Top Law Schools for Litigation Forum

[Blessedassurance]

I'm all for fair discussion of opposing viewpoints. But I do feel that people need to be respectful and not mock others as that impedes the ability to have any meaningful discussion. I thought your tv comment was a below the belt hit. Hence, I became annoyed and responded the way I did. But I do apologize.

fair enough, no worries.

[A. Nony Mouse]

States the person who penned such hits as, "you've been watching too much tv" and "are you as charismatic as this guy".

~2% of cases ever go to trial, what does charisma have to do with biglaw/actual midlaw lit, much less corp, especially as it relates to a 1st/2nd associate?

i can see an argument that charisma (more accurately, being sociable and charming) will prove useful in cultivating a book of business etc. however, law school is not going to teach you that.

the texas hammer commercial was a joke. part of being charismatic, is having a sense of humor. hth.

Since when is biglaw/midlaw the only kind of litigation? There are lots of lawyers who never get into court, but there are also lawyers who go to court way more.

[Skye]

The problem with real world experience is that you just might be learning from someone who sucks, has bad habits, etc. That will do you no good. It's good to jump into real world practice by having a great handle on the fundamentals. That way, you know who to learn from when you get out into the real world.

But the universal advice holds true for you, too. It's no different. Go to the best law school you can.

Have you ever been in a situation where a couple partners are dynamic and a couple are pedestrian at best, how do you gravitate toward the best without offending the others? Have you ever been in that situation, if so, how did you handle it?

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

States the person who penned such hits as, "you've been watching too much tv" and "are you as charismatic as this guy".

~2% of cases ever go to trial, what does charisma have to do with biglaw/actual midlaw lit, much less corp, especially as it relates to a 1st/2nd associate?

i can see an argument that charisma (more accurately, being sociable and charming) will prove useful in cultivating a book of business etc. however, law school is not going to teach you that.

the texas hammer commercial was a joke. part of being charismatic, is having a sense of humor. hth.

You appear to have missed the point. I'm not going to tell you what it is, though. It's more rewarding when you figure it out on your own. You seem like a pretty smart guy so I'm sure you'll get it pretty quickly. But I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with charisma.

[utlaw2007]

States the person who penned such hits as, "you've been watching too much tv" and "are you as charismatic as this guy".

~2% of cases ever go to trial, what does charisma have to do with biglaw/actual midlaw lit, much less corp, especially as it relates to a 1st/2nd associate?

i can see an argument that charisma (more accurately, being sociable and charming) will prove useful in cultivating a book of business etc. however, law school is not going to teach you that.

the texas hammer commercial was a joke. part of being charismatic, is having a sense of humor. hth.

Those are good points, but they don't address the OP original question. OP was concerned with what were the best law schools for litigation. I told them that the best schools for litigation were the highest ranking law schools, period. In other words, there really is no such distinction among law schools for litigation. Then I supported that contention by addressing what I felt were the important characteristics of a successful trial lawyer to illustrate that the things that can be learned pertaining to trial law can be learned at any good law school. I referenced the other attributes that cannot be learned to illustrate that becoming a successful trial lawyer is not contingent on what you learn in law school. So law school really has no bearing on whether one is a successful trial lawyer. That was the point I was trying to make to OP.

[utlaw2007]

Accidentally quoted myself when I was just trying to make a correction.

[SaintsTheMetal]

you seem unhinged. why are you so angry?

are you as charismatic as this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15M9b6PAdro

Now you are just being grossly immature. I forget that you most of you guys are really young. When I put things into perspective like that, then it's hard to get mad. Many of you guys just don't know any better.

UTlaw2007, I'm an 0L that's been a lurker on here since January or so, will be starting in the fall. Your posts are excellent and much appreciated.

Thank you. Your received benefit that has compelled your response is the main reason why I come to this forum. I want to do what I can to help prospective law school students in anyway that I can do so.

+1

as an aspiring litigator/trial lawyer enrolled for next fall, I wholehearted agree. your perspective is a much needed addition to the mountains of K-JDs on this forum

[Blessedassurance]

I told them that the best schools for litigation were the highest ranking law schools, period. In other words, there really is no such distinction among law schools for litigation

the conclusion is undisputed. my point is that the fungibility stems from the inability of any law school to teach you how to be a litigator. you seem to think otherwise. either that, or i don't understand your point.

Biglaw doesn't hire from top law schools because of their training, they hire them for their supposed intelligence, by virtue of the fact that they got in. same reason goldman sachs might hire a humanities major above a certain gpa from princeton for example, or mckinsey might hire a sociology major from stanford who doesn't have a clue about the industry.

[quiver]

And you guys keep on thinking that shit law is all law that is practiced that doesn't include two large firms. The ignorance is astounding.

For the record, I appreciate your input ITT (especially as a practicing lawyer). However, I think the above quote is a mischaracterization of what people say on TLS. I can't think of any common posters who have the view that shitlaw is everything outside of biglaw.

[utlaw2007]

And you guys keep on thinking that shit law is all law that is practiced that doesn't include two large firms. The ignorance is astounding.

For the record, I appreciate your input ITT (especially as a practicing lawyer). However, I think the above quote is a mischaracterization of what people say on TLS. I can't think of any common posters who have the view that shitlaw is everything outside of biglaw.

This view may not be the consensus of the forum. But I have seen a few people make this characterization through implication. My annoyance at the time of the statement was the reason why I stated it the way I did.

[utlaw2007]

I told them that the best schools for litigation were the highest ranking law schools, period. In other words, there really is no such distinction among law schools for litigation

the conclusion is undisputed. my point is that the fungibility stems from the inability of any law school to teach you how to be a litigator. you seem to think otherwise. either that, or i don't understand your point.

Biglaw doesn't hire from top law schools because of their training, they hire them for their supposed intelligence, by virtue of the fact that they got in. same reason goldman sachs might hire a humanities major above a certain gpa from princeton for example, or mckinsey might hire a sociology major from stanford who doesn't have a clue about the industry.

I agree with most of this. But I do feel what I learned in law school helped to refine some of the abilities I use in litigation and in the courtroom. That may not be true for anyone else. But it is true for me.

[utlaw2007]

The problem with real world experience is that you just might be learning from someone who sucks, has bad habits, etc. That will do you no good. It's good to jump into real world practice by having a great handle on the fundamentals. That way, you know who to learn from when you get out into the real world.

But the universal advice holds true for you, too. It's no different. Go to the best law school you can.

Have you ever been in a situation where a couple partners are dynamic and a couple are pedestrian at best, how do you gravitate toward the best without offending the others? Have you ever been in that situation, if so, how did you handle it?

Unfortunately, I have never worked for any partners so I would have no proven idea how to handle this situation. This is an awesome question, though. I do have and have had a few mentors. They are about the closest thing I have had to the partner scenario you mention. The obvious advantage to my situation is that they don't know about each other so they have no idea of what I learn from each of them. In a law firm, you don't have that luxury. I'm sorry I can't answer your question.

As soon as I passed the bar, I became stricken with a rare illness. This illness rendered me completely incapacitated and persisted for three years. Once I was well enough to practice, still was not even close to fully recovered or even well, the economy had tanked. I had already known that I had wanted to be in the courtroom. So biglaw wasn't an option for me. A small law firm gave me the best chance to be in the courtroom. But small law firms don't hire much and they certainly don't hire in this economy. So I went out on my own because I had to make money. And the rest is history...

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 4&t=207375