Roast my PS Forum

[llb-k-jd]

The title says it all. For a bit of background, I’m a US citizen currently earning an LLB (foreign undergraduate law degree) at a top 10 UK uni for that subject. I am 20, have only a year’s work experience, an above average transcript evaluation, and a 170, and am planning to apply to T14s that might offer me a year’s Advanced Standing (Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell etc.) in the fall. Here goes:


I, like so many old young people, have three hobbies: board games, military history, and competitive debating. The commonality between these pursuits is twofold. On the one hand, an overabundance of free time: and on the other, a utilization of strategic thought. This personal statement will convey the usefulness of the latter tendency, its effect on my life, and its ramifications on my choice of profession, namely the practice of law.

I learned the autopoietic mores of high school debating via online forums. Initially I did poorly, placing at highest tenth during my first year: my school’s program was unestablished, and lacked the continuity, self-awareness, and database subscriptions that come with a long existence. Realizing that continuing to play by the same set of rules as my peers would do me no good, I consulted the forums, therein discovering the existence of unconventional (‘progressive’) cases which require no access to policy research at all: abandoning argumentation, and instead relaying emotionally significant narratives; attacking topics themselves using critical theory; debating about the burdens inherent to rounds; and other such things. Critically, none required access to current research.

The problem was that these frameworks, as they existed online, were jam-packed with jargon and pretension, making them inaccessible to lay judges. I sought to remove these features. I firmly believed that, by combining non-traditional cases with a traditional style, it would be possible to reach ordinary adjudicators, to overcome the research gap, and thereby to even the playing field: and so I set about deciphering and explaining Foucault, Engels and the Fiat at moderate speed, and in plain English, to an audience that others thought unreachable. In my second and third year I attained a flurry of firsts, seconds, and thirds, alongside a best orator award and a national qualification. Today, progressive cases are very popular indeed along the Gulf Coast of Florida.

Thus did I learn that tactics – the perfectly worded framework, the best trap in cross examination, the ideal ordering of rebuttal points – only matter once strategic parity has been achieved: whereas before I had failed because no amount of tactical effort or ingenuity could overcome the strategic advantage of establishment, now I succeeded by virtually ignoring tactics and instead energetically pursuing a strategy that minimized that advantage. I resolved to apply the same approach to my career, sorting out my goals and aptitudes first, and then and only then deciding what individual steps to take: my greatest passion is competition, and a profession involving case-building, public speaking, a complex set of rules and some degree of creativity had to be selected. Litigation seemed the obvious choice. The attorneys I spoke with all remarked that my primary goal in education should be to cultivate a clear, analytic and jurisprudential way of thinking. When my research revealed the possibility of attaining a bachelors in law, the proper course became clear.

My undergraduate work has thus far been both challenging and interesting. I discovered that I enjoy legal study, with the unwritten constitution, the shifting authority of the European Court of Human Rights, and the ramifications of an equity still fiercely distinct from the common law being particularly fascinating. More significantly, I found in the differing tendencies of British life the understanding that I am, in fact, American. I also found a desire to utilize my education in the interest of that country, given its increasingly unstable system. The starting advantages or disadvantages we face are beyond our control, but we can however determine our responses to them: and in debating, and more importantly in life, the best response must needs be founded upon a sound strategic analysis. Mine points to the necessity, and the desirability, of attaining two letters; JD.

Thank you so much for your time.

[Pneumonia]

The title says it all. For a bit of background, I’m a US citizen currently earning an LLB (foreign undergraduate law degree) at a top 10 UK uni for that subject. I am 20, have only a year’s work experience, an above average transcript evaluation, and a 170, and am planning to apply to T14s that might offer me a year’s Advanced Standing (Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell etc.) in the fall. Here goes:

A few suggestions:

I, like so many old young people, have three hobbies: board games, military history, and competitive debating. The commonality between these pursuits is twofold. On the one hand, an overabundance of they require a lot of free time:. aAnd on the other, a utilization of they require strategic thought. This personal statement will convey the usefulness of the latter tendency, its effect on my life, and its ramifications on my choice of profession, namely the practice of law. [Roadmaps are good but you don't need one for a PS.]

