Top Law Schools

RedBirds2011 wrote:

Geon wrote:

rickgrimes69 wrote:

Geon wrote:I'm sorry but do people really pay 60 grand to get off murder cases? I mean
1. where does the money come from?
2. Don't these people know that they are pretty much going to be convicted if charged with murder. Its not 100% but its like 90-93% or so I heard anyways.

"oh well I'm probably going to be convicted anyway so why spare the expense"




Also I'm trying to back this up with a source but murder is a very commonly unsolved crime. Clearance rate for U.S. homicides in 2010 was only about 65%, although this varies from city to city - 92% in San Diego, for example, compared to a measly 22% in New Orleans. In any event, murder cases are most definitely not open-shut.

Edit: Sources
--LinkRemoved--
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/this ... 8r9zSH1a6L
http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/h ... u-s-cities

Your analysis is off. My point was if you are charged you're like 90%+ to be convicted. You are posting the chance of being caught. If the murder rate being solved is 20% and 80% of murderers get away because a epic milenial hurricane wipes out the city and all the police confiscate guns and run away, then yes lots of people will get away. But those charged will still get convicted at like 90%+ rates

So you're saying if you had a 10 percent chance to not get convicted of murder you'd just tell your lawyer fuck it, the odds are against me, just let them give me the worst? Just because they are convicted doesn't mean they are getting the worst sentence they could have gotten. For example, you could get convicted but still get out of the death penalty and/or get convicted of a lesser charge than the original charge.

Edit: and I'm assuming your 90% is accurate so I'll let someone else address that.

Given how the average american is financially, I could see alot of them seeing the reality that they are going to jail, so why waste their money on a useless defence. Lets face it, those grand juries would convict a banana of murdering a monkey if the prosecutor told them to. Lots of people go to trial and go on the stand and blow their own cases with stupid comments like I didn't kill them but they deserved it.

But I admit I see your point, the idea is to get a less worse outcome.

Kimberly wrote:

utlaw2007 wrote:

my entire rant is actually just projected disgust resulting from my experiences with medical malpractice, which really IS a farce.

I have to stop you right there. I'll be the first to admit that many malpractice cases are frivolous. But try being in my shoes and have doctors mistreat you and almost cause you to get a terminal condition because they were either dismissive of my concerns and interests in not getting that condition, they basically didn't give a damn about whether I had received informed consent or not, or they just weren't knowledgeable like they should have been. And I can tell you all sorts of personal stories about that experience. So no, I don't hold all doctors in the same esteem as most of the public does. To say doctors can do no wrong and are giving a good effort is an incorrect statement.

Well, I struck a chord here. And, while I will admit that we all make mistakes and that, yes, even I have witnessed dismissive physicians myself, look at the stats on med mal cases. A GREAT MAJORITY of them never make it to court and are NOT settled but dropped after a great deal of resources have been spent by the defense. Additionally, of those that do make it to court, MANY of them are won by the defense. So, while I fully realize that mistakes are made and even professional negligence exists in the medical profession, frivolous medical malpractice claims for people with statistically inevitable poor outcomes has ruined the careers, drive, enthusiasm, altruism, and passion of many of my colleagues. And, sorry to tell you but society wants docs, needs them, and has far too few of them in some areas. So, it is a shame when the drive and enthusiasm for medicine is stripped from an otherwise perfectly capable physician because an admittedly unfortunate patient has a statistically inevitable poor outcome. It is a gross epidemic and not fair to ANYONE including patients, physicians, or society. The only winners in most med mal cases are the lawyers... sorry to say.

Despite being non-American, I think that the one few areas of American society that makes sense is the right to sue people for grossly large sums of money and win. Those Bush style "tort reforms" are really just about devaluing people and the government telling you that you are worth less than you think you are. if a jury or a judge awards you a big award for the doctor cutting off your penis, I think you deserve every cent of it. Do you want to end up like Canada where you can never recover more than $2 million even if your crippled for life and sipping out of a straw in a wheel chair? And then when the lawyer gets his cut and you take out the cost of a care giver you'll be poor sooner than later.

Kimberly wrote:

utlaw2007 wrote:Lawyers are EXTREMELY important to society. Without us, society could not function. We keep people from harming you criminally. Think about all those prosecutors who work for nothing. We keep the products you buy from blowing up in your face. Many times, we front the expenses and work for free and don't get paid unless we win. I don't see anyone else in society doing that. We allow you to conduct business transactions with confidence. We allow for the transfer of property whether real or personal. We basically keep confidence high in these transactions so that parties will partake in these transactions. We basically allow society to pour money into the economy. And the economy is the life blood of society.

Some of us may be crooked, but we are all not that way. Last time I checked, many doctors I know went to medical school for the money. All kinds of people choose professions because of the money. That characteristic is not exclusive to lawyers. If someone wants to go to law school because they want to make a lot of money, so be it. But passing judgment on people is wrong and uncalled for. The kids on this site are trying to get the best ROI they can. And there is nothing wrong with that. Nor should they be punished for the behavior and mindsets of others in the profession.

