TheBryanJZX90
Member
Dunno about undergrad moot court but undergrad mock trial will prepare you for evidence class at least.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Law School & Lawyer GAF
- Thread starter SD-Ness
- Start date
Dunno about undergrad moot court but undergrad mock trial will prepare you for evidence class at least.
I think my prelaw society is putting together a mock trial team for the fall, which I'll do.
Jag
Member
Unless your mock trial professor played himself in the movie Goodfellas and spent the entire class talking about hanging out with De Niro rather than teaching trial tactics.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Oh but as for admissions, four years of mock trial as an undergraduate got a brief mention in the only law school interview I did. Didn't get into that school though. GPA and LSAT are all you need to worry about. Mock trial was still my favorite part of college.
Welcome to every trial ever now a days.
Just got back from a hearing on the a motion for summary judgment. Not sure how it went, but I just had a federal judge tell me it was the best written brief she's ever had submitted before her, so I'm expecting her to kill us.
Frank the Great
Banned
Passed my third bar exam (PA). I did NJ and NY last summer. Only 47 to go.
not . . . never doing this shit again
Congrats, man. 47 more and you can start teaching for BarBri.
Took a slight pay cut but...just got the news ill be joining state AG. Thought Id share since this thread help me with my past internship decisions and bar study. The past 9 months since taking the bar has been a rollercoaster of weird highs and really low lows. With all the benefits and experience (and most importantly, TRAINING!) that comes with the office, I decided it was better than staying at the bottom of the totem pole at a 20 attorney office.
That 6 months of training tho. Shit is a bit intimidating.
That 6 months of training tho. Shit is a bit intimidating.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
Her information's wrong, basically. Your relationship existed prior to her commissioning. Just consider the nontrivial number of people in relationships with one of them subsequently getting a commission. Don't make out in public, and you'll be fine.
And, they told her incorrectly about duty locations, too: in the AF, the JAG Corps does its own assignments; we don't go through as much bureaucracy as other functionals. So, if you're married mil-to-mil, the AF will do their damndest to station her somewhere near you. (I've even heard of this happening with long-term relationships, too. But it's more rare, admittedly.) For literally the first 6 years of her career, she's going to be completely fungible and geographically unhinged, meaning she can go anywhere.
TrueGrime
Member
Thanks for the heads up and that's for the reply. I appreciate it. This will be a huge weight off our shoulders. I was sort of sure that if he weren't all over each other in public in uniform that we should be alright.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Law School Admissions Question:
How much will my failed attempts at college 8-10 years ago inhibit my ability to get into a good law school after I finish my undergrad? When I was 18-20, I had a few attempts at higher learning that I am not so proud of. Now I am 28 and going into my junior year at my state's honors college, and I have maintained a 4.0 the entire time. As I understand it, the LSAC takes into account ALL past course work. Thus, despite my best efforts, I'll never have a high enough gpa for a good school.
How much will my failed attempts at college 8-10 years ago inhibit my ability to get into a good law school after I finish my undergrad? When I was 18-20, I had a few attempts at higher learning that I am not so proud of. Now I am 28 and going into my junior year at my state's honors college, and I have maintained a 4.0 the entire time. As I understand it, the LSAC takes into account ALL past course work. Thus, despite my best efforts, I'll never have a high enough gpa for a good school.
Frank the Great
Banned
Congrats dude. I interviewed with my state AG recently and am anxious to hear back. It really is one of the best places to start as a new attorney.
How likely is is that a good law school would accept such an explanation, assuming that you in the time since a period of poor academic performance you've maintained a good gpa and scored highly on the LSAT?
Awesome. I'm also joining a state AG in the coming weeks, whenever I get approval from the state civil service commission.
Byakuya769
Member
Fuck this bar application.
I don't know if it's the same in America, but in Canada almost all law schools have something called a discretionary category to take into factors like that.
I'd look into some schools you'd be interested in and see if they have something similar.
Frank the Great
Banned
I have an interview with my state's Public Defender office next week. Any tips, other than "don't join the PD"?
I have zero experience with criminal law, other than handling some motions to quash subpoenas during my current clerkship (I am in civil court but we hear motions to quash subpoenas in certain contexts . . . ie. Bridgegate).
I have zero experience with criminal law, other than handling some motions to quash subpoenas during my current clerkship (I am in civil court but we hear motions to quash subpoenas in certain contexts . . . ie. Bridgegate).
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
I only interned at the PD's office, so an actual, no-kidding PD could provide better information here, but from what I gleaned from the lifers was this: are you okay with providing zealous defense for people who are most likely guilty, and sometimes guilty of things worse than drug-related crimes? (I remember doing appellate defense work for a woman who literally doused her child in gasoline and set her on fire.) Moreover, are you okay with doing this for modest pay and without nearly the sort of resources the prosecution has? I don't even think you have to be enthusiastic about this -- as long as you're realistic, I think you'll be fine.
