Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
They forgot to say that the proviso shielding certain clauses from amendment can't be amended.B-Deep said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
Thanks y'all! Will focus time on more relevant activities.
-fish-
Footballguy
Well this should be fun. I have a trial on October 13. Mandatory mediation today. My client is a corporation, and I have exactly 0 representatives of the Board of Directors present. The defendant is a contractor, and neither he nor the insurance adjuster is present.
So it's me, opposing counsel (with supposedly no settlement authority) and a mediator.
So it's me, opposing counsel (with supposedly no settlement authority) and a mediator.
-fish-
Footballguy
good god. the mediator just participated in a conference call with my clients, where we pretty much established that I don't have a single credible witness. I'm also 90% sure that there will be no money offered today, and that the defense is only here because you have to tell the court you participated in ADR before trial.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You know how they say you can't hit a home run at mediation? Totally untrue, apparently.
T Bell
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You know what suck donkey ****? Fee Petitions in LHWCA cases.
Instinctive
Footballguy
So I'm over a month in. I have not taken on a pro bono project, thought it seems roughly 80% of the 1Ls do. Instead, I'm hoping to do bluebook grunt work for 2 journals rather than 1. I haven't missed class, but I have missed 1 bar review. We had a midterm Torts exam (purely practice), which we then went over in class. I did not do well. Fortunately, it has cleared up a lot of issues with that specific professor as to how she wants an issue spotter exam answer to look like. I also hadn't outlined at all, so was trying to flip through notes and casebooks within the time limit and missed a couple important references. Since then, I have started a group with a couple others to outline and put together a list of every case this prof has had us study with 2 bullets: Fact(s) to remember it by and the reason it matters for Tort law. Any outlining tips, for Torts/Crim/CivPro/Contracts would certainly be welcome from those of you who have done this before.
I know it's only been a month, but I think it has begun to crystallize some of my uncertainty about career goals in some ways, although it has muddied the waters in others. Part of that crystallization is to stop worrying about it right now and let the year go where it goes with a focus on class and getting to know everyone. The other part is to always remind myself I have A) an extra year, and B) b-school time and resources still to come.
It's hard to grasp why some of the principles in CivPro matter. We have basically only been doing jurisdiction so far, though we spent some time on Rule 4 for process last week, and we read a recent case called Daimler. Basics: some argentinians got kidnapped and murdered in Argentina in the 70s by the Argentinian company Mercedes Benz. Daimler is the parent company, which owns MB, and is based in Germany. Neither have any true contact with California. None of the plaintiffs have any connection whatsoever to California.
And yet they sued Daimler in California by way of Mercedes Benz-USA, which has around 2% of Daimler's total sales in California (it's a subsidiary that Daimler has ownership in, but it is "wholly independent"). Sure, there's a little basis there to get at Daimler in the reasonable world, perhaps, if a car blew up in California that was made by MB-USA. You could make a specific jdx argument.
But who the #### actually thought the Argentinians would get general jdx over Daimler this way, in California??? A completely unrelated forum. Of course, it went to SCOTUS and there was a unanimous decision that it would be insane to give general jdx to California courts here. So they rule no jdx and move on with their lives. Now, SCOTUS argued a bit (one, one justice concurrence) about why there's no jdx...but the bottom line was nobody actually thought it should be there, it was obvious there shouldn't be any, and, lo and behold, there isn't.
/rant
Other things are great though. Class is challenging but not incredibly difficult. I feel like I get what professors are trying to say most of the time, even in CivPro. I even feel like I get the rationale for things (sometimes I think it's a stupid rationale, but precedent and all so I get why...) and have stayed on top of my reading without too much trouble or late nights (I do get up super early though, especially for not starting class til 9:45). Starting to get to know professors a little bit too, which is nice.
Anyway, there's a little bit of frustrations wrapped in some general good feelings about the law school experience 1/3 of the way through the first quarter of 1L year. HAHAHA.
I know it's only been a month, but I think it has begun to crystallize some of my uncertainty about career goals in some ways, although it has muddied the waters in others. Part of that crystallization is to stop worrying about it right now and let the year go where it goes with a focus on class and getting to know everyone. The other part is to always remind myself I have A) an extra year, and B) b-school time and resources still to come.
It's hard to grasp why some of the principles in CivPro matter. We have basically only been doing jurisdiction so far, though we spent some time on Rule 4 for process last week, and we read a recent case called Daimler. Basics: some argentinians got kidnapped and murdered in Argentina in the 70s by the Argentinian company Mercedes Benz. Daimler is the parent company, which owns MB, and is based in Germany. Neither have any true contact with California. None of the plaintiffs have any connection whatsoever to California.