Babe, listen, this isn't a personal attack. Nor have I suggested in any way shape or form that lawyers aren't extremely important to society. I am, afterall, LEAVING medicine to pursue the law. I believe in the law with my entire being. I otherwise would not be making this difficult choice. That said, it has been and remains my impression and the impression of many that many lawyers are chasing conflict instead of pursuing resolution... I don't judge it to any serious degree. I also understand this is the state of being and I can do nothing about it. But, I just sometimes wish there were a little more integrity in the world. And, just we expect to see more altruistic minded medical students given the income reductions and debt increases in medicine, I kinda sorta am looking forward to that happening in law as well. Law and Medicine are two professions that people NEED and people DESERVE... would be nice if we could have greater faith in the motives of those advocating for us... thaz it.

If you left being a doctor to become a lawyer, I am convinced you are a nut case.

boredatwork wrote:

utlaw2007 wrote:
Integrity isn't mutually exclusive with wanting to make money. And making money by "chasing conflict" often results in good outcomes. There was just an article in the NYT about the lawyers that find and sue businesses that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. This involves going to mom-and-pop shops and essentially shaking them down until they install ramps...but the ramps get installed. Sure the lawyer gets rich in the process, and getting rich may have been his goal, but so what?

But I definitely agree with you that I couldn't do any kind of criminal work...too much emotional baggage. I'll happily edit contracts or take depositions or whatever though.

Funny, one of our Neps just wrote an article about something similar. Apparently there is a guy who walks around with his service dog and when "mom and pop" kick him and his dog out they sue them. Makes his entire living doing this and is a terrible burden on the system, sure those businesses might be better rehearsed in service animal rules but what do you think that does for insurance rates on small businesses? There might be some value but I think it is far outweighed by the cost on society.

I think those businesses deserve it to be honest. They are breaking the law, and its not like abiding the law would cost them money.

Geon wrote: Given how the average american is financially, I could see alot of them seeing the reality that they are going to jail, so why waste their money on a useless defence. Lets face it, those grand juries would convict a banana of murdering a monkey if the prosecutor told them to. Lots of people go to trial and go on the stand and blow their own cases with stupid comments like I didn't kill them but they deserved it.

But I admit I see your point, the idea is to get a less worse outcome.

1) Grand juries don't convict. Grand juries indict. Petit juries convict. Also not every state has grand juries.

2) Lawyers generally don't put defendants on the stand. They have a Constitutional right not to testify. So I don't know where you got that from.

I suggest doing some background research about the criminal process, brah.

rad lulz wrote:

Geon wrote: Given how the average american is financially, I could see alot of them seeing the reality that they are going to jail, so why waste their money on a useless defence. Lets face it, those grand juries would convict a banana of murdering a monkey if the prosecutor told them to. Lots of people go to trial and go on the stand and blow their own cases with stupid comments like I didn't kill them but they deserved it.

But I admit I see your point, the idea is to get a less worse outcome.

1) Grand juries don't convict. Grand juries indict. Petit juries convict. Also not every state has grand juries.

2) Lawyers generally don't put defendants on the stand. They have a Constitutional right not to testify. So I don't know where you got that from.

I suggest doing some background research about the criminal process, brah.

Too much Law&Order

utlaw2007 wrote:

Wily wrote:

utlaw2007 wrote:

So how would one manage to get a steady stream of clients without engaging in unethical practices orrunning grossly expensive tv ads. I just have difficulty understanding that.

You have to get out there and meet as many people as you can. That's the hard part. I have no problem doing this because I am a very social person. When you make small talk with all kinds of people, big cases can spring out of nowhere. But you have to make small talk with LOTS of people. Only when you've built up a rep after years of doing this, will people come to you. Otherwise, you have to find your cases. But expand your superficial network as much as possible. Be out and about.

How do you eat for those couple of years starting off when you're getting your name around though? I've heard the hardest part for going solo is starting off, unless somehow you have a hundred thousand lying around to pay for advertising/office space/etc.

That is the excruciatingly hard part. If you are incredibly honest like I am, you have to do doc review work. Most firms will not let you have your own cases while working at the firm. I imagine most government jobs won't either. Thankfully, law requires little overhead depending on what kinds of cases you take early on.

The problem with doc review work is that I absolutely HATE it. If you have your own practice, you are in the minority. Most are career doc reviewers who have either never practiced law a day in their life or no longer practice law for some reason. But I made the mistake of letting the supervisors at these projects know I have a practice outside of that crap. That was a big mistake. The supervisors are very envious of that. They think that you think that you are better than them. At least, that is how they act towards me. Not to mention, and this really gets on my nerves, the supervisors and everyone else at the review who likes it acts like the work is so hard and complex. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your work. But do not belittle someone else if they aren't Mr. Doc reviewer all pro. It's actually quite nauseating.

