Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Toona the Cat
Jun 9, 2004

The Greatest


Law school was a blast, OP. But dear G-d find something else to spend money on.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pinky Artichoke
Apr 10, 2011

Dinner has blossomed.

Zero VGS posted:

I read that awesome first post and thoroughly enjoyed it. Theoretically, if someone were in their late 30's and independently wealthy/retired (from being gay and doing crime), and had no interest in working at a law firm, would it be worth going to law school for:

I basically did what you're contemplating. I think I spent $80-85k. It was fine I guess. The part in person before the pandemic was promising but Zoom School of Law was real bad. Some of the course content is interesting but a lot of it will depend on your professors. Anything you imagine about discussing interesting bits of the law with engaged classmates and professors probably won't happen. It's also pretty jarring as an established adult to go into such a structured and frankly infantilizing environment.

If you don't have your heart set on a JD but want to pay money to learn about law in a structured setting, there are masters programs. The degree is not useful in any way but the classes cost a lot less even if you are physically in the same room with law students. Lawyers will try to talk you out of it (so there actually *is* something they recommend less than actual law school) because it really is so very useless but if you're just looking for personal enrichment, learning to be a better legal customer, etc. it might be a better deal.

SlyFrog
May 16, 2007

KAWAIIII~~~


There was nothing about law school that made it particularly enjoyable.

School may be enjoyable, but I mean, for that, as nm mentioned, you just go to college (assuming money and time were no object).

Like, why would you want to go sit through a first year corporations or torts course (if you had no need for money or a career) when you could study something like, I don't know, viking sagas or some poo poo like that. And it's not just because of the content, it's because of the stupid ways law school teaches things (and the way the law works). Reading loving cases from 1823 in order to sort of half piece together what the law is. Others here have said, law school will not teach you law. It will teach you a bunch of masturbatory poo poo about "learning to read cases" and "learning to think." All of which, in my experience, is done much better at a high tier college.

This guy (William Ian Miller, and also here) taught my favorite courses at law school. There's a reason for that - if you look at what he's actually interested in and teaches there, it has very little to do with the law.

SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 20, 2021

Grip it and rip it
Apr 28, 2020


If you are a criminal you would probably be better served by learning about an adjacent industry that would help you better conceal your enterprise, whatever that is. Law. School is loving full of snitches and haters of every stripe (including future prosecutors). Also the practical knowledge you gain would be negligible compared to taking some civil rights seminar or doing a bit of personal research. JDs are for the purpose of getting a law license and are priced as such.

Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Aug 20, 2021

Pinky Artichoke
Apr 10, 2011

Dinner has blossomed.

SlyFrog posted:

Like, why would you want to go sit through a first year corporations or torts course (if you had no need for money or a career) when you could study something like, I don't know, viking sagas or some poo poo like that. And it's not just because of the content, it's because of the stupid ways law school teaches things (and the way the law works). Reading loving cases from 1823 in order to sort of half piece together what the law is. Others here have said, law school will not teach you law. It will teach you a bunch of masturbatory poo poo about "learning to read cases" and "learning to think." All of which, in my experience, is done much better at a high tier college.

A well-edited casebook can be really interesting reading. But it's bullshit that the 1L curriculum is basically frozen in 1890. Unfortunately, unless HYS blow it up no lower-ranked law school is ever going to make real changes. The height of daring curriculum reform even in the T14 seems to be just making property optional.

Several of my wife-of-tech-douche/profitably-divorced-from-tech-douche friends went to community college for various things while I was in law school and that did sound lower stress and more entertaining. I don't think I personally would enjoy learning to teach kids to paint or whatever as much as I enjoyed my law school electives, so it wasn't the right direction for me.

homullus
Mar 27, 2009



Pinky Artichoke posted:

A well-edited casebook can be really interesting reading. But it's bullshit that the 1L curriculum is basically frozen in 1890. Unfortunately, unless HYS blow it up no lower-ranked law school is ever going to make real changes. The height of daring curriculum reform even in the T14 seems to be just making property optional.

The dean back then who brought you the now-fossilized 1L curriculum actually edited a casebook himself eventually, and most of the cases he picked were already decades old and British rather than American.