The three-two-one pattern is interesting and you should keep it if you can. Delete "like so many old young people." It is abrupt, and I don't know any old people who do competitive debate. Ditto board games. "I have three hobbies" is a better intro. Suggest you replace the sentence beginning "The commonality" with a sentence that says "These hobbies have two things in common" (this is more natural, and it buys you a better three-two-one). The colon after "time" should be a semicolon, or better yet, a new sentence.

I learned the autopoietic mores [No. I don't know what these words mean. Neither will your reader.] of high school debating via online forums. Initially I did poorly [poorly online or poorly in the forums?], placing at highest tenth during my first year: [No. Revisit rules for using a colon.] my school’s program was unestablished [how can it be unestablished if you were participating in it? Do you mean underfunded? new?] , and lacked the continuity, self-awareness, and database subscriptions suggest you replace these words with "resources." that come with a long existence. Realizing that continuing to play by the same set of rules as my peers would do me no good [why?], I consulted the forums, therein [No. Avoid weird words.]discovering the existence of unconventional (‘progressive’) cases what is a "case"?] which require no access [do not require access] to policy research at all: abandoning argumentation, and instead relaying emotionally significant narratives; attacking topics themselves using critical theory; debating about the burdens inherent to rounds; and other such things. Critically, none required access to current research. Eliminate the colon and use these as examples. You've used too many words to describe these styles. Consider using pathos, critical theory, systemic burdens, etc.]

Suggestion for the beginning: "I learned a lot about debating from online forums" or similar. Refresh yourself on how to use colons vs. semicolons.

The problem was that these frameworks, as they existed online, were jam-packed with jargon and pretension [pretense], making them inaccessible to lay judges. are not all judges in this context "lay"?] I sought to remove these features. ["Feature" connotes something desirable, as in the antonyms "bug" and "feature." So find a different word. "Aspect" might work.] I firmly believed that, by combining non-traditional cases with a traditional style, it would be possible to reach ordinary adjudicators, to overcome the research gap, and thereby to even the playing field: again, this is not how to use a colon. I suggest you remove all colons and semicolons from this piece. At best, and when used correctly (which none so far have been), they are stylistic decorations in which you need not indulge] and so I set about deciphering and explaining you deciphered live? or you merely explained live?] Foucault, Engels and the Fiat use Oxford comma] at moderate speed, and in plain English, to an audience that others thought unreachable who thought the judges were unreachable? certainly not your fellow participants...]. In my second and third year I attained a flurry of firsts, seconds, and thirds, alongside a best orator award and a national qualification. Today, progressive cases are very popular indeed along the Gulf Coast of Florida. Explain better what these things mean.

Thus did I learn that tactics – the perfectly worded framework, the best trap in cross examination, the ideal ordering of rebuttal points – only matter once strategic parity has been achieved: whereas before I had failed because no amount of tactical effort or ingenuity could overcome the strategic advantage of establishment, now I succeeded these three words are in a contradictory tense] by virtually ignoring tactics and instead energetically pursuing a strategy that minimized that advantage. I resolved to apply the same approach to my career, sorting out my goals and aptitudes first, and then and only then deciding what individual steps to take: my greatest passion is competition, and a profession involving case-building, public speaking, a complex set of rules and some degree of creativity had to be selected. Litigation seemed the obvious choice. The attorneys I spoke with all remarked that my primary goal in education should be to cultivate a clear, analytic and jurisprudential way of thinking. When my research revealed the possibility of attaining a bachelors in law, the proper course became clear.

[Fix your colon again. Don't pretend to know about lawyer things like "cross examination" (even if you actually know them).

My undergraduate work has thus far been both challenging and interesting. I discovered that I enjoy legal study, with the unwritten constitution, the shifting authority of the European Court of Human Rights, and the ramifications of an equity still fiercely distinct from the common law being particularly fascinating. More significantly, I found in the differing tendencies of British life the understanding that I am, in fact, American. I also found a desire to utilize my education in the interest of that country, given its increasingly unstable system. The starting advantages or disadvantages we face are beyond our control, but we can however determine our responses to them: and in debating, and more importantly in life, the best response must needs be founded upon a sound strategic analysis. Mine points to the necessity, and the desirability, of attaining two letters; JD.

Thank you so much for your time.

