probably would've done anyway, like wills and trusts.

But the division isn't as strong as it once was, and most states in Australia not longer observe it. NSW (as the most legally traditional (conservative?) state in Australia) still has it, though.

 

[illram]

Crazy. I guess this is why my English barrister buddy always tells me how much disdain UK legal professionals have for American lawyers. Pass the bar and you can go argue before the Supreme Court if you want.

 

[ace99]

Does anyone know how Puerto Rico's law works exactly? They're part of the 3rd Circuit right or is that just the Virgin Islands? Is their legal system entirely independent of ours? How does this even overcome rational basis.

Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court on Wednesday voted 5-4 to ban gay couples from adopting children, with judges claiming that a child’s dignity, stability and well-being can only be ensured if raised in a “traditional” family.

The vote comes two days after 200,000 religious Christians held a rally against granting same-sex couples any sort of legal rights. As the largest anti-gay rally in the history of the US commonwealth, the gathering portrayed the immense opposition gay couples continue to face in Puerto Rico.

Although some lawmakers support granting gay couples with certain legal rights, many public figures remain starkly opposed to the idea. The Supreme Court decision came in response to a woman’s eight-year-long attempt to adopt a 12-year-old girl that her partner had given birth to through in vitro fertilization. Even though the woman’s girlfriend was the mother of the girl, the court upheld the constitutionality of a law that prohibits someone in a same-sex relationship from adopting the child.

“The state … does not have a constitutional obligation to award this relationship the same rights that other relationships have when it comes to adoption procedures,” read the majority’s opinion, which also added that children would only receive a good upbringing if raised by both a mother and father.

The Supreme Court majority also said that second-parent adoptions, which would allow same-sex couples to jointly adopt children, do not apply in Puerto Rico because US territory laws do not have a solution for that kind of a situation. The judges said that rather than take the issue to court, same-sex couples trying to adopt a child should instead ask legislators to change the law.

The court’s ruling prevents the 12-year-old girl from receiving the woman’s medical insurance and prevents the woman from gaining custody of the girl if her birth mother ever died. Because the girl has no legal ties to the woman who helped raise her, she is deprived from financial benefits that translate from parents to a child.

Chief Justice Federico Hernandez Denton, who voted against the ban, said the law is unconstitutional and that the plaintiff’s lawyer’s have successfully proven that the 12-year-old benefited from being raised by two women, AP reports.

“Both (women) have ideal emotional skills, intuition and protective instinct to guarantee the girl’s full and health development,” he wrote. “In addition, tests showed that (the girl) is mentally stable, does exceptionally well in school and gets along very well with children her age.”

But both the court and the territory remain divided about the idea of granting same-sex couples with legal rights. Protesters who rallied outside the Capitol on Monday denounced legislation that would protect same-sex couples from domestic violence and condemned legislation that would ban employment and housing discrimination based on someone’s sexual preference. The Supreme Court’s decision further demonstrates the wave of opposition gay couples face in the US territory that has not yet embraced the idea of homosexual relationships.

 

[BvBPL]

Puerto Rico is part of the First Circuit, not the Third.

They are subject to the US Constitution under 48 USC § 874. This statute also makes them US citizens.

Their local jurisdiction is partly civil law, partly common law, presumably in a manner not dissimilar from Louisiana.

They have their own constitution as well to which they are further subject.

All in all, it doesn't seem to be terribly dissimilar from any given state.

--

Is adoption, such as the issue Ace raised above, a strictly local issue that would not be heard by the Federal Courts?

--

Personally I think the split is a bit of an anachronism - there is no reason why a solicitor with a specalism in contract law shouldn't be able to represent a client directly in the High Court rather than whispering in the ear of a barrister.

That it is an anachronism may be right, but let's face it: you can't have everyone running around in wigs. If you had the whole of the legal profession wearing wigs it would be bedlam as you couldn't tell who is and who is not important.

The United States has an elegant solution for this in that we only give a wig to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Unfortunately, because she is so elven, it keeps falling off her head and gets stuck in her collar.

Spoiler :

 

[BvBPL]

Can somebody tell me what on Earth a "covenant to stand seised" is? Is it the same as a lease and release?

 

[PaxImperator]

Can somebody tell me what on Earth a "covenant to stand seised" is? Is it the same as a lease and release?

Black's Law Dictionary says:

Archaic. A covenant to convey land to a relative. This covenant could not be used to convey land to a stranger; the only consideration that supports the covenant is the relationship by blood or marriage.

I hope that helps.

 

[ace99]

Livery of seisin!!!!!! Blackacre!!!!!

Sorry that's all I remember from Property. Oh and feoffment.

Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog’s Supreme Court Challenge

Welcome to Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog’s Supreme Court Challenge! Do you have what it takes to beat Tom Goldstein’s expert team and win up to $5,000?

You and your teammates will use the first-class resources provided by Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog – including opinions, Supreme Court briefs, Justices’ profiles, and news – to perform research to make your predictions for merits cases and petitions for certiorari that will be considered by the Court in March 2013. View the required training videos to learn more about these resources, and visit Bloomberg Law for tips and tricks on how best to execute your research.

Prizes will be awarded to the three student teams with the most points as follows:

First prize is a minimum of $3,500, with an additional $1,500 awarded if your team also beats the experts at SCOTUSblog.
Second prize is $1,500, with an additional $1,000 if you beat the SCOTUSblog team.
Third prize is $1,000, with an additional $500 if you beat the SCOTUSblog team.

Teams of up to five students from the same law school can register by February 28, 2013 and submit their picks by March 14, 2013. See the competition rules for more details.

Good luck!

http://scotuscompetition.com/

 

[GoodGame]

Also can I clarify something here? Is there such a thing as undergraduate law taught at generalist universities in the United States? It seems from how Americans talk about it, that all law is taught as post-grad degrees at specific institutions?

Because I can think of nothing that would be less pleasant than having to be in an entire institution filled with nothing but law students.

Legal Studies at undergraduate level. Probably as useful as political science, but might be helpful to someone in another field who needs to be able to understand the legal process.

 

[GoodGame]

Does anyone know how Puerto Rico's law works exactly? They're part of the 3rd Circuit right or is that just the Virgin Islands? Is their legal system entirely independent of ours? How does this even overcome rational basis.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48/chapter-4
From what I read they mirror the US republic, but derive some of their law still from Spanish code.


All Puerto Ricans born after January 13, 1941 are guaranteed US Citizenship. The easiest option for someone in the noted story would be to move to a US state with more liberal laws.


An appeal for Puerto Rican law would go through First Circuit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit

e.g. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/05/court-won’t-hear-puerto-rico-appeal/

 

[ace99]

Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[Camikaze]

So I hear you USians don't have equity. After the initial disbelief, I guess it must work for you. But how much do you learn about, or encounter, equity? Is it treated as a historical footnote, or a substantive area of law?

 

[ace99]

You're talking about courts of law vs. courts of equity? Yeah we don't have that. I think it was mentioned in Property, Torts and Crim as a historical footnote.