And yet they sued Daimler in California by way of Mercedes Benz-USA, which has around 2% of Daimler's total sales in California (it's a subsidiary that Daimler has ownership in, but it is "wholly independent"). Sure, there's a little basis there to get at Daimler in the reasonable world, perhaps, if a car blew up in California that was made by MB-USA. You could make a specific jdx argument.
But who the #### actually thought the Argentinians would get general jdx over Daimler this way, in California??? A completely unrelated forum. Of course, it went to SCOTUS and there was a unanimous decision that it would be insane to give general jdx to California courts here. So they rule no jdx and move on with their lives. Now, SCOTUS argued a bit (one, one justice concurrence) about why there's no jdx...but the bottom line was nobody actually thought it should be there, it was obvious there shouldn't be any, and, lo and behold, there isn't.
/rant
Other things are great though. Class is challenging but not incredibly difficult. I feel like I get what professors are trying to say most of the time, even in CivPro. I even feel like I get the rationale for things (sometimes I think it's a stupid rationale, but precedent and all so I get why...) and have stayed on top of my reading without too much trouble or late nights (I do get up super early though, especially for not starting class til 9:45). Starting to get to know professors a little bit too, which is nice.
Anyway, there's a little bit of frustrations wrapped in some general good feelings about the law school experience 1/3 of the way through the first quarter of 1L year. HAHAHA.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I love hearing law students talk about new cases.
"Of course they ruled..."
You've been taught jurisdiction from the perspective of someone who already had read this opinion. Daimler represents an interesting (and, in my opinion, long overdue) determination of where we can finally say "no, we can't go that far for jurisdiction over a corporation." It's especially interesting that it was 9-0. There was some legitimate concern over that case.
"Of course they ruled..."
You've been taught jurisdiction from the perspective of someone who already had read this opinion. Daimler represents an interesting (and, in my opinion, long overdue) determination of where we can finally say "no, we can't go that far for jurisdiction over a corporation." It's especially interesting that it was 9-0. There was some legitimate concern over that case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Your face is so stupid.
Does "bar review" mean going out drinking? That's what it meant when I was in law school. Please tell me you're not studying for the bar already. That's for after graduation.
Discerning what a given professor will consider a good answer is an important skill to develop. Some professors understand both sides of an issue and will give you full credit for identifying the issue, identifying the cases (along with their holdings) that are relevant to it, and analyzing it in terms of those holdings, with maybe a bit of public policy, no matter what conclusion you ultimately draw. Other professors are ideologues who will give you full credit only if your conclusion is the one they personally favor. You have to know which professors are in which category and draft your answers accordingly. With the first sort of professor, draw the conclusion that you think is correct, because that's the one you'll be better able to support. With the second sort, go ahead and channel Karl Marx or Adam Smith, as appropriate, for a couple hours during your exam.
Everyone learns in different ways. I never found much value in outlining cases. I benefited from reading the cases, and from reading treatises or commercial outlines; but to write outlines myself just seemed like so much busywork. I was better off spending that time rereading the cases instead.
You need to do what works for you, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
krista4
Footballguy
on every front. I assume bar review means drinking, too.I also never outlined, but some others did exactly what Instinctive is doing in terms of outline groups, and that was what worked for them. He'll get into his groove of how best he can learn the materials.
And I can't agree enough with the part about learning what each professor is like and how they will want you to address an exam. It's really more important than knowing the materials!
Instinctive
Footballguy
Bar review = "reviewing" a different Palo Alto bar every Thursday night. With all the other law students who go. Aka Uber or Lyft to a bar after pregaming, drink more at bar, then Uber or Lyft home.
Fat Nick
Footballguy
FBG Legal Guys...I'm trying to find some case information from Fairfax VA Circuit Court. They don't seem to have an on-line court data base that I can find as they don't participate in the same site as most other VA counties. Does anybody have access to court records/case information? If so, PM me for details. Appreciate the help.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
In many cases, you can call the court clerk and ask them to send you docs. I did that a few weeks ago for a case pending in state court in Western Michigan and they emailed me the exact docs I wanted within 30 minutes or so at no charge. It helps to have the case number and know generally what you are looking for.Fat Nick said:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I do think your expectation should be that you're going to do almost no flipping through stuff during the exams, there just isn't enough time. I went into exams with a single piece of paper on which I had written the most important stuff. That was typically the only thing I looked at even though the exams were open book.
I also never outlined, but some others did exactly what Instinctive is doing in terms of outline groups, and that was what worked for them. He'll get into his groove of how best he can learn the materials.
And I can't agree enough with the part about learning what each professor is like and how they will want you to address an exam. It's really more important than knowing the materials!
Fat Nick
Footballguy
So I have the case number from General District Court where it was "certified to grand jury," but then it says to "See Circuit Court Case Information." Would the case number be the same across courts?
