Top Law Schools

Ps bible for LG not LR

GNA wrote:Dirigo - I'm using the trainer and Manhattan as well as ps bible for [LG]
Thank you, I'll keep posting my experience.

Great materials to start with.

you should just become a full-time expert witness. you will get to do the exciting part of being a lawyer, without any of the shitty parts, for more pay, with better hours, with more autonomy, and you don't have to go to law school.

Dirigo - I changed my mind after reading through these posts. The unemployment figures are horrendous. I will be applying to full time programs and studying like crazy for June or September. Thank you .

Lets keep the personal attacks out of this.

GNA wrote:Dirigo - I changed my mind after reading through these posts. The unemployment figures are horrendous. I will be applying to full time programs and studying like crazy for June or September. Thank you .

Glad to hear you are taking the jobs situation seriously, OP. It is very bleak for most students, and that's why we are cautioning you about law school. A couple of questions:

(1) Are you willing to relocate for law school?
(2) What is your ideal job? Small law firm, large law firm?
(3) Are you sure you are a URM? (I only ask because some people mistakenly think they qualify but don't. URM status provides a big boost in admissions, so it is important to be certain.)
(4) Are you okay taking a massive pay cut? The very best entry level jobs in the legal profession start at ~$150,000 (give or take). Most graduates start out around $50,000. Obviously that's a huge drop from your current payscale.

To have a realistic shot at top flight legal jobs, you'll want to aim for a school like Cal or Stanford. Your background, URM status, and solid GPA make you make a very interesting applicant. If you are sure this is what you want to do, you need to crush the LSAT and aim high.

H

rpupkin wrote:If this is a DF thread: 165.

If this is a new poster seeking advice: 172

Not a DF thread. OP posted in our reddit sub about a week ago.

Glad to see she is coming around on the employment statistics front.

/edit: Also, Dirigo's information is 180. Happy you're helping.

fats provolone wrote:you should just become a full-time expert witness. you will get to do the exciting part of being a lawyer, without any of the shitty parts, for more pay, with better hours, with more autonomy, and you don't have to go to law school.

i really urge you to consider this option. there are expert consultant firms where you could work that are run very much like law firms (except with you in the role of partner, basically), or you could start your own (obviously you have experience running a business). it is also a field where your age and experience will be a benefit (and, in fact, essential) rather than a potential problem.

bl1nds1ght wrote:

rpupkin wrote:If this is a DF thread: 165.

If this is a new poster seeking advice: 172

Not a DF thread. OP posted in our reddit sub about a week ago.

Yeah, sorry. I honestly thought it might be when I read the OP, but I should not have suggested that.

GNA: You're getting some good advice in this thread. I'll add that, in light of your unusual background and career goals, a full ride to USF wouldn't be a bad outcome. It's not like you're a 25 yo without experience looking to go to a big law firm. You're interested in maintaining a chiropractic practice in San Francisco while attending law school and then, afterwards, involving yourself in a niche practice area. I'm not sure that a school's general employment stats are going to be all that relevant in your peculiar case.

Also, I second FP's suggestion about considering a career as a professional expert witness.

H

few cases go to trial but you still have to produce expert reports and be deposed. that's like 90% of the work for litigators. discovery and experts. and 10% motions to transfer

So you're a 3.8 URM, with a lot of WE. I do think that your age might work against you though, but what do I know.

Your goals are workers comp/employment law?

Yeah you'd only need like a 160-165 to nail a full ride at UCLA/USC or something. If you can do 165+ you're probably looking at T14. Berekley is a toss-up, the higher the score the better, but you don't need a very high score for Berk. I think a 170+ is necessary for Stanford though.

Again, I don't know how big a factor the age thing is, since it's pretty significant.

GNA wrote: Also, relative to ex witness testimony, most cases settle after depositions and rarely proceed to trial.

Yes, but that's just as true for lawyers as it is for expert witnesses.

One more question , what's DF and OP?

OP = "Original Poster." So you are the OP of this thread.

DF = Desert Fox, a TLS-o-holic who often trolls these parts. He also contributes many (literally thousands) of serious and semi-serious posts. Stick around and you will be sure to read his work.

It is wise of you to be asking around about the profession. You should try and get the most information you can before making a very serious investment of time and money.

As for getting input on jobs and hiring, you should focus your discussions on people who have graduated within the last 5-10 years. First, the job market has changed drastically. Attorneys who are 40+ are typically very disconnected from the hiring and employment game. A partner at a small law practice probably knows a heck of a lot more about practicing law than I do as a second year associate, but I guarantee I know more about hiring and employment. Second, you wind up hearing a lot of what I call "survivor bias" from older attorneys who "make it," so that the insights of those who struggled or dropped out of law aren't represented.

Finally, I would encourage you to ask around a bit about worker's compensation legal work. I'm far from an expert on it and I'm sure some workers comp is very lucrative and maybe even challenging, but my perception as a lawyer is that it is usually lower end, churn and burn type work. You should ask around to get an idea of the type of things you'll be doing in that field.

Best of luck, OP.

Super happy to hear that OP has found what she needs.

H

GNA wrote: In the interim I'll keep studying. Now , when I start to score above 160 on timed pts , is that My green light to register for LSAT? ( June vs September) .

Personally, I would try to max out and wait to see how high you can get it. It will only benefit you. Registering when you hit 160+ is an arbitrary distinction. Alternatively, check the medians of your target schools and register when you start hitting above them, preferably at or above the 75ths.

Medians here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... hMXc#gid=9

GNA wrote: Also most if not all pts have only 4 parts , isn't test 5 the experimental portion ?
How do I practice endurance?nJust add another section to my regimen ?

The experimental section doesn't appear in a set order during the actual exam (it's placed randomly between the other sections so that it can't be easily identified).

Adding another section from early PTs is a great way to practice having an experimental section added in.

thank you !

OP, since you have two practices open, I'm guessing you have doctors who work for you, and you don't treat every patient? If that's true, is it feasible for you to just keep them open and just manage them while you go to school full time?

Also, there is NOTHING BS about the work chiropractors do. I used to have bad back problems before seeing a chiropractor. The work your profession does is awesome!

the chiro stuff is off topic here but op you should make a thread in the lounge about chiropractics. i would be interested in hearing about it.

Non traditional Law - That's great to hear.
I have 2 offices and I actually travel between both locations. In the mornings , I do depositions and qualified Medical exams. I had associates in the past but I found it much easier to handle my own cases si I downsized.

I will have to search for an associate to help me during this transition. I am contemplating full time vs part time but am wary because I'm not sure how much time I will have to manage the offices given the demands of a full class schedule.

Since you received the degree a while ago and have very strong softs, having the 3.2 count will not hurt you with a strong LSAT.

I would guess you would get sizeable scholarships at all 4 of those schools with a 160.

NonTradLawHopeful wrote:Since you received the degree a while ago and have very strong softs, having the 3.2 count will not hurt you with a strong LSAT.

Your language is too strong.
The further removed you are from your GPA, the better. But a 3.2 is definitely more hurtful than helpful. That being said, it can definitely be overcome with a great LSAT score.