LOL at "government" work

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:12 pm

0LNewbie wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
tyro wrote:Discouraging people from attending law school without decent ROI percentage prospects has the potential effect of reducing the pool of candidates for the limited number of legal positions. It's as though these guys are doing what the ABA is being pressured to do.

*conspiracy theory*

:?:

What's REALLY going on here?

:lol:


i know i've said it a lot, but the real supply and demand problem i think starts with the employment data that law schools report. because this reality is never reflected in that data.

we assume the economy has rational actors and it does. any rational actor would want to attend even a TTT on the basis of the information they self-report. but the information is deceptive and fundamentally flawed. as soon as the ABA requires fair and accurate reporting of employment data that isn't subject to obfuscation, investors in a legal education will see the true picture of what ROI to expect and the over-supply issue will begin to resolve itself. it's that simple.


Aren't you ignoring the snowflake factor? Sure, #s will drop a little, but who's to say the TTTs will have to close their doors?


the market will decide their fate. right now though, the markets are being gamed by the law schools. they're taking the laissez faire thing a little too far. when the prospects of an investment in legal education are being presented fairly and accurately, the snowflake factor won't be much of an issue anymore. this starts, and ultimately could end with real oversight on employment statistics and audited employment data.

bjsesq wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.


Most of the frequent posts on this site get it, dude. This isn't new information, and you're not part of some small TLS circle that "gets it." Jesus christ.


there are many people on this site who still either deny the facts or don't want to hear them. i never said i was part of a small circle that gets it, but the reality is, would we have had 66K people enroll in law school in 2011 to compete for an expected 30K jobs if everyone "got it"? the facts speak for themselves. what you're doing is trying to belittle and undermine the message in this thread -- a very valid one -- without offering any real contributions to the discussion. there is a real problem and if you don't want to bring attention to it then go to the social lounge and talk about supplements or whatever it is people do there.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby dresden doll » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:13 pm

I wonder if LRAP at schools that have it would pick up loan payments for those that take these types of jobs.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:17 pm

robotclubmember wrote:there are many people on this site who still either deny the facts or don't want to hear them. i never said i was part of a small circle that gets it, but the reality is, would we have had 66K people enroll in law school in 2011 to compete for an expected 30K jobs if everyone "got it"? the facts speak for themselves. what you're doing is trying to belittle and undermine the message in this thread -- a very valid one -- without offering any real contributions to the discussion. there is a real problem and if you don't want to bring attention to it then go to the social lounge and talk about supplements or whatever it is people do there.


No, what I did was address the rhetoric people like areyouinsane use. The decision to go to law school is a balancing process, with cost balanced against future prospects. Making claims that going to law school is insane is objectively retarded due to the sheer breadth of the generalization. I can appreciate calling schools out for doctoring numbers and shit, but when some of this zOMG sky is falling rhetoric gets out of control, somebody needs to cut that shit short.

LAW SCHOOL IS ALWAYS TEH AWESOME- fucking stupid


LAW SCHOOL IS TEH MOST HORRIBLE TINK EVAR- also fucking stupid.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby firemed » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:19 pm

bjsesq wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.


Most of the frequent posters on this site get it, dude. This isn't new information, and you're not part of some small TLS circle that "gets it." Jesus christ.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:19 pm

dresden doll wrote:I wonder if LRAP at schools that have it would pick up loan payments for those that take these types of jobs.


Not at NU. Those are considered volunteer positions, and not employment. No LRAP love.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby firemed » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:20 pm

Also, do you really believe that any of the special snowflakes out there are actually going to listen?

User avatar
joemoviebuff
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:51 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby joemoviebuff » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:20 pm

dresden doll wrote:I wonder if LRAP at schools that have it would pick up loan payments for those that take these types of jobs.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7256
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby beach_terror » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:20 pm

robotclubmember wrote:there are many people on this site who still either deny the facts or don't want to hear them. i never said i was part of a small circle that gets it, but the reality is, would we have had 66K people enroll in law school in 2011 to compete for an expected 30K jobs if everyone "got it"? the facts speak for themselves. what you're doing is trying to belittle and undermine the message in this thread -- a very valid one -- without offering any real contributions to the discussion. there is a real problem and if you don't want to bring attention to it then go to the social lounge and talk about supplements or whatever it is people do there.

