Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm doing the JD/MBA at Stanford, though I was committed to Yale through like the end of June before the waitlisting at the GSB became an acceptance and I made the jump!
This seems super true. Here's my assessment of my courses:
Long term significant other. She'll be moving out here after I get one quarter under my belt. The 2Ls gave us a guide, call classmates "section incest" haha
1.1 Erie doctrine
Caveat: bang1Ls when you're a 3L. It's just too easy.
It is. If you learn civil procedure and the rules of evidence cold, you will virtually never lose a litigation job.
If you can win on procedure instead of arguing the merits, all the better. A strong grasp of civ pro can keep you pressing on the attack instead of reacting.
Civil procedure and the rules of evidence mean more than anything else in the practice of law as a litigator.
This. As a litigator, there is no stronger weapon than procedure.
Blech. Civ Pro was the most boring thing in law school.
Yea, but the stuff you learn in law school isn't usually state specific. 1L civ pro and Evidence are pretty broad strokes.
Oh, sure, but if you start feeling out early it'll come to you.
I stepped up my drinking in law school (which is saying something, since I tended bar before that). That's been very useful.
Are you kidding?
Hell, yes. Because most litigators hate it. It will probably surprise none of you I love to beat my opponents over the head with procedure.
Choice of law/comparative law issues, forum non conveniens, venue allowances, jurisdictional issues, etc. are more what we're talking about here.
My practice is almost exclusively federal court at this point and the jurisdictional stuff we learned in federal courts is basically material I use every day. Chemerinsky's federal jurisdiction treatise is easily accessible from my desk chair.
Yeah, I do a lot of maritime work and discrimination work and file all of it in federal court. Knowing procedure makes things a whole lot easier.
Here is a link from the state Dept of Workforce development site. https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/publication_erd_7609_p.htm#7Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Almost every state is an "at will" state, meaning you can hire or fire for any reason at all, with only limited exceptions (race, religion, gender, sexual preference, political beliefs, disabilities that you can accommodate, etc.). Even if there was an employment contract, almost every such contract I know contains a morals clause.
In Illinois the protection only extends to convictions that were sealed or expunged.
From the link I posted:
I guess what it boils down to is what does "substantially related" mean.
You did say convicted not pending. And in my state I can fire you if I don't like the shirt you are wearing today. So yeah pending, suspected, convicted no problem fire away. NC is a Right to Fire state sometimes misleadingly called Right to Work.
I did. He was right for Wisconsin--unless he hires social workers who deal with domestic violence issues. But Wisconsin law seems to be an outlier given the responses in here. It's not the law in Illinois. And it's not the law at the Federal level.
Agreed. Although I also think he was right that it could be cloaked in some work related reason.