I don't know whether casebooks are still vital. My 1L casebooks were all good reads, with good discussion before and good questions after the selections. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law casebook was excellent. Other casebooks, however, appeared to excerpt cases just because the 1L curriculum does so, choosing passages that were a page or more but merely stated the law without discussion, where a paragraph doing the same would have been a better use of paper. Casebooks don't do a great job of teaching you to read full length opinions, but with the volume of foundational material in a fossilized 1L course (usually now a semester to cover content that used to be done in a year), it would be a steep climb for new law school students to read and understand all those cases in full. Casebooks are left as a dissatisfying middle ground for the current doctrine-heavy set of 1L subjects.

The daring curricular reform that could finally shake things up is the overhaul of the bar exam. If that changes (and sticks because lawyers are satisfied with it), I expect a lot of law schools to change with it, because of the emphasis on a school's bar passage rate.

Vox Nihili
May 28, 2008



CA Lawgoon alert!

https://twitter.com/veenadubal/status/1428873686212173826

SlyFrog
May 16, 2007

KAWAIIII~~~


Pinky Artichoke posted:

A well-edited casebook can be really interesting reading.

Not nearly as interesting as Icelandic warriors cutting off heads and writing sagas about it. There's a reason that legal entertainment in movies and television barely covers the actual law, and is far more about personalities and gruesome murders.

Meanwhile, there's literally a show about Vikings cutting off heads, loving other Vikings, and similar things. Like, that's the show.

In conclusion, Vikings cutting off heads is metal as gently caress and awesome. Jerking yourself off to the rule in Shelley's Case is just sad.

SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Aug 21, 2021

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008



Ultra Carp

Disagree, vikings are loving lame.

SlyFrog
May 16, 2007

KAWAIIII~~~


Nice piece of fish posted:

Disagree, vikings are loving lame.

You're just jelly they didn't call you Fish the Boneless

Abugadu
Jul 11, 2004

1st Sgt. Matthews and the men have Procured for me a cummerbund from a traveling gypsy, who screeched Victory shall come at a Terrible price. i am Honored.

Just take the Blood Feuds class at Michigan.

Soothing Vapors
Mar 26, 2006

Associate Justice Lena "Kegels" Dunham: An uncool thought to have: 'is that guy walking in the dark behind me a rapist? Never mind, he's Asian.

he's running

https://twitter.com/Law360/status/1430232201933860864?s=20

Pook Good Mook
Aug 6, 2013



I understand why the mistrial was granted, but you have to be pretty loving confident in your defense to give the DOJ another crack at a case after they've seen your strategy and you've pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimony.

BigHead
Jul 25, 2003
Huh?

Nap Ghost


DOJ screwed by taint team review procedures? Yikes. Internal taint team procedures do not trump discovery rules, unless you have a judge regulating discovery. The DOJ intentionally withholding discovery has harmed them many times in the past and likely will again in the future.

Nice piece of fish
Jan 29, 2008



Ultra Carp

Good? I mean, gently caress the justice department of any given country. Bunch of pricks.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!



Morbid Hound

Pook Good Mook posted:

I understand why the mistrial was granted, but you have to be pretty loving confident in your defense to give the DOJ another crack at a case after they've seen your strategy and you've pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimony.

You generally have to be somewhat insane to take the doj to trial period.

street doc
Feb 20, 2019



Can a patent lawyer file patents for themselves? I’ve read that most patents ultimately cost around 100k or more.

BigHead
Jul 25, 2003
Huh?

Nap Ghost

Presumably the patent lawyer's parents have already patented him or her. But if they haven't, sure.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

street doc posted:

Can a patent lawyer file patents for themselves? I’ve read that most patents ultimately cost around 100k or more.

Yes, and some do (usually trolls.). That’d be a pricy patent - unless it’s a biotech/drug patent, I’d estimate 6000-10000 to file it, and then total cost would depend on how many rounds you go at the PTO, but 20k should do it in most cases (including both attorney’s fees and PTO fees.). Price obviously goes up with complexity and if you’re doing foreign filings.

TheWordOfTheDayIs
Nov 9, 2009

Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

Do any of you have experience with opposing counsel hiring a "journalist" to write a negative article designed to poison public opinion against your client? Not suggesting that it's illegal, but I'm wondering what's the best way to gather evidence that would tend to demonstrate that type of relationship.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Do any of you have experience with opposing counsel hiring a "journalist" to write a negative article designed to poison public opinion against your client? Not suggesting that it's illegal, but I'm wondering what's the best way to gather evidence that would tend to demonstrate that type of relationship.

In the civil context, yes. But the decision was that trying to make it an issue in the case would Streisand it and we were better off ignoring it.