"Dude, going to law school is such a bad idea. Everyone that goes is denying the facts or doesn't want to hear them." "So what are you doing next year bro?" "Oh you know... law school." Let people figure their own shit out, you sound like the worst brand of elitist snob. There are perfectly valid reasons to attend law school, and the cost/benefit is to be weighed by individuals - not by some overreaching LOL post by a fucking troll.

And this discussion has been had 1000 times before, after the 3rd time there's not really anymore "meaningful" discussion to be had.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby areyouinsane » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:21 pm

Sonia Cunha, career services director at Seton Hall University School of Law, sees two sides to the concept of unpaid jobs.

She says it is "problematic," practically and ideologically, for some law graduates to consider volunteer legal work.

Many graduates -- who are saddled with student-loan debt, facing living expenses or simply averse to the idea of working for free -- recoil at counselors' suggestions that they take an unpaid position, even part time, she says.

Still, Cunha calls the special assistant program "a wonderful idea" and "a great opportunity."

"When you're employed, you're more marketable to the next employer," Cunha says. "I always say, validate the J.D., or try to validate the J.D." by working in law, rather than in an outside field, she adds.


LOL at a Seton Hall JD needing to be "validated"- what is it, a voucher for free parking?

At least that toilet is only charging 46 K a year to end up earning a salary of 0 dollars.

Also gotta ROTFL at the guy calling this hyperbole. Guess some just can't get their heads out of the sand.

Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that law is such a tedious, boring job. Have you guys looked at any legal books/materials yet? Talk about watching paint dry. I find it hard to believe the human mind could even come up with such boring, makework nonsense and actually "package" it into a degree that idiots are lining up to pay for.

Understand that the one and only thing that EVER made law worth tolerating was the $$$. Take that out of the equation and there's really no purpose whatsoever to endure this garbage.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:23 pm

areyouinsane wrote:Also gotta ROTFL at the guy calling this hyperbole. Guess some just can't get their heads out of the sand.

Perhaps the strangest thing of all is that law is such a tedious, boring job. Have you guys looked at any legal books/materials yet? Talk about watching paint dry. I find it hard to believe the human mind could even come up with such boring, makework nonsense and actually "package" it into a degree that idiots are lining up to pay for.

Understand that the one and only thing that EVER made law worth tolerating was the $$$. Take that out of the equation and there's really no purpose whatsoever to endure this garbage.


I didn't call the article hyperbolic, I called you hyperbolic. I also called you a retard, a conclusion this post supports. I mean, how could anyone ever feel different than you about the practice of law, AMIRITE?

User avatar
Tim0thy222
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:57 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby Tim0thy222 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:05 pm

bjsesq wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:there are many people on this site who still either deny the facts or don't want to hear them. i never said i was part of a small circle that gets it, but the reality is, would we have had 66K people enroll in law school in 2011 to compete for an expected 30K jobs if everyone "got it"? the facts speak for themselves. what you're doing is trying to belittle and undermine the message in this thread -- a very valid one -- without offering any real contributions to the discussion. there is a real problem and if you don't want to bring attention to it then go to the social lounge and talk about supplements or whatever it is people do there.


No, what I did was address the rhetoric people like areyouinsane use. The decision to go to law school is a balancing process, with cost balanced against future prospects. Making claims that going to law school is insane is objectively retarded due to the sheer breadth of the generalization. I can appreciate calling schools out for doctoring numbers and shit, but when some of this zOMG sky is falling rhetoric gets out of control, somebody needs to cut that shit short.

LAW SCHOOL IS ALWAYS TEH AWESOME- fucking stupid


LAW SCHOOL IS TEH MOST HORRIBLE TINK EVAR- also fucking stupid.



TCR.