But I kept myself going because I knew I had better things going on like actually practicing law outside that place. But it sucks royally!

Nice, I'm glad to see it's possible to actually make it out of doc review with something better. So you basically worked doc review to save up enough to pay the operational costs of your own firm, and then bootstrapped your way up from there?

I remember areyouinsane (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&start=75) with a different take on doc reviewers who were also going solo:

Another funny guy on this project we used to call 'Sloshburg" because he showed up for work reeking of booze every day. One time he came back from lunch all lit up and started turning the lights on and off and like "breathing on people" and such. We're talking heavy Stage IV alcoholism here. He was always bragging about this million-dollar injury case he was "this close" to settling, and how as soon as it came through he was leaving doc review for good. It wasn't unusual. Many coders suffer from what I call "Willy Lohman" syndrome- their grip on reality and their place in the economic pecking order is just totally lost on them. There isn't a coder alive without a stack of cheesy Vista-Print business cards with all sorts of official titles and such like "Law Office of Thomas Montgomery Coder, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, Master of Chancery, King's Bench, Member of the Bar, Juris Doctor, Esquire." It's like some kind of closet "prestige injection" for them, apparently. I think one guy even has his LSAT score on his card, but it was probably like a 149 or whatever.

These cards are of course for their "side practices," which involve getting their brothers/moms/realtives etc. out of speeding tickets and other occasional rinky-dink stuff. What's really funny is that almost all of them use the same Regus mail-drop company in NYC as their "office address," and when they swap cards they'll say things like "oh, our practices are in the same building" and act all important for a few minutes. It gets depressing after awhile seeing these fools carry on this pathetic charade on project after project.

Nice, I'm glad to see it's possible to actually make it out of doc review with something better. So you basically worked doc review to save up enough to pay the operational costs of your own firm, and then bootstrapped your way up from there?

I remember areyouinsane (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&start=75) with a different take on doc reviewers who were also going solo:

Another funny guy on this project we used to call 'Sloshburg" because he showed up for work reeking of booze every day. One time he came back from lunch all lit up and started turning the lights on and off and like "breathing on people" and such. We're talking heavy Stage IV alcoholism here. He was always bragging about this million-dollar injury case he was "this close" to settling, and how as soon as it came through he was leaving doc review for good. It wasn't unusual. Many coders suffer from what I call "Willy Lohman" syndrome- their grip on reality and their place in the economic pecking order is just totally lost on them. There isn't a coder alive without a stack of cheesy Vista-Print business cards with all sorts of official titles and such like "Law Office of Thomas Montgomery Coder, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, Master of Chancery, King's Bench, Member of the Bar, Juris Doctor, Esquire." It's like some kind of closet "prestige injection" for them, apparently. I think one guy even has his LSAT score on his card, but it was probably like a 149 or whatever.

These cards are of course for their "side practices," which involve getting their brothers/moms/realtives etc. out of speeding tickets and other occasional rinky-dink stuff. What's really funny is that almost all of them use the same Regus mail-drop company in NYC as their "office address," and when they swap cards they'll say things like "oh, our practices are in the same building" and act all important for a few minutes. It gets depressing after awhile seeing these fools carry on this pathetic charade on project after project.

[/quote]

Haha. Wow! That is pretty sad. I was on only one project where the reviewers had legitimate practices. They were practicing law every now and then. But, obviously, they were making no money. The biggest difference between them and me is that they had been practicing for like 8+ years. Some 5. I had had my practice for like 1-4 months. I was just getting started. They weren't. All I kept telling myself was that it would suck royally to have a practice for like 5+ years and still have to come back and do this sh*&%t.

When I first started doing it, I used to ask some of the lawyers who had practiced law for 10+ years in another life, practice advice. On rare occasion I'd ask them advice about substantive legal issues. That was a HUGE mistake. Thankfully, I actually learned something in law school. The advice I got was terrible! I couldn't believe that lawyers who had practiced law for 10+ years would be so ignorant about simple legal concepts. It was pretty pathetic. I had asked one person who was a trial lawyer for 20 years a question about a jurisdictional hearing I had coming up against a state entity. She wondered why the hearing had such a name. I didn't know, but I had explained to her that the name sounded like it originated from the concept of jurisdiction which is basically the concept of whether a court has power to enter a judgment against you. It is basic civil procedure stuff. Do you know that the person had no idea of what I was talking about?! I was like, "you mean to tell me you have been a trial lawyer for 20 years and you don't understand jurisdiction?!" And she had gone to a reputable, regional tier two school. I'm quite sure she was exaggerating what she had done for the last 20 years.

Then there was another guy who had gone to a tier four school. He claimed to be a PI attorney. So I had asked him about some legal issues concerning PI since I had a big products liability case. I mentioned punitive damage caps because Texas has them. He wasn't even aware of them! I was appalled. He said something, and I just quietly said I don't know because I didn't want him to be aware that I knew he was less than bright. I'm like, "how could you call yourself a personal injury lawyer and not be aware of the punitive damage caps in Texas. At that point, I completely gave up asking the "lawyers" on those doc review projects for advice because they knew nothing. There were other things I could say, but it's so depressing to think about.