But the bottom line is this: if you want to avoid the unsavory element of criminal defense and only attempt to right wrongs, you'd be joining the Innocence Project, not the PD's office. It's absolutely important work, and prosecutorial misconduct exists, as does overcharging and leveraging the resources of the State to force defendants into guilty pleas... and it's also true that the breakdown of your work is going to depend on where you're located. My advice is to ask what the breakdown of offenses is and tell the PD's office that you're able to manage it.
Oh, and evidence suppression motions are going to be your bread and butter.
Along with responding to ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Frank the Great
Banned
Thanks for the great response. I have no qualms about the moral/ethical side of things. My attitude is that it's a job that needs to be done, and I might as well be the one to do it.
Also I get what you're saying about the distinction between organizations like the Innocent Project and the PD. I think I would use the PD job as a launching pad into either a non-profit group, or a county/state prosecutor job.
I will definitely ask what the breakdown of offenses is.
Unfortunately 3.4 really isn't that high, it's probably below average for applicants tbh.
I highly doubt schools would be persuaded by "I'm a bad test taker so my LSAT sucks" as a reason for overlooking the score.
On the other hand, IMO people who tell you you can't improve your LSAT score are probably mistaken. The LSAT is about reasoning, people can definitely learn how to reason better.
did she really give it her best effort? How long did she prepare for it? It's not uncommon to spend 5 months studying nothing but LSAT.
What materials was she using? It is very important to use only previously administered questions released by LSAC and not "mock" questions prepared by prep companies.
Was she using the "Bibles"? The Logic Games Bible was the most widely recommended prep book when I was prepping (2011) and the Logical Reasoning Bible was popular too.
Tell her to visit the LSAT Blog, she might find something useful there:
http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2010/05/5-month-lsat-study-guide-plan.html
Unfortunately, if she's dead set on going to law school she's going to have to find a way to improve her LSAT IMO.
How bad is "pretty bad"?
elrechazado
Banned
id say do join the pd, jump in with both feet and take advantage of the opportunity to do trial and courtroom work. In my experience, pd offices look for someone who can be a worker. Show you have a motor.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
In addition to asking "how bad is 'pretty bad'?" I'll also add that her undergraduate degree, combined with her GPA, isn't doing her any favors -- harsh to say, I know, and it's not a DQ for law school by any means, but it's probably going to keep her out of a first-tier school unless she retakes the LSATs and completely aces them.
The conversation that you and your wife need to have (because I'm assuming you have some element of jointness in your finances) is how much debt she's willing to incur for the prospect of attending a law school that correlates with the specific GPA and LSAT score she has. (That information you can find on various schools' websites.)
I don't want to immediately be Mr. Doom & Gloom here. It's very possible that she could attend a well-regarded school in her region, but the facts are, given what you've told us, she's likely not getting into a T1 school, which is going to limit her chances of employment down the line, depending on what she wants to do. No need to really go down this rabbit hole, but it's definitely a decision that you and she need to have before she spends another 3 years in school somewhere.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
Highly doubt it. Well -- maybe if the 3.4 is, for example, an Electrical Engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon or RIT. Not psychology. For instance, just for comparison's sake, here's Georgetown's breakdown:
And, here's something possibly within reach, the University of Pittsburgh (... it was in the top 40 when I went! Now it's plummeted to 81!):
The GPA and the degree choice are going to be major hurdles. It's also not going to do the applicant any favors when it comes time for merit-based scholarships. Even with Pitt, someone with a 3.4 in Psych is just at the median level.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
168/3.0 over 164/3.5 all day, e'ry day.
Pollux
Member
Sure as hell explains how I got into law school with a 2.7
I guess, from my experience, I'm just surprised that the median at Georgetown is 3.75/168. I would have guessed given that LSAT score the GPA would be lower.
Every point on that damn test matters a ton.
I know. You'd think they'd be able to spin some better bullshit than that.
To be fair, a law school exams are quite different than the LSAT.
If someone says that - for whatever reason - they are just bad at standardized testing but will be fine on law school exams, that's even worse. It presumes you're already going to be good at a kind of test you've never taken before. In many ways the LSAT is better (though not necessarily easier) in the sense that it's predictable and you have a very good sense as to how to prepare for it, and even better, you can usually predict your performance before you take the actual test. Not usually the case in law school.
Byakuya769
Member
I wish law school exams were like the LSAT instead of the arcane magic that they are.
The subjectivity and whim of the professor is what drove me nuts, personally.
I vividly remember a Property professor reviewing my exam with me and noting that the best exams hit on X, Y, and Z in the big issue-spotter question. He said I hadn't done so, which was why I hadn't gotten the grade I wanted. I proceeded to point out the paragraphs -- clearly labeled with headings noting what I was going to discuss in the next 5 sentences -- that showed where I hit on those precise points.
His response? "Oh I missed that... well you know, there's so many tests to review and sometimes those nights run long!"
Man that was a brutal day. I'm certain these things worked in my favor in other instances I didn't know about, but I wish I hadn't met with that guy and learned his approach.
Byakuya769
Member
Damn. I believe it though. Presentation over substance. Law professors are the laziest professors in the world.
