|
Looks like a new low for salaries for new lawyers. According to abovethelaw some firms may move to offers of salaries of negative $42,000 a year. http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/smu-will-pay-you-to-hire-their-graduates/
|
# ¿ May 14, 2010 21:21 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 17:37 |
|
GregNorc posted:haha, some people drink when they stressed about the future... I start looking at law schools. The closest he can get is probaly an extra hour in every exam he sits, if he spins it right.
|
# ¿ May 18, 2010 03:48 |
|
SWATJester posted:AHAHAHAHHA Got a B+ on that terrible rear end paper on whether avatars in MMORPGs should be afforded human rights protections. So what was your conclusion?
|
# ¿ May 19, 2010 09:06 |
|
I think the problem with doc review is you are doomed to not find anything better, at least with small law firms you might actually pick up on whatever area of law you are practicing and be able to move firms or go solo. You can't go solo in doc review and there aren't any better paying jobs in it either. You aren't even learning anything in doc review.
|
# ¿ May 24, 2010 07:12 |
|
Direwolf posted:I'm tired of the anti-Vulcan judicial activism on this court It sounds like you are a supporter of the so called Vulcan agenda.
|
# ¿ Nov 4, 2010 17:12 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 17:37 |
|
Linguica posted:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html The resembles a minor part does seem noteworthy. If you make a computer generated/photo realisim painting of a minor and it happens by chance to resemble any minor anywhere in the entire world that seems like it would be under the prohibition? It doesn't appear to have a requirement you knowingly intended for it to resemble a specific minor. Example of a photo-realisim painting: http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/tica.asp
|
# ¿ Jan 22, 2011 23:16 |