I just had my five year reunion at UT Law and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing my law school classmates. Most of them are at Biglaw or inhouse corporate counsel because the work hours are pretty good. They thought I was superman because I was bold enough to start my own practice and take homerun swings at large cases. But I was really sick for three years. I had to strike out on my own. There were 4 of us total that have our own practice. I just partnered with one who's had her own practice since we graduated law school. She's doing well. She mainly does transactional stuff and I handle the litigation with her large cases because I can better handle them than she. Litigation is not her cup of tea. I'm perfect for it. God has blessed me with great skills.

rad lulz wrote:

Geon wrote: Given how the average american is financially, I could see alot of them seeing the reality that they are going to jail, so why waste their money on a useless defence. Lets face it, those grand juries would convict a banana of murdering a monkey if the prosecutor told them to. Lots of people go to trial and go on the stand and blow their own cases with stupid comments like I didn't kill them but they deserved it.

But I admit I see your point, the idea is to get a less worse outcome.

1) Grand juries don't convict. Grand juries indict. Petit juries convict. Also not every state has grand juries.

2) Lawyers generally don't put defendants on the stand. They have a Constitutional right not to testify. So I don't know where you got that from.

I suggest doing some background research about the criminal process, brah.

I was implying that the Grand Juries convict because if you're indicted your pretty much convicted in a murder case from my pov.
2) I didn't say lawyers put defendants on the stand, in fact I said the opposite,lots of people blow their own cases.

Geon wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

Geon wrote: Given how the average american is financially, I could see alot of them seeing the reality that they are going to jail, so why waste their money on a useless defence. Lets face it, those grand juries would convict a banana of murdering a monkey if the prosecutor told them to. Lots of people go to trial and go on the stand and blow their own cases with stupid comments like I didn't kill them but they deserved it.

But I admit I see your point, the idea is to get a less worse outcome.

1) Grand juries don't convict. Grand juries indict. Petit juries convict. Also not every state has grand juries.

2) Lawyers generally don't put defendants on the stand. They have a Constitutional right not to testify. So I don't know where you got that from.

I suggest doing some background research about the criminal process, brah.

I was implying that the Grand Juries convict because if you're indicted your pretty much convicted in a murder case from my pov.
2) I didn't say lawyers put defendants on the stand, in fact I said the opposite,lots of people blow their own cases.

1. But you may not get convicted of MURDER; maybe your lawyer gets you a deal where you plea out to manslaughter. You're not getting this.

2. Now you're not making sense. You say that Ds blow their own cases by testifying. That's why you get a lawyer. So you have someone to TELL YOU that you don't have to testify, and what a bad idea it is to testify (generally). This is your argument for why you people might not want to get a lawyer? Are you kidding me?

Nice, I'm glad to see it's possible to actually make it out of doc review with something better. So you basically worked doc review to save up enough to pay the operational costs of your own firm, and then bootstrapped your way up from there?

But yeah, my firm has only been open for two years. I was really sick for the three years after law school, so I had to start from scratch when I got well enough to work. I'm still in the beginning stages of my firm, but my case values keep getting higher. I aggressively look for big stuff. I partner with small firms who get large cases. I'm partnered with three total. I also have my own practice. The partnerships are good because it's like having a much larger net for getting large cases or cases that are not large. And the lawyers I've partnered with are great business men and women. And that is the difference between being broke and being successful when you have your own practice.

How do you eat for those couple of years starting off when you're getting your name around though? I've heard the hardest part for going solo is starting off, unless somehow you have a hundred thousand lying around to pay for advertising/office space/etc.[/quote]

That is the excruciatingly hard part. If you are incredibly honest like I am, you have to do doc review work. Most firms will not let you have your own cases while working at the firm. I imagine most government jobs won't either. Thankfully, law requires little overhead depending on what kinds of cases you take early on.

The problem with doc review work is that I absolutely HATE it. If you have your own practice, you are in the minority. Most are career doc reviewers who have either never practiced law a day in their life or no longer practice law for some reason. But I made the mistake of letting the supervisors at these projects know I have a practice outside of that crap. That was a big mistake. The supervisors are very envious of that. They think that you think that you are better than them. At least, that is how they act towards me. Not to mention, and this really gets on my nerves, the supervisors and everyone else at the review who likes it acts like the work is so hard and complex. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your work. But do not belittle someone else if they aren't Mr. Doc reviewer all pro. It's actually quite nauseating.

But I kept myself going because I knew I had better things going on like actually practicing law outside that place. But it sucks royally![/quote]

Nice, I'm glad to see it's possible to actually make it out of doc review with something better. So you basically worked doc review to save up enough to pay the operational costs of your own firm, and then bootstrapped your way up from there?