A lot of people on TLS slam law school, then go anyway. Why? Similar reasons to why I decided to go to law school, I imagine. I was a philosophy major, with a GPA that would make most top grad programs hard to get into. So I can go to a T20 law school, or I could get an advanced degree in some other field at a low-ranked public school, spending a couple years prepping if it is anything technical or scientific. Meanwhile, I can take my BA and (if I'm lucky) land a mindless 30k-40k job in customer service or insurance sales or something.

ITE there are no sure bets, so I'm taking the chance to go for what I really want to do, and I'm knowingly taking on the risk becaue frankly everything in life, especially the things worth doing, are risky.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:05 pm

beach_terror wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:there are many people on this site who still either deny the facts or don't want to hear them. i never said i was part of a small circle that gets it, but the reality is, would we have had 66K people enroll in law school in 2011 to compete for an expected 30K jobs if everyone "got it"? the facts speak for themselves. what you're doing is trying to belittle and undermine the message in this thread -- a very valid one -- without offering any real contributions to the discussion. there is a real problem and if you don't want to bring attention to it then go to the social lounge and talk about supplements or whatever it is people do there.

"Dude, going to law school is such a bad idea. Everyone that goes is denying the facts or doesn't want to hear them." "So what are you doing next year bro?" "Oh you know... law school." Let people figure their own shit out, you sound like the worst brand of elitist snob. There are perfectly valid reasons to attend law school, and the cost/benefit is to be weighed by individuals - not by some overreaching LOL post by a fucking troll.

And this discussion has been had 1000 times before, after the 3rd time there's not really anymore "meaningful" discussion to be had.


So if there is no more meaningful discussion to be had, is that an indication that the problem has gone away?

I'm actually surprised at the haters on this forum. I am not an elitist snob, I am saying that the reporting standards for law schools need to be reformed.

I like how you put in quotations things that I never said and then attacked them, instead of what I said. I never said "everyone who goes to law school is denying facts." I said there are "many who do" and that there are 66K enrollees in 2011 to compete for 30K jobs, which is evidence that there are many people who, due to objectively misleading and unethical reporting standards allowed by the ABA, are going to give up 3 years of their life, 3 years of lost income, and incur 3 years of debt for a promise of $160K and 98% employment that is false on its face. I would be elitist if I blamed them, but I'm always the first to bring this back to unreliable employment data and defend them when people say "they should know better for going to a TTT."

Instead of trying to do an internet lynch mob on me why don't you be reasonable and read what I've been saying.

The facts are on my side. People should figure out their own shit, but if every critic of the system shut up like you wanted them to, then the only information they would have left to "figure out their shit" would be the fraudulent info reported by the schools. Critics are the only form of audit that exists for the data, since the ABA doesn't hold them accountable to report fair stats.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby areyouinsane » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:06 pm

Damn, look at the salaries of small-town NJ cops:

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/hunterd ... _co_1.html

88 K is pretty sweet for a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Much higher than most shitlawyers will EVER see, even years into practice.

My friend who used to work for Legal Aid (before they fired everyone) used to think it was so sad that she was paid about half what the prison guards who drug her clients in were. Those jarheads can pull in 80, 90, even 100 K+ for a brainless job that takes no education. Hilarious, isn't it? (By the way, where are all the "volunteer" cops, prison guards, road dept crews, plumbing contractors, etc? Isn't it embarassing that lawyers are so spineless and stupid that they line up to work for free?)

As my dearly departed grandpa used to quip "If you're willing to work for nothing, you'll be busy from now until the end of time."

When you give something away for free, it creates a perception that what was given away lacks any value. When's the last time you got something really good for free? Think about it.

But gotta hand it to the government for waking up to the oversupply and saving taxpayer $$$ by just making these jobs volunteer only. Will they really do any worse than the clowns we're paying now? The SEC shitlawyers missed the Madoff scam, the US Attorneys in Roger Clemens trial were told by the judge that they were stupider than first-year law students, etc etc. If we're gonna have lazy, incompetent morons as government lawyers, at least get them for free.

