Top Law Schools

PeanutsNJam wrote:do clinics/journal count for any of the reqs? (upper-level research and writing or applied lawyering skills)?

Clinics count for the ALPS requirement but I am pretty sure journals do not.

btw, you can filter a search by alps under attribute in the registration advanced search.

PeanutsNJam wrote:do clinics/journal count for any of the reqs? (upper-level research and writing or applied lawyering skills)?

No they do not. They also don't count as classroom credit. There's pretty much no getting around taking a seminar that I'm aware of, and the applied lawyering skill requirement is not at all difficult to knock out.

If anyone has any old exams for ConLaw w/ David Law, please p/m! A little nervous about it...Any tips/advice would be appreciated as well. Thanks

ek5dn wrote:If anyone has any old exams for ConLaw w/ David Law, please p/m! A little nervous about it...Any tips/advice would be appreciated as well. Thanks

seconded

acr wrote:

ek5dn wrote:If anyone has any old exams for ConLaw w/ David Law, please p/m! A little nervous about it...Any tips/advice would be appreciated as well. Thanks

seconded

Thirded

hoos89 wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:do clinics/journal count for any of the reqs? (upper-level research and writing or applied lawyering skills)?

No they do not. They also don't count as classroom credit. There's pretty much no getting around taking a seminar that I'm aware of, and the applied lawyering skill requirement is not at all difficult to knock out.

Journal isn't classroom, but clinics are they fall under 311-2. Also if you sort by LCU they show up.
Externships don't because there isn't faculty supervision and there is no weekly class.

This class of 2Ls did not have Law for con law. I had Richards. With that said, the Chemerinsky supplement is always something you should use when reviewing. Unless the professor explicitly contradicts or attacks Chemerinsky's interpretation then the supplement is straight fire. In turn, it is well known that La Pierre writes a hard con law exam so you should practice with those. I presume that you all have only really covered the Commerce Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, the 10th amendment, and maybe some National Executive stuff so it is key that you know the big cases like Lochner, Lopez, City of Boerne, Steel Seizure backwards and forwards. If you covered justiciability doctrines like political question and standing then you need to know Bush v. Gore, Lujan, etc. Every con law professor is different. Flagg for example had a whole day dedicated to American Indian Law. If you want to practice a time crunch exam then take Richards's two hour practice exam. He even gives a model answer. Long story short, know the commerce clause cold because that is the foundational element of 1L Con Law. If you know that -- presuming Law doesn't go into funky stuff like the 14th amendment -- then you are 60-70% on the way to beating median. If you had to learn threshold questions like standing then know those tests.

Another major step of doing well in Con Law is taking the major cases and playing around with them. For example, Lopez and its progeny are pretty much the last word (so far) on the commerce clause. Thus, it is not crazy to think that a professor will write a fact pattern where Congress uses the commerce clause to create a statute that makes something illegal. The statute given to you by the professor would presumably be ambiguously worded so you would have to pick out the key contextual facts leading to its passage and the key elements of the statute and discuss the constitutionality of the hypothetical law.

My Process:
(1) Get notes in good order with cases organized by syllabus topic
(2) Compare my case notes and summaries with Chemerinsky (note any differences and interesting things he has to say)
(3) Write down all of the tests you learned (Standing, Lopez Test, Dole etc.)
(4) Make an attack outline that has the key tests
(5) Make a master case list with very bare bones facts that includes holding and key dicta that may be dispositive

MtheG wrote:This class of 2Ls did not have Law for con law. I had Richards. With that said, the Chemerinsky supplement is always something you should use when reviewing. Unless the professor explicitly contradicts or attacks Chemerinsky's interpretation then the supplement is straight fire. In turn, it is well known that La Pierre writes a hard con law exam so you should practice with those. I presume that you all have only really covered the Commerce Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, the 10th amendment, and maybe some National Executive stuff so it is key that you know the big cases like Lochner, Lopez, City of Boerne, Steel Seizure backwards and forwards. If you covered justiciability doctrines like political question and standing then you need to know Bush v. Gore, Lujan, etc. Every con law professor is different. Flagg for example had a whole day dedicated to American Indian Law. If you want to practice a time crunch exam then take Richards's two hour practice exam. He even gives a model answer. Long story short, know the commerce clause cold because that is the foundational element of 1L Con Law. If you know that -- presuming Law doesn't go into funky stuff like the 14th amendment -- then you are 60-70% on the way to beating median. If you had to learn threshold questions like standing then know those tests.

