Top Law Schools

And why?

Feel free to break "lawyers" down into more specific groups such as big law lawyers, government lawyers, solo practitioners, etc. Your thoughts could be based on their tax policies, how they will effect the economy, or any other relevant topic.

hillarys biggest source of revenue is lawyers. and over 90% of money donated by lawyers has gone to hillary, so probably her.

JohannDeMann wrote:hillarys biggest source of revenue is lawyers. and over 90% of money donated by lawyers has gone to hillary, so probably her.

That shows that lawyers have been good for Hillary, but how does that show that Hillary will be good for lawyers? Unless you're implying that she will return the favor

At this point I'm literally convinced that Clinton is the only one who understands and is committed to the rule of law, so like. Her.

They're equally good

FedFan123 wrote:

JohannDeMann wrote:hillarys biggest source of revenue is lawyers. and over 90% of money donated by lawyers has gone to hillary, so probably her.

That shows that lawyers have been good for Hillary, but how does that show that Hillary will be good for lawyers? Unless you're implying that she will return the favor

I think he's implying that lawyers believe Hillary is better for them.

for biglaw: probs hillary because libs creating more and more bureaucracy and more idiotic govt spending will inevitably end up in the hands of the biggest richest law firms. social programs are great for rich ppl to capitalize on see eg obamacare.

smaller lawyers, probs the other two imo, b/c of lower taxes. Fuck paying even more to insure support staff and shit while also getting taxed out the ass

But Trump nuking things would be pretty bad for most lawyers, generally.

HIllary = more regs; more regs = more work for litigators and other non-transactional practices.

Didn't Clinton push for some sort of student debt relief? If that's still the case, then her, probably, since most of us are drowning in it.

I think this was one of the exact questions that a member of the audience panel was going to ask but they didn't get to that question.

Frank Underwood is the only candidate who can keep lawyers employed in this economy.

How myopic

DAs/AUSAs across the country would be rocked by a Trump administration insisting on deporting everybody. U visas going away would wreck DV prosecutions in my neck of the woods, and deporting everyone convicted (maybe even accused?) of a crime would mean no more pleas for lots of cases, which would mean a skyrocketing number of trials. Immigration attorneys would also be underwater November-January trying to get everyone citizenship in time.

Yea, trumps volitility could also spook the markets.

Trump and Johnson would probably be equally damaging for public defense funding and the Supreme Court justices they appoint.

Trump, though, would be damaging more longterm because he would continue to over-militarize police and attack the criminal justice system whenever possible.

andythefir wrote:DAs/AUSAs across the country would be rocked by a Trump administration insisting on deporting everybody. U visas going away would wreck DV prosecutions in my neck of the woods, and deporting everyone convicted (maybe even accused?) of a crime would mean no more pleas for lots of cases, which would mean a skyrocketing number of trials. Immigration attorneys would also be underwater November-January trying to get everyone citizenship in time.

Deportation and conviction are separate, though - in the federal system, we already deport everyone who gets convicted (based on the charging policies we have) and plenty of people still plead. AUSA caseloads probably would go up, but the real burden would be on the (already burdened) immigration system (and everything is already so backed up that immigration attorneys aren't going to be able to work any citizenship miracles between November-January). And practically speaking, if Trump put his money where is mouth is, the biggest shift would be toward prosecuting people who are here, working, peaceably, with families - they're currently a very very low priority compared to stopping people (esp. criminals) coming in, but they implicate different kinds of resources than catching people at the border.

Anonymous User wrote:

andythefir wrote:DAs/AUSAs across the country would be rocked by a Trump administration insisting on deporting everybody. U visas going away would wreck DV prosecutions in my neck of the woods, and deporting everyone convicted (maybe even accused?) of a crime would mean no more pleas for lots of cases, which would mean a skyrocketing number of trials. Immigration attorneys would also be underwater November-January trying to get everyone citizenship in time.

Deportation and conviction are separate, though - in the federal system, we already deport everyone who gets convicted (based on the charging policies we have) and plenty of people still plead. AUSA caseloads probably would go up, but the real burden would be on the (already burdened) immigration system (and everything is already so backed up that immigration attorneys aren't going to be able to work any citizenship miracles between November-January). And practically speaking, if Trump put his money where is mouth is, the biggest shift would be toward prosecuting people who are here, working, peaceably, with families - they're currently a very very low priority compared to stopping people (esp. criminals) coming in, but they implicate different kinds of resources than catching people at the border.

What you're talking about isn't true for state jurisdictions. Whether or not my clients charged with misdemeanor DWI or misdemeanor assault plead guilty often has 99% to do with whether it makes them removal priority. If just about any crime made them priority for removal, I'd set 2,000% as many trials.

RaceJudicata wrote:HIllary = more regs; more regs = more work for litigators and other non-transactional practices.

Gotta imagine having more hoops to jump through to get a deal done is good for increasing the amount the lawyers can bill.

Tanicius wrote:What you're talking about isn't true for state jurisdictions. Whether or not my clients charged with misdemeanor DWI or misdemeanor assault plead guilty often has 99% to do with whether it makes them removal priority. If just about any crime made them priority for removal, I'd set 2,000% as many trials.

Right, that's why I said "in the federal system." Andythefir mentioned AUSAs as well as DAs, and I was talking about AUSAs.

But if the policy really did change to deporting anyone who's here illegally, period, it wouldn't matter what they were convicted or whether they were convicted of anything at all - it would just be whether they came to the attention of authorities, period.

Trump. The economy will do so well and we will be making so many deal$. Also imagine the boom from inshoring as we eliminate our dependence on Chinese and Mexican labor. HRC regulations will choke the economy and companies will have no money for m&a and financing, and not enough money for litigation battles. Maybe good for arbitrators.

star fox wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:HIllary = more regs; more regs = more work for litigators and other non-transactional practices.

Gotta imagine having more hoops to jump through to get a deal done is good for increasing the amount the lawyers can bill.

Absolutely true, as long as it's not so many hoops that the deal doesn't get going in the first place.

I have heard from first-hand sources how Trump has routinely stiffed the big law firms that do work for him (similar to stories of him stiffing contractors). He will rack up large bills then just move work without paying to other firms who all "want" him.

I have heard very similar things in regards to banks lending him money. There are apparently very few banks who still trust him enough.

So far Hillary by a landslide, although Gary is battling for second with the Donald.

Trump might somehow create the next RMBS-type crisis, so some group of lawyers will figure out how to profit his presidency, disaster capitalism style.