I remember areyouinsane (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5&start=75) with a different take on doc reviewers who were also going solo:

Another funny guy on this project we used to call 'Sloshburg" because he showed up for work reeking of booze every day. One time he came back from lunch all lit up and started turning the lights on and off and like "breathing on people" and such. We're talking heavy Stage IV alcoholism here. He was always bragging about this million-dollar injury case he was "this close" to settling, and how as soon as it came through he was leaving doc review for good. It wasn't unusual. Many coders suffer from what I call "Willy Lohman" syndrome- their grip on reality and their place in the economic pecking order is just totally lost on them. There isn't a coder alive without a stack of cheesy Vista-Print business cards with all sorts of official titles and such like "Law Office of Thomas Montgomery Coder, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, Master of Chancery, King's Bench, Member of the Bar, Juris Doctor, Esquire." It's like some kind of closet "prestige injection" for them, apparently. I think one guy even has his LSAT score on his card, but it was probably like a 149 or whatever.

These cards are of course for their "side practices," which involve getting their brothers/moms/realtives etc. out of speeding tickets and other occasional rinky-dink stuff. What's really funny is that almost all of them use the same Regus mail-drop company in NYC as their "office address," and when they swap cards they'll say things like "oh, our practices are in the same building" and act all important for a few minutes. It gets depressing after awhile seeing these fools carry on this pathetic charade on project after project.

[/quote]

I often wonder if his stories were true, or if all the drugs he admitted to using fucked up his brain and he made up fictionary names and characters and went to Turkey so he could sit around and smoke hashish all day (Turkey is like the easiest place to score drugs and hookers in Europe so I suspect that's the real reason he went there).

Shitfingers, sloshburg, are these even real people or just shit he makes up, lol. That dude seriously should have written a book or became a standup comic, he was wasting his talent in doc reviews.

I do suspect the difference in doc reviews outcomes have to do with :
1. Utlaw is from Texas, lower cost of living all round and areyouinsane is from Ny/Nj border region, where shit is grossly expensive. Not to mention Texas being summer all year round (ny northern standards) meaning that there are far more opportunities in terms of Personal injury cases. Also probably easier to open a practice in Texas which is spread out with cheap land over NY/nj where a shack cost 1200 a month. After difference in taxes and COL even if they both made the same off Doc review, one would be bare minimum living the other would allow for a decent amount of savings.
2. Part of it probably had to do with UTlaw's more optimistic attitude. Since doc review pay has steadily declined, it does suggest that areyouinsane did not necessarily manage his money well. And I'm no druggie, but drugs are expensive and if he became addicted to them spending $200-600 a day was very real possibility. In otherwords, he blew his money so he couldn't open a practice.

Geon wrote: (Turkey is like the easiest place to score drugs and hookers in Europe so I suspect that's the real reason he went there)

Bullshit

dingbat wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Eh, there could easily be a system with no lawyers. Just have judges who do all the investigating and research themselves.

Even in countries where there is civil law (ie no case law, just the written law) there are lawyers.

I was going to write more, but then I figured you already know thete's more to lawyering than investigation and research

That's because we treat law like it's some science. Just do courts of equity. It would be a wildly different system, but it could function.

Desert Fox wrote:

dingbat wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Eh, there could easily be a system with no lawyers. Just have judges who do all the investigating and research themselves.

Even in countries where there is civil law (ie no case law, just the written law) there are lawyers.

I was going to write more, but then I figured you already know thete's more to lawyering than investigation and research

That's because we treat law like it's some science. Just do courts of equity. It would be a wildly different system, but it could function.

I see your point. In theory we might be able to do that. It wouldn't be as effective because nobody would want to be a judge. However, in practice, our constitution wouldn't allow for it because it guarantees the option of jury trials in all criminal cases and in some civil cases. I really don't see an effective way you could have a judge present cases from both sides to another fact finder. Although you could have everyone present his/her case pro se (represent themselves). That way you could have a jury. However, cases would never get presented in the most effective way given that no one presenting would know the rules of evidence. So basically, you'd have all kinds of irrelevant, inadmissable evidence that is highly prejudicial get presented at trial. If the judge, in theory, objected himself to the admission of this evidence, you'd never get a trial done. Cases would be sloppily decided because no one would be able to present a decent case for themselves. And I'm just referencing all of the bad things that the rules of evidence try to prohibit in order to facilitate that only the most effective points be heard concerning a case.

So while in theory you could do it. In practical terms not too many people would have confidence in getting legitimate recourse to right wrongs that have been committed, whether in tort or contract. And if there is no confidence in getting legitimate recourse, then businesses would have far less incentive to enter into business dealings with other businesses for fear of getting screwed and not being able to get justice for it. That will lead to less production which would lead to all sorts of bad things for the economy. So that probably wouldn't be the best idea.

I think another area that would be hurt is the essence of cross examination. Without that, it would be hard to test the credibility of opposing testimony.