TheWordOfTheDayIs
Nov 9, 2009

Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

Kalman posted:

In the civil context, yes. But the decision was that trying to make it an issue in the case would Streisand it and we were better off ignoring it.

That may ultimately be the case for me as well. However, it's kind of a repeating pattern with this particular attorney, and I feel like it wouldn't be a bad idea to collect evidence should one of these articles actually gather lots of attention or be introduced as evidence in court.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

That may ultimately be the case for me as well. However, it's kind of a repeating pattern with this particular attorney, and I feel like it wouldn't be a bad idea to collect evidence should one of these articles actually gather lots of attention or be introduced as evidence in court.

for what?

the issue for a judge would be if he's leaking information protected by a court order - i.e. documents obtained in discovery subject to a court order. there's not anything wrong i can think of with what you're suggesting short of alleging a deliberate effort to taint a jury pool, which isn't his goal (assuming this is a civil case) - it's to put pressure on the other side to settle.

TheWordOfTheDayIs
Nov 9, 2009

Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

evilweasel posted:

for what?

the issue for a judge would be if he's leaking information protected by a court order - i.e. documents obtained in discovery subject to a court order. there's not anything wrong i can think of with what you're suggesting short of alleging a deliberate effort to taint a jury pool, which isn't his goal (assuming this is a civil case) - it's to put pressure on the other side to settle.

Tainting a jury pool is practically the only reason to do this, as well as to confuse the issues and proliferate false factual claims. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that it's illegal. However, it might be useful (not in all cases, but in some) to have the ability to demonstrate the mechanics of this sleazy practice with actual evidence. Evidence that a party or their attorney has actively engaged in attempts to mislead or distort the truth are often good fodder for cross-examination, if the evidence is strong enough.

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Do any of you have experience with opposing counsel hiring a "journalist" to write a negative article designed to poison public opinion against your client? Not suggesting that it's illegal, but I'm wondering what's the best way to gather evidence that would tend to demonstrate that type of relationship.

quote:

3.6
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Tainting a jury pool is practically the only reason to do this, as well as to confuse the issues and proliferate false factual claims. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that it's illegal. However, it might be useful (not in all cases, but in some) to have the ability to demonstrate the mechanics of this sleazy practice with actual evidence. Evidence that a party or their attorney has actively engaged in attempts to mislead or distort the truth are often good fodder for cross-examination, if the evidence is strong enough.

that is absolutely not true

the primary reason to leak damaging stories about the other side that are rather transparently sourced to you is to pressure the other side to settle, so that news stories about that sort of thing stop. keeping damaging info or claims under wraps is a big incentive to settle litigation claims in many cases.

Kalman
Jan 17, 2010

USPOL May

evilweasel posted:

that is absolutely not true

the primary reason to leak damaging stories about the other side that are rather transparently sourced to you is to pressure the other side to settle, so that news stories about that sort of thing stop. keeping damaging info or claims under wraps is a big incentive to settle litigation claims in many cases.

That and in some cases to use it as the wedge for a public policy argument you want to make for legislation - “look at this terrible loving case, legislator, you should pass a law to prevent this kind of thing.” (That’s typically where I’ve seen it.)

TheWordOfTheDayIs
Nov 9, 2009

Blessed with an unmatched sense of direction

evilweasel posted:

that is absolutely not true

the primary reason to leak damaging stories about the other side that are rather transparently sourced to you is to pressure the other side to settle, so that news stories about that sort of thing stop. keeping damaging info or claims under wraps is a big incentive to settle litigation claims in many cases.

Wow, I guess I unintentionally struck a nerve! How an actual situation on my desk (to you, a hypothetical I suppose) involving a falsehood-fueled, pay-for-print hit piece evolved in your mind to a "leak" of "transparently sourced," "damaging stories" has given me a little mental whiplash. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, but this discussion isn't even related to my initial question. I suppose it was my mistake to ask in the first place.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Wow, I guess I unintentionally struck a nerve! How an actual situation on my desk (to you, a hypothetical I suppose) involving a falsehood-fueled, pay-for-print hit piece evolved in your mind to a "leak" of "transparently sourced," "damaging stories" has given me a little mental whiplash. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, but this discussion isn't even related to my initial question. I suppose it was my mistake to ask in the first place.

uh why would that "strike a nerve" with me. you were just wrong. leaking stories to try to poison a jury pool in a litigation is a crazy idea (not least, because very few of those cases go to a jury instead of settling in advance). leaking stories to put pressure on someone to settle so that they don't suffer further damage to their reputation (justified or not) is pretty common.