Can just anyone call for this info or do you have to have a reason? FWIW, I'm just being nosy here. Someone I keep tabs on was recently convicted of embezzlement. I keep a "file" on him just in case he ever tries to start ####, and I'm curiuos what his sentence/punishment was in this case.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
In most cases, its all part of a public record that everyone has a right to see. In some rare cases, the court puts protections on some docs, but that's not the norm. I would just call the clerk and see what they say. For some courts, they'll refer you to a local copy service which will charge a fee to copy and ship docs, but many state courts will pull the docs you want and email them to you.
Gawain
Footballguy
God bless you if you can do that in Civ Pro. I found myself doing what Fat Guy said for all exams with no word limits. I'd just word vomit until there were 15 minutes left then go back and edit. For exams with word limits, there's more time to tighten up your writing and make sure your reasoning is concrete and having tabs helps. I did better on exams without word limits.I do think your expectation should be that you're going to do almost no flipping through stuff during the exams, there just isn't enough time. I went into exams with a single piece of paper on which I had written the most important stuff. That was typically the only thing I looked at even though the exams were open book.
I also never outlined, but some others did exactly what Instinctive is doing in terms of outline groups, and that was what worked for them. He'll get into his groove of how best he can learn the materials.
And I can't agree enough with the part about learning what each professor is like and how they will want you to address an exam. It's really more important than knowing the materials!
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
njherdfan
Footballguy
All of this is good advice, but the bold is REALLY good advice. So far in my career I've had a Crim Pro professor who wrote extensively about how cell phones shouldn't be able to be searched without a warrant subsequent to an arrest, and I had a Con Law professor who argued INS v. Chadha. Both of their finals involved "hypotheticals" that asked us to analyze the issues present in those cases. Some people might have wanted to be contrarian by disagreeing with what the professor had written in the past, but I don't think that was a good idea. Your professors will all probably have been published on the subject they're teaching. I'd recommend looking up what they've written, because it will really help you understand what they want you to say on their final.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I did well on law school exams and I never tailored my answers to my professor's politics. And I found a pretty healthy split between Fed Soc and liberal types on law review. Maybe the Fed Soc types tailored their responses, but I doubt it. In my experience, most fact patterns are designed to see if you can correctly define and delineate where the ambiguities are.
I'm another who doesn't see much value in outlining cases. I didn't mark up cases in my books either. I didn't see the point. I just read the cases and thought about them a bit. When it was time to study for exams, I used a decent commercial outline (and by the time I was a 2L the law review's outline bank). I did find that for those exams that allowed an outline, I preferred to work off a small outline that I had heavily condensed. Most of what I wanted an outline for was to remember case names or, at most, to remember the exact prongs of a legal test.
Maurile once gave what I consider to be excellent advice for exams (and even for briefs), which is that its hard to be too pedantic. Set stuff off with italics or bold type. Organize your answer as if you were writing for a five year old. Use lots of transition words, like first to orient the reader.
I'm another who doesn't see much value in outlining cases. I didn't mark up cases in my books either. I didn't see the point. I just read the cases and thought about them a bit. When it was time to study for exams, I used a decent commercial outline (and by the time I was a 2L the law review's outline bank). I did find that for those exams that allowed an outline, I preferred to work off a small outline that I had heavily condensed. Most of what I wanted an outline for was to remember case names or, at most, to remember the exact prongs of a legal test.
Maurile once gave what I consider to be excellent advice for exams (and even for briefs), which is that its hard to be too pedantic. Set stuff off with italics or bold type. Organize your answer as if you were writing for a five year old. Use lots of transition words, like first to orient the reader.
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
It took me to 3L year to learn this, but it helped a lot.
Honestly, try to see if you can get your hands on some of the BarBri stuff. I remember taking the BarBri classes and using their outlines and kicking myself for not thinking of trying to access these materials while actually in school.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I outlined all my courses, and even the bar exam. Maybe it's why I'm now a tax guy, but I found the process of drafting an outline helpful, to step back and think about how everything taught in the course can be organized and tied together. Most of my outlines were about 5-6 pages long. I remember handing them down to some people in the class below me, and they found my outlines "too short," but they seemed to miss the point of that.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
You could be right. For me though I just didn't quite "get" law school exams my first year. I spent way too much time studying by engrossing myself into the philosophical aspects of the law being taught and employed an incredibly stupid strategy of trying to "impress" my profs with theoretical answers connected to either their political leanings gleaned from law review articles they had written or statements they made in class. I studied the cases predominantly as well and talked about them way too much in my answers.