You mention three hobbies but then only talk about one. Why even mention the others at all? Your thoughts here emake sense to me. Your structure is good, and I think you could edit his into a workable PS, but the writing needs a lot of work. You said you are a U.S. citizen getting an LL.B., so I assumed that English was your first language. If I'm wrong in that assumption, then my suggestion would be for you to make all of these sentences very short, to eliminate duplicative descriptions ("effort or ingenuity," "goals and aptitudes, "then and only then," etc., and to remove any complicated grammar. If English is your first language, then you need to do all of the same things. I would have many more line edits, but I think you need to rework this with the broader suggestions in mind first.

You are on the right track. Keep at it! And congrats on the 170!

[towel13661]

Is this real? Wow.

First of all, as a moderately successful national circuit debater in high school, I would strongly suggest not writing about high school debate in your personal statement. "I want to be a lawyer because I'm good at arguing" is really dumb. If you're going to stick with that topic, this needs a complete tear-down and rework. There's no connection between any of the paragraphs, it reads like a thesaurus, and it doesn't tell me much about you besides the fact that you take high school debate way too seriously way too long after the fact.

I, like so many old young people, have three hobbies: board games, military history, and competitive debating

What is an old young person, and why do we care about board games and military history if you're not going to reference them again?

On the one hand, an overabundance of free time: and on the other, a utilization of strategic thought. This personal statement will convey the usefulness of the latter tendency, its effect on my life, and its ramifications on my choice of profession, namely the practice of law.

1. Not how colons work. 2. Don't tell us what the personal statement is going to do. Just do it.

autopoietic mores

No.

Initially I did poorly, placing at highest tenth during my first year: my school’s program was unestablished, and lacked the continuity, self-awareness, and database subscriptions that come with a long existence.

Provide some context to this. Placing 10th doesn't sound terrible to me.

therein discovering the existence of unconventional (‘progressive’) cases which require no access to policy research at all: abandoning argumentation, and instead relaying emotionally significant narratives; attacking topics themselves using critical theory; debating about the burdens inherent to rounds; and other such things.

If I hit you in a bid round I would dump 15 cards on you, extend all my offense, and pick up every judge, lay or not. Are you just explaining k's in a really pretentious way?

I do think the next paragraph about making cases more accessible to lay judges could be really good. It's a good opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking skills, flexibility in your argumentation, knowing your audience, etc. I think you should spend more time on that and less on "why law". The why law bit is not necessary for a PS and doesn't really fit here. Also, PLEASE don't speak in debate jargon. It's just annoying and unnecessary. Last paragraph doesn't fit, is all over the place content-wise (why does the British vs American thing come up)? and really just needs to be scrapped imo. If you want to keep this topic, I think a better way to do the statement would be something like "At the beginning of my debate career, I lacked the knowledge, support, and resources to succeed by debating traditionally. I overcame this through running unconventional cases and adapting them to a lay audience. This helped me succeed in debate, and I would bring the same research/inquisitiveness/flexbility etc to my legal education and career".

Overall, you really need to be more clear and plain in your language (your syntax really sucks), construct a more coherent narrative, and scrap what doesn't work while fleshing out what does. It could work, but it definitely needs work, and (life pro tip here) debate is and always has been kind of dumb lol, so try not to take it so seriously.

[llb-k-jd]

The title says it all. For a bit of background, I’m a US citizen currently earning an LLB (foreign undergraduate law degree) at a top 10 UK uni for that subject. I am 20, have only a year’s work experience, an above average transcript evaluation, and a 170, and am planning to apply to T14s that might offer me a year’s Advanced Standing (Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell etc.) in the fall. Here goes:

A few suggestions:

I, like so many old young people, have three hobbies: board games, military history, and competitive debating. The commonality between these pursuits is twofold. On the one hand, an overabundance of they require a lot of free time:. aAnd on the other, a utilization of they require strategic thought. This personal statement will convey the usefulness of the latter tendency, its effect on my life, and its ramifications on my choice of profession, namely the practice of law. [Roadmaps are good but you don't need one for a PS.]

The three-two-one pattern is interesting and you should keep it if you can. Delete "like so many old young people." It is abrupt, and I don't know any old people who do competitive debate. Ditto board games. "I have three hobbies" is a better intro. Suggest you replace the sentence beginning "The commonality" with a sentence that says "These hobbies have two things in common" (this is more natural, and it buys you a better three-two-one). The colon after "time" should be a semicolon, or better yet, a new sentence.