Yep. He was an impossibly nice grandfather sort of professor. Loved to tell stories that helped illuminate the material. Absent-minded and aloof more than lazy, but all the same. Still blows my mind that he was a former dean.
A shame because that one day was the reason I had such a dismal view of law school throughout 2L and early 3L.
Jag
Member
Well that pretty much gets you ready for dealing with Judges at least. That's also one reason I left litigation.
Frank the Great
Banned
I did pretty good on the interview with the Public Defender. The guy said that even though I had zero criminal background, he is giving me a shot because the judge I am clerking for has a great reputation.
I have a follow-up in a couple of weeks. I was given a hypothetical fact pattern describing the facts of an apparent murder case, and I need to go before a panel of PDs (including *the* Public Defender, the head of the state agency) and answer questions about my strategy in terms of investigation, pretrial motions, and trial, assuming I were to represent the defendant. I then need to give a closing argument pretending the panel is a jury.
I am nervous as shit about this because I don't know the first thing about criminal law. Also, my interviewer said that he has already interviewed about 20 law clerks, all of whom worked in criminal court. Luckily Lexis has a criminal practice manual for my state, time to do some learning.
I have a follow-up in a couple of weeks. I was given a hypothetical fact pattern describing the facts of an apparent murder case, and I need to go before a panel of PDs (including *the* Public Defender, the head of the state agency) and answer questions about my strategy in terms of investigation, pretrial motions, and trial, assuming I were to represent the defendant. I then need to give a closing argument pretending the panel is a jury.
I am nervous as shit about this because I don't know the first thing about criminal law. Also, my interviewer said that he has already interviewed about 20 law clerks, all of whom worked in criminal court. Luckily Lexis has a criminal practice manual for my state, time to do some learning.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
Feel free to discuss strategy here. I've been a prosecutor for 6 years and I've encountered some top-notch defense attorneys. Unless they've specifically said "don't talk to anyone else about this interview," then leverage whatever resources you have -- the advantage of working with other attorneys is the right to bounce ideas off of other people. And here's the thing: the other 20 law clerks don't know shit about this either... because they've never done it. You're on the same footing. The actual practice of criminal law is blissfully simple in theory; the art's in the execution.
I'm guessing the interview is confined to strategy, motions to suppress evidence, and how you'll cross the state's witnesses and whether your client will take the stand?
SouSouRocket
Member
My friend failed the bar a second time. I don't know what to think or say to her, I know nothing I say will help but... fuck. 
I'm crushed for her.
These appointed cases are stressing me out, I'm glad to have work but I feel nervous that I'm not defending my clients well enough. Like these are custody cases, but they can't have their kids back at the moment and it might end up that they can't at all. And I guess as I'm writing this out I'm realizing it's not so much my job to make the impossible happen and reunite them as it is to make sure I've done what I could and protected their interests as best I can... but it still sucks. I feel like I would be happier doing GAL work because I get to be neutral and just advocate for the best interest of the child... but there is absolutely no way I would be comfortable doing home visits so that rules it out. Unless I had like a body guard or a hazmat suit.. XD but I've started considering it because I feel like with this kind of work it just feels better.
I'm crushed for her. These appointed cases are stressing me out, I'm glad to have work but I feel nervous that I'm not defending my clients well enough. Like these are custody cases, but they can't have their kids back at the moment and it might end up that they can't at all. And I guess as I'm writing this out I'm realizing it's not so much my job to make the impossible happen and reunite them as it is to make sure I've done what I could and protected their interests as best I can... but it still sucks. I feel like I would be happier doing GAL work because I get to be neutral and just advocate for the best interest of the child... but there is absolutely no way I would be comfortable doing home visits so that rules it out. Unless I had like a body guard or a hazmat suit.. XD but I've started considering it because I feel like with this kind of work it just feels better.
Can any Canadian attorneys explain why an attorney would wait to file a case until either (1) their client has been cut off from benefits from their insurance or (2) the statute of limitations is about to be blown? I understand that you want to wait a certain amount of time to fully appreciate their injuries. However, the client has no financial resources to speak of. See this thread for more information:http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=809452&page=100000#footer
I don't understand it at all.
I don't understand it at all.
ZackieChan
Member
My friend failed the bar a second time. I don't know what to think or say to her, I know nothing I say will help but... fuck.
These appointed cases are stressing me out, I'm glad to have work but I feel nervous that I'm not defending my clients well enough. Like these are custody cases, but they can't have their kids back at the moment and it might end up that they can't at all. And I guess as I'm writing this out I'm realizing it's not so much my job to make the impossible happen and reunite them as it is to make sure I've done what I could and protected their interests as best I can... but it still sucks. I feel like I would be happier doing GAL work because I get to be neutral and just advocate for the best interest of the child... but there is absolutely no way I would be comfortable doing home visits so that rules it out. Unless I had like a body guard or a hazmat suit.. XD but I've started considering it because I feel like with this kind of work it just feels better.
Stuff like this is why I went into transactional and IP law. Watch out for compassion fatigue and burnout, though. That stuff can be serious.
Similar threads
- Locked