Another major step of doing well in Con Law is taking the major cases and playing around with them. For example, Lopez and its progeny are pretty much the last word (so far) on the commerce clause. Thus, it is not crazy to think that a professor will write a fact pattern where Congress uses the commerce clause to create a statute that makes something illegal. The statute given to you by the professor would presumably be ambiguously worded so you would have to pick out the key contextual facts leading to its passage and the key elements of the statute and discuss the constitutionality of the hypothetical law.

My Process:
(1) Get notes in good order with cases organized by syllabus topic
(2) Compare my case notes and summaries with Chemerinsky (note any differences and interesting things he has to say)
(3) Write down all of the tests you learned (Standing, Lopez Test, Dole etc.)
(4) Make an attack outline that has the key tests
(5) Make a master case list with very bare bones facts that includes holding and key dicta that may be dispositive

Great advice, thanks!

However, D. Law has specifically told us not to use Chem at least 20 times this semester :/

I would still suggest comparing what Law said to Chem. He may have some unique opinions but if Law's conclusions do not differ then Chem is good because he makes everything very digestible.

Cellar-door wrote:

hoos89 wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:do clinics/journal count for any of the reqs? (upper-level research and writing or applied lawyering skills)?

No they do not. They also don't count as classroom credit. There's pretty much no getting around taking a seminar that I'm aware of, and the applied lawyering skill requirement is not at all difficult to knock out.

Journal isn't classroom, but clinics are they fall under 311-2. Also if you sort by LCU they show up.
Externships don't because there isn't faculty supervision and there is no weekly class.

Oh whoops I just saw journal for some reason. Clinics only count as LCU if they're called "clinics" (because those have some component that qualifies as classroom), while externships do not. Both clinics and externships can (I think, not sure) count towards appleid lawyering.

MtheG wrote:This class of 2Ls did not have Law for con law. I had Richards. With that said, the Chemerinsky supplement is always something you should use when reviewing. Unless the professor explicitly contradicts or attacks Chemerinsky's interpretation then the supplement is straight fire. In turn, it is well known that La Pierre writes a hard con law exam so you should practice with those. I presume that you all have only really covered the Commerce Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, the 10th amendment, and maybe some National Executive stuff so it is key that you know the big cases like Lochner, Lopez, City of Boerne, Steel Seizure backwards and forwards. If you covered justiciability doctrines like political question and standing then you need to know Bush v. Gore, Lujan, etc. Every con law professor is different. Flagg for example had a whole day dedicated to American Indian Law. If you want to practice a time crunch exam then take Richards's two hour practice exam. He even gives a model answer. Long story short, know the commerce clause cold because that is the foundational element of 1L Con Law. If you know that -- presuming Law doesn't go into funky stuff like the 14th amendment -- then you are 60-70% on the way to beating median. If you had to learn threshold questions like standing then know those tests.

Another major step of doing well in Con Law is taking the major cases and playing around with them. For example, Lopez and its progeny are pretty much the last word (so far) on the commerce clause. Thus, it is not crazy to think that a professor will write a fact pattern where Congress uses the commerce clause to create a statute that makes something illegal. The statute given to you by the professor would presumably be ambiguously worded so you would have to pick out the key contextual facts leading to its passage and the key elements of the statute and discuss the constitutionality of the hypothetical law.

My Process:
(1) Get notes in good order with cases organized by syllabus topic
(2) Compare my case notes and summaries with Chemerinsky (note any differences and interesting things he has to say)
(3) Write down all of the tests you learned (Standing, Lopez Test, Dole etc.)
(4) Make an attack outline that has the key tests
(5) Make a master case list with very bare bones facts that includes holding and key dicta that may be dispositive

Is this advice for LaPierre? It doesn't seem like any one case encompasses the entire test for a particular area. Do you use a sort of synthesized analytical framework for each? For example, for DCC (abridged):

Step 1: Ends? Economic or health/safety?
Step 2: Discriminatory?
If Discriminatory -> Hunt balancing, reasonable alternatives
If Not Discriminatory -> Pike balancing

Given that the exam statute is likely ambiguous and could be either discriminatory or not, do you do both balancing tests anyway? Do you do the Gibbons/Cooley/DiSanto tests even though they're not the modern approach but aren't explicitly overruled?