I'm not saying your plan would not work, it just wouldn't be as effective as it is now.

Besides, lawyers are officers of the court so they are just another way of realizing your plan in the first place when you think about it.

It would be far too much of a burden for a judge to research and investigate everything by himself/herself. Sure, you could use more judges, but then that is not really different than having lawyers do what they already do. They are just called by a different name. So in essence, there really isn't much of a difference whether we used one judge to carry out your plan or three judges to carry out your plan, but instead, call the other two judges, lawyers.

dingbat wrote:

Geon wrote: (Turkey is like the easiest place to score drugs and hookers in Europe so I suspect that's the real reason he went there)

Bullshit

``Prostitution in Turkey is legal and regulated. Brothels are also legal.``
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Turkey

``Turkey sits at the centre of a drug-smuggling crossroads. Synthetic drugs transit from West to East, while opiates move in the opposite direction....According to the British Foreign Office, as much as 80% of all heroin used in Britain has come through Turkey...In its latest report covering 2004, the Interior Ministry boasts of a 149% increase in seizures of opium and opium derivates. The amount captured is almost equal to the total for the whole of Central and Western Europe. For heroin alone, the increase was 84%..."If you look at international statistics, then the Turkish police catch more drugs than almost any other force," a former police officer told the BBC....Enis Berberoglu, who has written several books on the subject, agrees. "Turkey was deeply involved in drug smuggling in the mid 1990s. There was a very strong mafia here at that time and the PKK (the Kurdish rebel group the Kurdistan Workers Party) used to take protection money in return for letting them operate in the east," he said.``

Turkey is the place where all the drugs from Asia come through to go to users across Europe. Its the best place to score drugs because the price is cheaper there, there are tonnes of the stuff coming in, and it is where all the drugs that are heading for Europe from Asia come through.

polkij333 wrote: My uncle went to a TTTT and started his own firm. He enjoys the ownership he has of his work product and that he has been able to hire people he likes working with. Not much money, but that's not the point. Shit law is not shit, just not especially glamorous

This will automatically make 90% of TLS zone out. "What? The point of life is not to make six figures? WHAT????"

kapital98 wrote:

polkij333 wrote: My uncle went to a TTTT and started his own firm. He enjoys the ownership he has of his work product and that he has been able to hire people he likes working with. Not much money, but that's not the point. Shit law is not shit, just not especially glamorous

This will automatically make 90% of TLS zone out. "What? The point of life is not to make six figures? WHAT????"

Since average indebtedness of lawl school is like $100k now, I don't blame people for wanting 6 figs.

Geon wrote: Shitfingers, sloshburg, are these even real people or just shit he makes up, lol. That dude seriously should have written a book or became a standup comic, he was wasting his talent in doc reviews.

I do suspect the difference in doc reviews outcomes have to do with :
1. Utlaw is from Texas, lower cost of living all round and areyouinsane is from Ny/Nj border region, where shit is grossly expensive. Not to mention Texas being summer all year round (ny northern standards) meaning that there are far more opportunities in terms of Personal injury cases. Also probably easier to open a practice in Texas which is spread out with cheap land over NY/nj where a shack cost 1200 a month. After difference in taxes and COL even if they both made the same off Doc review, one would be bare minimum living the other would allow for a decent amount of savings.
2. Part of it probably had to do with UTlaw's more optimistic attitude. Since doc review pay has steadily declined, it does suggest that areyouinsane did not necessarily manage his money well. And I'm no druggie, but drugs are expensive and if he became addicted to them spending $200-600 a day was very real possibility. In otherwords, he blew his money so he couldn't open a practice.

Yea, I loved areyouinsane's posts. I don't think he just made up the personalities he wrote about, since they were all quite realistic and had lots of individualized details that are quite hard to make up, like Gandhi, the Indian guy who turned his screens sideways and got called a terrorist by the aspie female coder, or the gay Danish translator who couldn't believe how shitty doc reviewers have it and got a nice apple and purple chips every day for lunch and sometimes gave them to areyouinsane, etc. He also only mentions doing blow once in all his posts, so I'm not sure if drugs were his main problem.

I do agree with you that geographic location probably made a lot of difference, since AYI couldn't save anything while doing doc review while UTlaw could. Also AYI had student loans to pay off, which UTlaw might not have had.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more from UTlaw about his experiences starting up his firm. What would he recommend for a law student at a T50 school who struck out at OCI for biglaw - trying to start their own firm right away, or working as an associate in small-law for a few years first? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who may have to face this decision after I graduate.