if you are assembling a file with the idea of going to a judge about the opposing lawyer talking to the press, you are going to want to understand what is the judge's problem (leaking stuff he ordered be kept confidential) and what is not at all his problem, except making sure you never waste his time about again (that the opposing lawyer is talking to the press off the record)

that's your primary issue: aside from the high likelihood you just look crazy, the real issue is the judge saying "so what, why on earth are you trying to make this my problem"

gvibes
Jan 18, 2010

Leading us to the promised land (i.e., one tournament win in five years)

evilweasel posted:

for what?

the issue for a judge would be if he's leaking information protected by a court order - i.e. documents obtained in discovery subject to a court order. there's not anything wrong i can think of with what you're suggesting short of alleging a deliberate effort to taint a jury pool, which isn't his goal (assuming this is a civil case) - it's to put pressure on the other side to settle.
If they are trying to use the article they planted as evidence, then there is another potential reason it is relevant, to undermine the neutrality of that evidence.

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



gvibes posted:

If they are trying to use the article they planted as evidence, then there is another potential reason it is relevant, to undermine the neutrality of that evidence.

i mean the first and foremost problem there, one that will be hard to get over if the facts it claims are disputed, is that an article is hearsay

Arcturas
Mar 30, 2011



If you want to make a fuss about a lawyer or opposing party talking to the press, make sure you also look into the relevant privileges in your state. In some states (California? or is California backwards from this. I forget) disclosing your complaint to the press, or even issuing a press release about the case, is protected by the litigation privilege even if the complaint or press release contains defamatory statements that you can prove caused a competitive injury.

Toona the Cat
Jun 9, 2004

The Greatest


Snitchin' Randy living up to his name.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007






So for NY practicioners what CLE bundle for experienced attys would you recommend? This doesn't seem too crazy and some of the subjects actually look interesting: https://www.barristerscle.com/online-cle/ondemand/bundles/details/2149/

Ur Getting Fatter
Jun 9, 2007

Fast Food Fight



Grimey Drawer

What happened to the bitcoin millionaire that wanted to become a lawyer instead of loving off to an island for a few years?

MazelTovCocktail
Jun 23, 2012

Gritty's gonna cut you.


Shageletic posted:

So for NY practicioners what CLE bundle for experienced attys would you recommend? This doesn't seem too crazy and some of the subjects actually look interesting: https://www.barristerscle.com/online-cle/ondemand/bundles/details/2149/

The cheapest one! They also have an unlimited option if you have multiple states.

https://www.attorneycredits.com/

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007






MazelTovCocktail posted:

The cheapest one! They also have an unlimited option if you have multiple states.

https://www.attorneycredits.com/

Tight!

Vox Nihili
May 28, 2008



TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:

Wow, I guess I unintentionally struck a nerve! How an actual situation on my desk (to you, a hypothetical I suppose) involving a falsehood-fueled, pay-for-print hit piece evolved in your mind to a "leak" of "transparently sourced," "damaging stories" has given me a little mental whiplash. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, but this discussion isn't even related to my initial question. I suppose it was my mistake to ask in the first place.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

You're talking to a defense side corporate litigator, I very much doubt you "struck a nerve" there.

Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Sep 15, 2021

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



oh i actually see what i wrote that set him off

when i said "transparently sourced" i think he thought i meant "oh the sourcing is so transparent and credible you must have done something bad" not "the other side's lawyer deliberately left his fingerprints on it so you would know who to pay off to stop the stories in the future, regardless of if they're true or false" which is what i meant.

like it does the mob no good if you think your store actually just got really unlucky in how it burned down the day after you refused to buy fire protection from big vinny.

and yeah there's a thin line between litigation and extortion at times but at the end of the day, the point of those stories is to put pressure on you to settle, not to poison the jury pool this guy never wants to see either

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

evilweasel
Aug 24, 2002



MazelTovCocktail posted:

The cheapest one! They also have an unlimited option if you have multiple states.

https://www.attorneycredits.com/

above pure cost is to have an audible "YOU GOTTA CLICK HERE" prompt that is effective at redirecting your attention from what it is you were actually doing to complete the "yes, i definitely was paying attention to this insanely boring video and noticed this button that asked me to press it, not tabbed over from real work/fake work/netflix/video games"

that is the most important feature

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply