rinkrat19 wrote: TSLexi wrote:
Okay, I read more about California's LSOP. Nothing in the regarding prohibit the supervising attorney from employing you during your studies. Most of the lawyers here worked for their supervisers while reading law: http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=916106
And, isn't the bar exam supposed to be an equalizer? If you pass it, it indicates you have the minimum level of competence the State requires to license you as an attorney-at-law.
If you disagree, then please explain why a bar exam exists.
Lawyers are not physicians. The job of a lawyer, is to read, write, and speak in order to provide a client effective advocacy. That does not require expensive formal education.
Once again, for centuries lawyers read law, and no one argued President Abraham Lincoln was an incompetent attorney.
If you are motivated to become an attorney, your job is half-done. Everything else is studying to get admitted to practice.
Legal hiring is almost entirely prestige-based. There are people from Berkeley and Stanford searching for jobs, lots of people from USC and UCLA looking for jobs, and almost everyone from all the other accredited California looking for jobs. Why would anyone hire a law-study "lawyer"? Lawyers don't make money by teaching you how to be a lawyer. That's not how the legal market works. Besides that, the California bar exam is known as the hardest in the country. IF you pass the "baby bar" (almost nobody does), then you have a small chance of passing the real bar exam without having gone to a proper law school.
You sound very young and naive. It's a shame your parents reacted so badly to your announcement, but the answer is not to rush off half-cocked and make terrible decisions. Come back to the US, finish your degree with federal loans, and then think about law school.
She, please. I was pretty far along, actually. I passed nearly perfectly.
Also, if you do manage to pass the incredibly tough California bar with only law office study, wouldn't that make you look incredibly good?
Prestige is meaningless. I personally know Harvard JDs who can't write themselves out of a paper bag. I don't care about your resume, I want to see examples of your work.
Have you ever met an LSOP lawyer? They are all incredibly smart and determined. They took the toughest route to becoming a lawyer, and they succeeded after years of trying.
You act like reading the law is some sort of shortcut. It's harder and it takes one year longer at minimum than law school.
Getting a job or a clientele is all about marketing...what makes me stand out in an appealing way? I'd argue that a lawyer who read law is more attractive because:
1. The firm doesn't need to reimburse tuition (if they offer it) and the candidate is willing to work cheaply because they don't need to pay back loans on top of whatever expenses they may have.
2. If solo, the lawyer can undercut the competition, making them more attractive to clients.
3. The lawyer has demonstrated a remarkable drive to succeed, and has passed two difficult state exams, which should translate into effective advocacy.
4. The lawyer has years of practical experience in a law firm, rather than just a few summers.
You do realize LSOP requirements for the superviser are to submit a study plan for every six months, and give a monthly exam. The actual learning can be done by the reader. How exactly does that eat up a majority of a lawyer's time?