Geon wrote:

dingbat wrote:

Geon wrote: (Turkey is like the easiest place to score drugs and hookers in Europe so I suspect that's the real reason he went there)

Bullshit

``Prostitution in Turkey is legal and regulated. Brothels are also legal.``
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Turkey

``Turkey sits at the centre of a drug-smuggling crossroads. Synthetic drugs transit from West to East, while opiates move in the opposite direction....According to the British Foreign Office, as much as 80% of all heroin used in Britain has come through Turkey...In its latest report covering 2004, the Interior Ministry boasts of a 149% increase in seizures of opium and opium derivates. The amount captured is almost equal to the total for the whole of Central and Western Europe. For heroin alone, the increase was 84%..."If you look at international statistics, then the Turkish police catch more drugs than almost any other force," a former police officer told the BBC....Enis Berberoglu, who has written several books on the subject, agrees. "Turkey was deeply involved in drug smuggling in the mid 1990s. There was a very strong mafia here at that time and the PKK (the Kurdish rebel group the Kurdistan Workers Party) used to take protection money in return for letting them operate in the east," he said.``

Turkey is the place where all the drugs from Asia come through to go to users across Europe. Its the best place to score drugs because the price is cheaper there, there are tonnes of the stuff coming in, and it is where all the drugs that are heading for Europe from Asia come through.

How about the Netherlands, where marijuana is semi-legal and most clubs offer free pill/powder testing? (not to mention that prostitution is not only legal, but also unionized)
Just because a large volume of drugs is transported through Turkey, that doesn't mean it's easy to buy it (buying in bulk is nowhere near as easy as you imply). Not to mention the harsh punishment that awaits those who are caught (and aren't connected/wealthy enough to bribe their way out)
tempted to troll Turkey =/= Europe, but I'll be nice
Have you ever tried buying drugs in Turkey?

Geon is such a baller he buys his coke by the key.

rad lulz wrote:Geon is such a baller he buys his coke by the key.

Cola maybe

Geon wrote:Ding bat ain't no ding bat

Wily wrote:

Geon wrote: Shitfingers, sloshburg, are these even real people or just shit he makes up, lol. That dude seriously should have written a book or became a standup comic, he was wasting his talent in doc reviews.

I do suspect the difference in doc reviews outcomes have to do with :
1. Utlaw is from Texas, lower cost of living all round and areyouinsane is from Ny/Nj border region, where shit is grossly expensive. Not to mention Texas being summer all year round (ny northern standards) meaning that there are far more opportunities in terms of Personal injury cases. Also probably easier to open a practice in Texas which is spread out with cheap land over NY/nj where a shack cost 1200 a month. After difference in taxes and COL even if they both made the same off Doc review, one would be bare minimum living the other would allow for a decent amount of savings.
2. Part of it probably had to do with UTlaw's more optimistic attitude. Since doc review pay has steadily declined, it does suggest that areyouinsane did not necessarily manage his money well. And I'm no druggie, but drugs are expensive and if he became addicted to them spending $200-600 a day was very real possibility. In otherwords, he blew his money so he couldn't open a practice.

Yea, I loved areyouinsane's posts. I don't think he just made up the personalities he wrote about, since they were all quite realistic and had lots of individualized details that are quite hard to make up, like Gandhi, the Indian guy who turned his screens sideways and got called a terrorist by the aspie female coder, or the gay Danish translator who couldn't believe how shitty doc reviewers have it and got a nice apple and purple chips every day for lunch and sometimes gave them to areyouinsane, etc. He also only mentions doing blow once in all his posts, so I'm not sure if drugs were his main problem.

I do agree with you that geographic location probably made a lot of difference, since AYI couldn't save anything while doing doc review while UTlaw could. Also AYI had student loans to pay off, which UTlaw might not have had.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing more from UTlaw about his experiences starting up his firm. What would he recommend for a law student at a T50 school who struck out at OCI for biglaw - trying to start their own firm right away, or working as an associate in small-law for a few years first? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who may have to face this decision after I graduate.

I think a t50 would be great for starting your own firm. However, and here's the kicker. You probably need to work at a small law firm for two years before striking out on your own. The reason is, unless you know experienced lawyers like I did when starting out, you won't know what your're doing. Now if you want to open a practice fresh out of law school, it would be best if you clerked for someone while in law school. Also, participate in one of your school's clinics. That will give you practical experience right away because you have clients as soon as you join. I was in the Criminal Defense Clinic at UT. I learned a lot about criminal practice. The only problem is that I switched to civil having no experience in it. It is imperative that you take evidence and an advocacy class. Or instead of the advocacy class, participate on one of your school's interscholastic mock trial teams. You have to try out. But some schools have the main team and scout teams. So that increases your chances of making a team. This is important because you learn absolutely nothing about trial practice when participating in the in school competitions.

You greatly better your chances of being successful if you know how to litigate. Make sure you take your state's civil procedure in law school. Keep the books. Keep your barbri bar study materials. At least, keep the outlines. They will help you with research. Also, it greatly benefits you if you have a law library in town. It is not necessary for the simple cases, but it is imperative for the difficult cases. Taking difficult cases allows you to take more cases, thus make more money. Keep in mind, if I went for small cases, my caseload would probably be easy. Not only does the law SOMETIMES get more complex as the cases get bigger, the facts that get crazy complex. That's why learning how to advocate (trial work) in law school is so important. It is also imperative that you learn the rules of evidence. Judges will not know them that well. You need to properly object and you need to have an idea of what you can present as evidence at trial.