It's also politically painless. Imagine your Politician X and can cut one of three things: garbage pickup, road repair, or makework paper-churning shitlawyers? Tough choice, eh? The first two jobs would have a hard time staffing the ranks with "volunteers," while lawyers will pitch tents in the parking lot overnight for a chance to work for nothing.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:13 pm

Tim0thy222 wrote:TCR.

A lot of people on TLS slam law school, then go anyway. Why? Similar reasons to why I decided to go to law school, I imagine. I was a philosophy major, with a GPA that would make most top grad programs hard to get into. So I can go to a T20 law school, or I could get an advanced degree in some other field at a low-ranked public school, spending a couple years prepping if it is anything technical or scientific. Meanwhile, I can take my BA and (if I'm lucky) land a mindless 30k-40k job in customer service or insurance sales or something.

ITE there are no sure bets, so I'm taking the chance to go for what I really want to do, and I'm knowingly taking on the risk becaue frankly everything in life, especially the things worth doing, are risky.


Well, scholarships can ameliorate significant risk. If a person gets a full ride at a T-30, I think it is a reasonable decision to go to law school. Decent size schooly in the T-14? Go to law school. My problem isn't with the analysis of how bad things are, they are bad, but with the objectively retarded claim that going to law school is insane. In some circumstances, it's a pretty damn good idea.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:16 pm

tbf in the op areyouinsane did mention that it's ok to go to law school if you have significant scholly t14 or a fallback plan

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:18 pm

robotclubmember wrote:tbf in the op areyouinsane did mention that it's ok to go to law school if you have significant scholly t14 or a fallback plan


Before that, he said:

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.


This is what I went apeshit on him for, and rightfully so.

User avatar
Bill Cosby
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:56 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby Bill Cosby » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:18 pm

robotclubmember wrote:it's clear that the district attorney's office will suffer for this program. the quality of their cases will be diminished by having unpaid, indebted and demoralized lawyers prosecuting them. but this is a smart way to cut spending.

back to the title... "lol at government work".... it's comforting to know that if you strike out at big law (jobs at firms with more than 250 attorneys fell to 26 percent from 33 percent of total new JD employment in 2009), you can always fall back on government! wait, those positions are unpaid? you can always fall back on solo practice! wait, 85% of divorces are filed pro se and the dwindling middle class is using legalzoom for their docs now? well, at least there's always doc review temp gigs? amirite?

the legal market is cracking at the seams. with a continued surplus of lawyer (66,876 enrolled in the 2011 cycle, though at least 10K of those will probably drop out after the legal market implosion becomes increasingly obvious), and a continued scarcity of jobs (BLS projects 30,000 new JD openings per year), i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.


You and the OP are pretty ignorant if you think the government is going to be able to employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby sunynp » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:21 pm

Bill Cosby wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:it's clear that the district attorney's office will suffer for this program. the quality of their cases will be diminished by having unpaid, indebted and demoralized lawyers prosecuting them. but this is a smart way to cut spending.

back to the title... "lol at government work".... it's comforting to know that if you strike out at big law (jobs at firms with more than 250 attorneys fell to 26 percent from 33 percent of total new JD employment in 2009), you can always fall back on government! wait, those positions are unpaid? you can always fall back on solo practice! wait, 85% of divorces are filed pro se and the dwindling middle class is using legalzoom for their docs now? well, at least there's always doc review temp gigs? amirite?

the legal market is cracking at the seams. with a continued surplus of lawyer (66,876 enrolled in the 2011 cycle, though at least 10K of those will probably drop out after the legal market implosion becomes increasingly obvious), and a continued scarcity of jobs (BLS projects 30,000 new JD openings per year), i'm not sure how there are people in this site that are still in denial. fortunately more people are seeming to get it.


You and the OP are pretty ignorant if you think the government is going to be able to employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys.


The article about the US attorney's officesays they are unsure of the number they will hire, that it depends on the quality of the applicants. He said that he could hire between 0 and 50 people.

"In a time of potentially diminished resources, we're trying to be as creative as we can," Fishman says. "This is a project that has been tried with great success in other U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country."