We haven't done National Executive Power and Lochner, City of Boerne, and Steel Seizure mean nothing to me. According to LaPierre also by Garcia it's been solidified that 10th amendment is a truism and is just something you say before you actually argue substance. I do think this is the first year we're doing Comstock, Sebelius, and Kebadeau (dunno how to spell that).

Hhhmmmm. It seems that La Pierre does his own thing. You are mentioning some cases we didn't even cover in Richards. What I can say is that if the facts present a situation where it is a either/or situation between tests then always apply both. However, since I did not have La Pierre, my advice is limited. I didn't know he was so different from Richards and the other profs.

what do we need to send in prior to matriculation? I can't seem to find anything online..I am guessing vaccination information and/or final transcript if applicable?

I'm a 2l, and I still haven't sent in final transcripts. . .

..

Petrichor wrote:what do we need to send in prior to matriculation? I can't seem to find anything online..I am guessing vaccination information and/or final transcript if applicable?

Traditionally there has been a checklist on the admitted students' website. Certainly they'll need your final transcript if you're KJD, otherwise I think it's just the financial aid documentation (I think a checklist for this will be sent in an email at some point).

Any anecdata on getting LA biglaw from WUSTL? What's a reasonable grade range for that.

Any last minute tips for a Pauline Kim civ pro exam?

Regarding LA Biglaw

We do not sent send a whole of kids that far West. I know of one person from the 2Ls going to Hogan in LA and one person doing midlaw in San Diego. That being said, we have some people going to Portland and Seattle. If you want to work out in California then you need to meet with Professor Badawi and try and get him to go to bat for you. He runs the Wash U Out West program that the CSO is trying to get going. I think he is a double Berkley grad and I am pretty sure he worked at Munger, Tolles and Olson.

PeanutsNJam wrote:Any anecdata on getting LA biglaw from WUSTL? What's a reasonable grade range for that.

Almost every if not every LA firm is in play for you. Go bay area diversity fair, and get usc or ucl or Stanford reciprocity and go to LA for a week.

The "so you want to be a NY associate" thread's metaphor and my final today makes me wonder: how does WUSTL place into Applebees? In this metaphor Applebees is a casual-dining chain that serves food and drinks to customers.

ETA: I may be open to TGI Fridays after my next final.

Browsing through posts from last year and came across some discussion of Magarian's Con Law exam being one of the worst experiences of law school, but that discussion got derailed for obvious reasons. So, any advice for it? Or preparing for it?

Edit: While I'm soliciting info based on last year's posts -- is it true that most grades will not come in until June?

TetrisBlock wrote:The "so you want to be a NY associate" thread's metaphor and my final today makes me wonder: how does WUSTL place into Applebees? In this metaphor Applebees is a casual-dining chain that serves food and drinks to customers.

ETA: I may be open to TGI Fridays after my next final.

Depends on ties.

RareExports wrote:Browsing through posts from last year and came across some discussion of Magarian's Con Law exam being one of the worst experiences of law school, but that discussion got derailed for obvious reasons. So, any advice for it? Or preparing for it?

Edit: While I'm soliciting info based on last year's posts -- is it true that most grades will not come in until June?

Did not take it, but I have heard it is a horrible experience! Good luck with it. I'm not sure on the exact dates anymore but some grades take a ridiculously long time to be released.

TetrisBlock wrote:The "so you want to be a NY associate" thread's metaphor and my final today makes me wonder: how does WUSTL place into Applebees? In this metaphor Applebees is a casual-dining chain that serves food and drinks to customers.

ETA: I may be open to TGI Fridays after my next final.

TGI Fridays clearly > Applebees.

RareExports wrote:Browsing through posts from last year and came across some discussion of Magarian's Con Law exam being one of the worst experiences of law school, but that discussion got derailed for obvious reasons. So, any advice for it? Or preparing for it?

Edit: While I'm soliciting info based on last year's posts -- is it true that most grades will not come in until June?

I can't speak directly to Magarian's exam but I had roommates who took and it seemed pretty awful. I know the guy who CALI'd it and I think it mostly came down to him just being adept at all-nighters.

And yes it's true that grades won't be coming out until June. That's not really different from how long it takes first semester grades to come out.