I learned the autopoietic mores [No. I don't know what these words mean. Neither will your reader.] of high school debating via online forums. Initially I did poorly [poorly online or poorly in the forums?], placing at highest tenth during my first year: [No. Revisit rules for using a colon.] my school’s program was unestablished [how can it be unestablished if you were participating in it? Do you mean underfunded? new?] , and lacked the continuity, self-awareness, and database subscriptions suggest you replace these words with "resources." that come with a long existence. Realizing that continuing to play by the same set of rules as my peers would do me no good [why?], I consulted the forums, therein [No. Avoid weird words.]discovering the existence of unconventional (‘progressive’) cases what is a "case"?] which require no access [do not require access] to policy research at all: abandoning argumentation, and instead relaying emotionally significant narratives; attacking topics themselves using critical theory; debating about the burdens inherent to rounds; and other such things. Critically, none required access to current research. Eliminate the colon and use these as examples. You've used too many words to describe these styles. Consider using pathos, critical theory, systemic burdens, etc.]

Suggestion for the beginning: "I learned a lot about debating from online forums" or similar. Refresh yourself on how to use colons vs. semicolons.

The problem was that these frameworks, as they existed online, were jam-packed with jargon and pretension [pretense], making them inaccessible to lay judges. are not all judges in this context "lay"?] I sought to remove these features. ["Feature" connotes something desirable, as in the antonyms "bug" and "feature." So find a different word. "Aspect" might work.] I firmly believed that, by combining non-traditional cases with a traditional style, it would be possible to reach ordinary adjudicators, to overcome the research gap, and thereby to even the playing field: again, this is not how to use a colon. I suggest you remove all colons and semicolons from this piece. At best, and when used correctly (which none so far have been), they are stylistic decorations in which you need not indulge] and so I set about deciphering and explaining you deciphered live? or you merely explained live?] Foucault, Engels and the Fiat use Oxford comma] at moderate speed, and in plain English, to an audience that others thought unreachable who thought the judges were unreachable? certainly not your fellow participants...]. In my second and third year I attained a flurry of firsts, seconds, and thirds, alongside a best orator award and a national qualification. Today, progressive cases are very popular indeed along the Gulf Coast of Florida. Explain better what these things mean.

Thus did I learn that tactics – the perfectly worded framework, the best trap in cross examination, the ideal ordering of rebuttal points – only matter once strategic parity has been achieved: whereas before I had failed because no amount of tactical effort or ingenuity could overcome the strategic advantage of establishment, now I succeeded these three words are in a contradictory tense] by virtually ignoring tactics and instead energetically pursuing a strategy that minimized that advantage. I resolved to apply the same approach to my career, sorting out my goals and aptitudes first, and then and only then deciding what individual steps to take: my greatest passion is competition, and a profession involving case-building, public speaking, a complex set of rules and some degree of creativity had to be selected. Litigation seemed the obvious choice. The attorneys I spoke with all remarked that my primary goal in education should be to cultivate a clear, analytic and jurisprudential way of thinking. When my research revealed the possibility of attaining a bachelors in law, the proper course became clear.

[Fix your colon again. Don't pretend to know about lawyer things like "cross examination" (even if you actually know them).

My undergraduate work has thus far been both challenging and interesting. I discovered that I enjoy legal study, with the unwritten constitution, the shifting authority of the European Court of Human Rights, and the ramifications of an equity still fiercely distinct from the common law being particularly fascinating. More significantly, I found in the differing tendencies of British life the understanding that I am, in fact, American. I also found a desire to utilize my education in the interest of that country, given its increasingly unstable system. The starting advantages or disadvantages we face are beyond our control, but we can however determine our responses to them: and in debating, and more importantly in life, the best response must needs be founded upon a sound strategic analysis. Mine points to the necessity, and the desirability, of attaining two letters; JD.

Thank you so much for your time.

You mention three hobbies but then only talk about one. Why even mention the others at all? Your thoughts here emake sense to me. Your structure is good, and I think you could edit his into a workable PS, but the writing needs a lot of work. You said you are a U.S. citizen getting an LL.B., so I assumed that English was your first language. If I'm wrong in that assumption, then my suggestion would be for you to make all of these sentences very short, to eliminate duplicative descriptions ("effort or ingenuity," "goals and aptitudes, "then and only then," etc., and to remove any complicated grammar. If English is your first language, then you need to do all of the same things. I would have many more line edits, but I think you need to rework this with the broader suggestions in mind first.