With Bar/Bri there's a bare bones, simplification of the law which will almost force someone to give the efficient, succinct, wonderfully boring law exam answers professors are looking for. I have no doubt that I would have done significantly better if I just concentrated on the simplicities of the law, which I thought was best laid out in the Bar/Bri materials.
Admittedly, however, this suggestion may be more beneficial in a school like Hamline versus a Stanford where perhaps "more" is needed to get that A or B.
ETA: I like quotation marks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Thanks. I'll be writing from an almost pure policy perspective explaining the potential impact of a particular ruling on the general business of a particular city. Frankly, the parties' attorneys have done a much better job than I could laying out the law in their briefs. I think just keeping it short and sweet is all that's needed.
njherdfan
Footballguy
This was my experience as well. Generally, I think the "how to study" advice that people give out to law students is mostly worthless - everyone needs to find a method that works for them individually.
I do remember Orin Kerr's article about how to read a legal opinion as being extremely helpful during my first few weeks. You should be able to find that on Google. Orin reposts it on Volokh Conspiracy every August.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
When I think about tailoring exam answers to the professor, its nothing to do with politics, but rather just the general notion of feeding the professor's ego. You have to be shameless about it, knowing that most law professors have massive egos, moreso even than judges. That's why I always thought going to class was much more important than reading the materials (many of my friends did the exact opposite). I would feed a professor's own comments on a topic back to him, using his own voice as much as possible, and in some cases would even directly reference classroom discussions in my answer.
krista4
Footballguy
OK, just to show how old I am, I was puzzled over how someone would spend time counting up words during an exam. It didn't even occur to me that he meant they were on a computer.
http://files.wts.edu/uploads/images/CTW%20Images/bluebook2.jpgOK, just to show how old I am, I was puzzled over how someone would spend time counting up words during an exam. It didn't even occur to me that he meant they were on a computer.
Instinctive
Footballguy
To respond to a bunch of comments:
I have no idea yet if we have word counts on our exams (99% sure there isn't one in Torts though, and doubtful in Contracts either). I need to figure out how the exam software works to figure out the best way to do an outline for me.
Wouldn't have thought to offset stuff more than with paragraphs. Will definitely keep in mind that using headings, sub headings, italics, and bold typeface will all be useful. That sounds like great advice.
I think I tend to have the opposite issue as Woz mentions. I am worried I'm too practical about this. Like the Daimler case. The entire time, my thoughts were, "No way there's jurisdiction. Why the #### would there be? There can't be, it would simply be impossible to deal with." Then we spent over an hour on an issue I thought was going to take 10 minutes because it seemed pretty cut and dried, but classmates kept asking questions over and over...each time the thought in my head was "That doesn't matter at all." Is this going to be an advantage, as in, you need to be more practical about it all? Or do I need to start getting deeper into theory for theory's sake?
I have no idea yet if we have word counts on our exams (99% sure there isn't one in Torts though, and doubtful in Contracts either). I need to figure out how the exam software works to figure out the best way to do an outline for me.
Wouldn't have thought to offset stuff more than with paragraphs. Will definitely keep in mind that using headings, sub headings, italics, and bold typeface will all be useful. That sounds like great advice.
I think I tend to have the opposite issue as Woz mentions. I am worried I'm too practical about this. Like the Daimler case. The entire time, my thoughts were, "No way there's jurisdiction. Why the #### would there be? There can't be, it would simply be impossible to deal with." Then we spent over an hour on an issue I thought was going to take 10 minutes because it seemed pretty cut and dried, but classmates kept asking questions over and over...each time the thought in my head was "That doesn't matter at all." Is this going to be an advantage, as in, you need to be more practical about it all? Or do I need to start getting deeper into theory for theory's sake?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
The thing you're not taking into account is that American courts have exercised jurisdiction over some stuff in the past that you probably would have also thought improbable.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
njherdfan
Footballguy
1. You'll probably use Examsoft. Most professors post old versions of their exams which will tell you if there's a word limit or not. Examsoft has a word count. You can download Examsoft for free now.
2. I think what you're describing could be a disadvantage, because on a law school exam the professor won't want you to say "This is obvious. The answer is X." You need to be able to recognize both points of view, at least to some degree, before supporting why the answer is X.
the rover
Footballguy
that and you're not going to be tested on anything that isn't on the edge...you're going to have to acknowledge the arguments on both sides. if you only see one side you aren't (ALL TOGETHER NOW) "thinking like a lawyer."
T Bell
Footballguy
The courts do #### all the time that makes no sense. Learn it. Know it. Live it. Love it.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
See, generally, Piper Aircraft v. Reyno
Or the summary judgment motion I lost two weeks ago because the court couldn't figure out how the plaintiff was damaged. Even though I represent the defendant. And argued in my motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff hadn't demonstrated how it was damaged.