The posting lists special assistant positions in the General Crimes Unit of the Criminal Division in Newark and in the Criminal Division in Camden. But there are no set openings: Fishman will decide how many, if any, applicants to hire.

"We could take none, or 50," he says. "The number we hire will be determined by what our prosecutorial needs are" and the quality of the candidates, he adds.


It would be interesting to know how many positions like this there are around the country, as he mentions that other US Attorney's Offices have a similar program. Maybe if it becomes widespread, LRAP would be amended to include these jobs if it doesn't already?

Personally, I feel that 50 attorneys working in these jobs is a lot more than I would anticipate. Maybe 50 wasn't meant to be a real number -just a figure of speech.
Last edited by sunynp on Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:26 pm

Bill Cosby wrote:
You and the OP are pretty ignorant if you think the government is going to be able to employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys.


neither i nor op said that. i merely noted the quality of prosecution will decline. but this is a trend that may continue. the government is in a deep deficit and needs to cut spending. must of the spending cannot be cut, for instance, defense, medicare and medicaid are off the table and interest on federal debt is required, which takes up the entire federal budget. the DOJ already has had unpaid positions for a while. the government will cut spending wherever they can, and the surplus of lawyers makes it possible to hire unpaid professionals. the government is clearly able and in fact would be stupid not to hire unpaid attorneys.

look. i know what i said, because i'm the guy that wrote it. what's up with all the straw men today? you're not going to fool me into thinking i said the gov't is going to "employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys" just because you're suggesting i did. stick to the facts, oh and why would that be an ignorant thing to say if in fact i had suggested that.

User avatar
KeepitKind
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby KeepitKind » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:27 pm

bjsesq wrote: My problem isn't with the analysis of how bad things are, they are bad, but with the objectively retarded claim that going to law school is insane. In some circumstances, it's a pretty damn good idea.


talk about poor rhetoric. bjsesq - please stop using the word "retarded" to characterize another's argument, no matter how weak the argument is. The word is disparaging and attacking someone's argument with a cheap stock phrase lowers your credibility in the eyes of your readers.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby robotclubmember » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:29 pm

bjsesq wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:tbf in the op areyouinsane did mention that it's ok to go to law school if you have significant scholly t14 or a fallback plan


Before that, he said:

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.


This is what I went apeshit on him for, and rightfully so.


haha the phrase apeshit doesn't appear enough on this forum. point taken but i still believe the substance of op's statement, literary flair aside, is largely correct and supported by fact. but i can understand everyone's perspective generally.

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby drdolittle » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:29 pm

areyouinsane wrote:
Sonia Cunha, career services director at Seton Hall University School of Law, sees two sides to the concept of unpaid jobs.

She says it is "problematic," practically and ideologically, for some law graduates to consider volunteer legal work.

Many graduates -- who are saddled with student-loan debt, facing living expenses or simply averse to the idea of working for free -- recoil at counselors' suggestions that they take an unpaid position, even part time, she says.

Still, Cunha calls the special assistant program "a wonderful idea" and "a great opportunity."

"When you're employed, you're more marketable to the next employer," Cunha says. "I always say, validate the J.D., or try to validate the J.D." by working in law, rather than in an outside field, she adds.


LOL at a Seton Hall JD needing to be "validated"- what is it, a voucher for free parking?

At least that toilet is only charging 46 K a year to end up earning a salary of 0 dollars.

Good areyouinsane stuff here. :lol:
And such typical career services bs. I'm not sure the marketability of even a fully "validated" Seton Hall JD will improve much after being "employed" for free or for a ridiculously low salary.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby bjsesq » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:30 pm

KeepitKind wrote:
bjsesq wrote: My problem isn't with the analysis of how bad things are, they are bad, but with the objectively retarded claim that going to law school is insane. In some circumstances, it's a pretty damn good idea.


talk about poor rhetoric. bjsesq - please stop using the word "retarded" to characterize another's argument, no matter how weak the argument is. The word is disparaging and attacking someone's argument with a cheap stock phrase lowers your credibility in the eyes of your readers.