You are on the right track. Keep at it! And congrats on the 170!

English is my first language, but my syntax could use some work. I think it’s some combination of stylistic overuse, confusion about usage (having been exposed to different norms in the UK) and overediting on my part.

In any case, thank you for the thorough feedback! I’ll set about revising it today.

[llb-k-jd]

Is this real? Wow.

First of all, as a moderately successful national circuit debater in high school, I would strongly suggest not writing about high school debate in your personal statement. "I want to be a lawyer because I'm good at arguing" is really dumb. If you're going to stick with that topic, this needs a complete tear-down and rework. There's no connection between any of the paragraphs, it reads like a thesaurus, and it doesn't tell me much about you besides the fact that you take high school debate way too seriously way too long after the fact.

I don’t want to be a lawyer because I’m good at arguing. I want to be a lawyer because I enjoy the type of analytic thinking inherent to the practice of law. I really tried to make that clear. Is this a fault in my paper specifically, or a broader cliche associated with the topic? And I’m sorry about it being a ‘thesaurus,’ that’s just my style of writing. I will, however, go back and change some of the words. And I really don’t care about high school debating, I just thought it would be a good way to tie into my broader themes. Apparently not...

What is an old young you person, and why do we care about board games and military history if you're not going to reference them again?

A young person with old-person hobbies, it’s meant to be humorous lmao but I’ll remove it. Point taken on the hobbies.

2. Don't tell us what the personal statement is going to do. Just do it.

Point taken.

If I hit you in a bid round I would dump 15 cards on you, extend all my offense, and pick up every judge, lay or not. Are you just explaining k's in a really pretentious way?

Narratives, K’s, and Theory, respectively. I did LD (yes I know it’s a joke).

I do think the next paragraph about making cases more accessible to lay judges could be really good. It's a good opportunity to demonstrate critical thinking skills, flexibility in your argumentation, knowing your audience, etc. I think you should spend more time on that and less on "why law". The why law bit is not necessary for a PS and doesn't really fit here. Also, PLEASE don't speak in debate jargon. It's just annoying and unnecessary. Last paragraph doesn't fit, is all over the place content-wise (why does the British vs American thing come up)? and really just needs to be scrapped imo. If you want to keep this topic, I think a better way to do the statement would be something like "At the beginning of my debate career, I lacked the knowledge, support, and resources to succeed by debating traditionally. I overcame this through running unconventional cases and adapting them to a lay audience. This helped me succeed in debate, and I would bring the same research/inquisitiveness/flexbility etc to my legal education and

I agree with your suggestions about restructuring and focusing on the accessibility bit, and I think removing the first paragraph/my law will allow that. I really tried to cut out the Debating jargon :/ but I will do another sweep. I have to confess that I’m a bit attached to the British/American thing. I’m from a small town in the South, and (not really knowing anyone from outside the US) I never really thought of myself as American. Living abroad has changed that. I know it’s cliche, buttttt... I’ll probably remove it tho

...you really need to be more clear and plain in your language (your syntax really sucks), construct a more coherent narrative, and scrap what doesn't work while fleshing out what does. It could work, but it definitely needs work, and (life pro tip here) debate is and always has been kind of dumb lol, so try not to take it so seriously.

Agreed, Debating is a joke lol but I enjoy it? and I felt that it would help to convey some good qualities/my desire to practice law (in my case they really are connected). It’s hard to get across that it is silly while keeping a coherent narrative though, not that I did well with that...

Anyway, thank you for your help!

[Npret]

Why do you want advanced standing? There was another thread on this that concluded you will miss OCI or you will have a difficult time in OCI.

What career do you want?

As for the PS, you’re right it needs work. My primary concern is that it’s dull to read and doesn’t give a good picture of you as an dynamic person. Maybe you aren’t dynamic, but you need some energy in your PS.

[Npret]

Here’s the link to the thread I mentioned above. My personal view is that advanced standing may not be a good route with regards to employment.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... #p10372466

[llb-k-jd]

Why do you want advanced standing? There was another thread on this that concluded you will miss OCI or you will have a difficult time in OCI.