Or, you can go for a transactional practice. I have no idea of how to conduct a transactional practice. They make less money so they are harder to maintain. The best thing is probably to start a criminal AND civil practice because criminal cases are easy. Just make sure you don't do murders or anything involving scientific evidence. You won't have enough money to try it and it is a bad idea to cut your teeth on murder cases, assuming you could get them in the first place. You won't. If anyone is on trial for murder and can pay thousands of dollars, they are going to have a lawyer with a rep represent them.

I personally can't stand criminal law because I do not like the clients. Most are guilty and won't give you a straight story. Basically, many of them can't be trusted. Some neglect to tell you important pieces of info until the most inopportune time. And the thing I dislike about them most is that they are irresponsible, uncooperative clients. It's just that those cases are easier to get. Criminal lawyers who get business do very well for themselves. They easily make six figures. But you really won't make crazy money in criminal law until you are trying murder cases and high degree felonies, unless you get a fair amount of DUI's. You don't need crazy volume like auto accident PI attorneys need.

I was sick for three years after I passed the bar. So I had to start my own practice when I got well enough to work. The economy was terrible. I wanted to be in the courtroom. So that meant that biglaw was out because you may never see a courtroom. Plus, I wanted to have a life outside of work. Biglaw makes that extremely hard to do. Small firms give you the most access to the courtroom. The problem with small firms is that they don't hire much. And they don't really train much. So you pretty much learn on the job and many are not willing to hire a fresh lawyer. But some small plaintiffs and small defense firms will. They just don't pay you anything. Well the small defense firms pay more than the small plaintiffs firms. However, a small plaintiffs firm that has associates probably has partners (like only two or three usually) that are pulling a few to several million dollars a year. But they don't pay their associates jack, unless their associates are winning tons of cases for them in court. But they are good for learning the ropes and getting litigation experience. I'd suggest working as an ADA or in the attorney general's office of your state for two years. That will help with your trial skills. And it would help you get hired by a criminal law firm. The trial skills learned would be attractive to some small law firms that do trial work. It definitely will help you start your own criminal practice. But if you want to learn civil, I think it's pointless going down that road. Get your trial skills from doing interscholastic mock trial or taking some advocacy classes at your school. It's not that doing trials as an ADA won't benefit you in civil. It's just that learning criminal procedure and practice will slow your ability to learn civil procedure and practice.

The main thing after taking those classes is having mentors that you can ask questions. And research, research, research (the relevant law).

dingbat wrote:

rad lulz wrote:Geon is such a baller he buys his coke by the key.

Cola maybe

Geon wrote:Ding bat ain't no ding bat

You're still mad about that? That's obviously a compliment, he's saying you aren't a ding bat (even though your name is dingbat...)

Also AYI had student loans to pay off, which UTlaw might not have had.

I do have student loans, unfortunately. They are in deferment after consolidation. I'm a very spiritual person. I credit God with all the cases I have because most of them are unusually large for someone just starting out.

This is what exactly what went through my mind to open up my own firm. I had recently became well enough to work after my illness. My best friend's step dad asked me to help him with a small case. At the time, I was trying to get on with a small firm. But the economy had it to where the small firms in my area wanted you to have 5+ years experience before they hired you. I never wanted to leave Houston, my home town, even before I knew what law school I would go to. That's why UT Law was my first choice. Michigan was at first because I went to undergrad there. But I came to my senses and knew I just had to work in my hometown of Houston. I never interviewed with any firms out of state. There's just no way I would have taken a biglaw job out of state over a midlaw or smallLaw job in Houston.

Anyway, so I helped my best friend's step dad. My client's conduct in the business transaction was suspect. But I got the client off.

My best friend liked my work and wanted me to be lead counsel on a much larger commercial litigation case. I have trial skills. I won an award for best advocate in an interscholastic out of state regional mock trial competition. So I had crazy confidence from day one. And you HAVE to have confidence to perform in the courtroom. Anyway, he felt I could do a better job on it than he could. When I saw the amount of money that could be had just off of ONE case, I was like, "I will NEVER work for someone again. I have to open my own firm and get these large contingency fee cases."

Then I spent the next 4 months brainstorming and crafting potential practice areas, marketing strategies, predicted revenue streams and their amounts depending on the practice area. I went hardcore from a business perspective. I was obsessed. That was all I thought about and I planned day and night. My strategy is to aggressively pursue extremely large cases. Some are larger than others. But you have to supplement those large cases with smaller ones that pay immediately, unless you have a client that can pay a decent sized retainer. It just depends on the client.

The doc review stuff kept me afloat. But I hated it with a passion. But it's a necessary evil when starting your own practice, especially a practice that relies on contingency fee cases that are large.