This isn't an appellate brief, it's the internet. Don't be retarded.


robotclubmember wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:tbf in the op areyouinsane did mention that it's ok to go to law school if you have significant scholly t14 or a fallback plan


Before that, he said:

At this point going to law school isn't even a laughable proposition: it's downright insane.


This is what I went apeshit on him for, and rightfully so.


haha the phrase apeshit doesn't appear enough on this forum. point taken but i still believe the substance of op's statement, literary flair aside, is largely correct and supported by fact. but i can understand everyone's perspective generally.


You say flair, I say hyperbole. At least we've reached an understanding of sorts.


KeepitKind wrote:
bjsesq wrote: My problem isn't with the analysis of how bad things are, they are bad, but with the objectively retarded claim that going to law school is insane. In some circumstances, it's a pretty damn good idea.


talk about poor rhetoric. bjsesq - please stop using the word "retarded" to characterize another's argument, no matter how weak the argument is. The word is disparaging and attacking someone's argument with a cheap stock phrase lowers your credibility in the eyes of your readers.


Retarded

User avatar
Bill Cosby
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:56 am

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby Bill Cosby » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:42 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
Bill Cosby wrote:
You and the OP are pretty ignorant if you think the government is going to be able to employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys.


neither i nor op said that. i merely noted the quality of prosecution will decline. but this is a trend that may continue. the government is in a deep deficit and needs to cut spending. must of the spending cannot be cut, for instance, defense, medicare and medicaid are off the table and interest on federal debt is required, which takes up the entire federal budget. the DOJ already has had unpaid positions for a while. the government will cut spending wherever they can, and the surplus of lawyers makes it possible to hire unpaid professionals. the government is clearly able and in fact would be stupid not to hire unpaid attorneys.

look. i know what i said, because i'm the guy that wrote it. what's up with all the straw men today? you're not going to fool me into thinking i said the gov't is going to "employ a vast army of unpaid attorneys" just because you're suggesting i did. stick to the facts, oh and why would that be an ignorant thing to say if in fact i had suggested that.


What strawman? That's the pretty obvious implication of comments like:

areyouinsane wrote:Do you guys understand the "snowball" effect of these programs? Once the gov't get used to not having to pay attorneys a salary, what's to stop them from just making all gov't legal work a "volunteer" job? Hell, the supply/demand ratio is already so out of whack that they could replace every paid attorney with a volunteer and still have 30,000 or so "alternates" waiting if anyone actually found a paying gig.


robotclubmember wrote:back to the title... "lol at government work".... it's comforting to know that if you strike out at big law (jobs at firms with more than 250 attorneys fell to 26 percent from 33 percent of total new JD employment in 2009), you can always fall back on government! wait, those positions are unpaid? you can always fall back on solo practice! wait, 85% of divorces are filed pro se and the dwindling middle class is using legalzoom for their docs now? well, at least there's always doc review temp gigs? amirite?


The implication in both of those posts is that all government work is unpaid. Hiring a few interns does not equal filling their staffs with tons of unemployed people. Even if it makes sense from the perspective of government, it wouldn't make sense for the lawyers themselves. People aren't going to choose starving to death over moving in to a different career track (unless you think the hordes of unemployed attorneys in your scenario will be fed by mana from heaven).

User avatar
KeepitKind
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: LOL at "government" work

Postby KeepitKind » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:46 pm

bjsesq wrote:
KeepitKind wrote:
bjsesq wrote: My problem isn't with the analysis of how bad things are, they are bad, but with the objectively retarded claim that going to law school is insane. In some circumstances, it's a pretty damn good idea.


talk about poor rhetoric. bjsesq - please stop using the word "retarded" to characterize another's argument, no matter how weak the argument is. The word is disparaging and attacking someone's argument with a cheap stock phrase lowers your credibility in the eyes of your readers.


This isn't an appellate brief, it's the internet. Don't be retarded.


lol at u writing an apellate brief




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.