Mostly to minimalise expenses, including the opportunity cost of delaying practice for another year in the alternative. The schools I have contacted have confirmed that I can attend OCI, but I am unsure how attractive I will be to firms. I really wish some data about this existed lol

What career do you want?

I would like to crack into one of the ~three market-paying firms in my home town, Tampa. They mostly seem to summer the cream of UF, and few attend OCI outside Florida, so I’m not sure how I will be viewed. I would be willing to work in New York for some years and then to lateral, if necessary, or (if my debt it paid) to try for the local AUSA office.

As for the PS, you’re right it needs work. My primary concern is that it’s dull to read and doesn’t give a good picture of you as an dynamic person. Maybe you aren’t dynamic, but you need some energy in your PS.

Dynamic would be good, yeah. Any specific suggestions in that regard? Thank you for your help!

[Npret]

Why do you want advanced standing? There was another thread on this that concluded you will miss OCI or you will have a difficult time in OCI.

Mostly to minimalise expenses, including the opportunity cost of delaying practice for another year in the alternative. The schools I have contacted have confirmed that I can attend OCI, but I am unsure how attractive I will be to firms. I really wish some data about this existed lol

What career do you want?

I would like to crack into one of the ~three market-paying firms in my home town, Tampa. They mostly seem to summer the cream of UF, and few attend OCI outside Florida, so I’m not sure how I will be viewed. I would be willing to work in New York for some years and then to lateral, if necessary, or (if my debt it paid) to try for the local AUSA office.

As for the PS, you’re right it needs work. My primary concern is that it’s dull to read and doesn’t give a good picture of you as an dynamic person. Maybe you aren’t dynamic, but you need some energy in your PS.

Dynamic would be good, yeah. Any specific suggestions in that regard? Thank you for your help!

I suggest you read through that thread for advice. What I know about Florida is it’s a highly competitive and ties focused market because it’s small.

To be more dynamic I would talk about something that doesn’t make you sound old. What other things do you like or other experiences. Schools want to know something about you as a person so think hard about how you want them to perceive you.

[nixy]

FWIW, I’ve read Foucault et al. but haven’t debated and have only the faintest idea what you were talking about in that section with judges and cases. If you really want to focus on that you need a sentence or 2 explaining how formal debate works.

I’m going to disagree about the US/UK thing - it can be a cliche, but if it’s true to you, I think it’s fine. It’s just not really related to the debate stuff so I think it needs either to be developed independently or cut.

(I agree with everyone else about language overall. I think you have it in you to write a good PS but this isn’t there yet.)

[nixy]

Also you’re going to be pretty young so I’m not sure advanced standing is going to help you. I suspect going through OCI before having grades is only going to work for candidates with significant interesting work experience.

[llb-k-jd]

Even more good advice. Everyone seems to agree that the my personal statement needs to be whittled down to one topic or the other, so I’m going to write a draft focused on making progressive debating accessible, and a draft about my experience in the UK. Both will have fewer colons. And no taglines. Autopoietic will also be removed. Then, whichever turns out better will be further edited lol.

I read through that thread, and I think the points made are good. I will be 21 when I enter postgrad, and I can see why my lack work experience would matter a lot in this context to biglaw firms...

The OP on that thread floated the idea of entering as a 2L, attending OCI, and then adding back the third year in the case of striking out, thereby getting another shot at normal OCI as a... 2L+? 3L? Whatever I would be. This would seem to be the ideal solution. On the one hand, I could give the two year thing a go, and on the other, I could press the reset button if it turns out to be a problem.

That said, I don’t think anyone (universities included) knows whether this is actually possible. If admitted anywhere with advanced standing, I will ask before accepting. If a T13 says yes, I should probably give that a go, right? Unless I’m missing something.

If not, I will probably just earn a JD on the normal timeline. I think that, with the exception of Northwestern, Advanced Standing works by granting credit for individual undergraduate modules, so maybe I could just substitute some core stuff that I’ve already taken (torts, contracts, criminal, property) for electives in my 1L year, since the credit granted is individuated by course. Unless firms would dislike that, too? I promise to take black letter electives lol

Thanks for sharing the employment thing btw, it didn’t occur to me that this might be a problem.

[llb-k-jd]

I basically rewrote this today; you can find the new thread here http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8&t=301915