Top Law Schools for Litigation Forum

[Blessedassurance]

The "law school doesn't teach you how to be a lawyer" thing is overblown. It's true that it doesn't teach you a lot about how to handle clients, procedural rules, etc., but people are too cynical in denying that it does provide a lot of building blocks that are important to practicing across a lot of areas. I couldn't have even understood what it means to write a motion to dismiss on a federal lawsuit three years ago; I wouldn't do a very good job of it now but I would understand the fundamental notion of what is going on, and given enough time I think I could teach myself what the case was about etc

the only mildly relevant subject in law school is lrw, mostly because, if well thought, it does a good job of teaching you how to teach yourself the law.

in order to practice x law, you don't need to know a damn thing about x. you need good research skills, the intelligence to deduce underlying rationales and theories (the current law) etc., and how to synthesize the material learned through research and translate them into potentially-convincing arguments.

it's hard to explain, but in sum, law school is useful for your first semester (and part of second semester re: briefs in lrw).

how do you think people at yale manage to pass the bar exams and go on to make excellent lawyers?

you'll often hear schools like cuny bragging about "actually teaching their students how to be a lawyer", whatever that means.

[dixiecupdrinking]

The "law school doesn't teach you how to be a lawyer" thing is overblown. It's true that it doesn't teach you a lot about how to handle clients, procedural rules, etc., but people are too cynical in denying that it does provide a lot of building blocks that are important to practicing across a lot of areas. I couldn't have even understood what it means to write a motion to dismiss on a federal lawsuit three years ago; I wouldn't do a very good job of it now but I would understand the fundamental notion of what is going on, and given enough time I think I could teach myself what the case was about etc

the only mildly relevant subject in law school is lrw, mostly because, if well thought, it does a good job of teaching you how to teach yourself the law.

in order to practice x law, you don't need to know a damn thing about x. you need good research skills, the intelligence to deduce underlying rationales and theories (the current law) etc., and how to synthesize the material learned through research and translate them into potentially-convincing arguments.

it's hard to explain, but in sum, law school is useful for your first semester (and part of second semester re: briefs in lrw).

how do you think people at yale manage to pass the bar exams and go on to make excellent lawyers?

you'll often hear schools like cuny bragging about "actually teaching their students how to be a lawyer", whatever that means.

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential) in helping to understand the substantive areas that, you're right, you need to be able to learn yourself in practice.

[Blessedassurance]

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)

i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0

[tuffyjohnson]

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)

i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0

thanks for the link.

[utlaw2007]

One can be smart, but if he/she sucks at speaking, is not quick witted, etc., that person will likely not be a good trial lawyer, especially if that person does not have charisma.

You've been watching too much tv.

You must have a serious problem with your reading comprehension. I stated I am a trial lawyer. I have seen this up close. Do my experiences not count for something because I am not a regular on this forum? Is that how it works? Someone with actual experience in the courtroom and who has had success as a trial lawyer himself, those real life courtroom observations be damned? Are you serious?!

[utlaw2007]

.

[mephistopheles]

One can be smart, but if he/she sucks at speaking, is not quick witted, etc., that person will likely not be a good trial lawyer, especially if that person does not have charisma.

You've been watching too much tv.

You must have a serious problem with your reading comprehension. I stated I am a trial lawyer. I have seen this up close. Do my experiences not count for something because I am not a regular on this forum? Is that how it works? Someone with actual experience in the courtroom and who has had success as a trial lawyer himself, those real life courtroom observations be damned? Are you serious?!

clearly you have the composure necessary for the job

[dixiecupdrinking]

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)

i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0

Thanks for your happiness on my behalf, it means a lot to me. As to your link, please. You want to take a class where you learn that when you close a merger you "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state?" That took five seconds and now I know it. Every entry level job involves someone "underwriting the training" of new employees. This "law school is useless" thing is just one of those new pieces of conventional wisdom about law school that has some truth to it but is severely overblown. I agree that law school would be improved by cutting a year off and/or focusing on more practical skills, but it's really egregious bullshit to say that LRW is the only useful class you take.

[utlaw2007]

One can be smart, but if he/she sucks at speaking, is not quick witted, etc., that person will likely not be a good trial lawyer, especially if that person does not have charisma.

You've been watching too much tv.

You must have a serious problem with your reading comprehension. I stated I am a trial lawyer. I have seen this up close. Do my experiences not count for something because I am not a regular on this forum? Is that how it works? Someone with actual experience in the courtroom and who has had success as a trial lawyer himself, those real life courtroom observations be damned? Are you serious?!

clearly you have the composure necessary for the job

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

[mephistopheles]

relax, bro

[utlaw2007]

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)

i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0

Thanks for your happiness on my behalf, it means a lot to me. As to your link, please. You want to take a class where you learn that when you close a merger you "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state?" That took five seconds and now I know it. Every entry level job involves someone "underwriting the training" of new employees. This "law school is useless" thing is just one of those new pieces of conventional wisdom about law school that has some truth to it but is severely overblown. I agree that law school would be improved by cutting a year off and/or focusing on more practical skills, but it's really egregious bullshit to say that LRW is the only useful class you take.

I totally agree with this statement. 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.

[utlaw2007]

relax, bro

No problem. I will calm down. I apologize. I just do not like to see someone dismiss my real life observations about others and my own abilities as if they are completely mythical.

[utlaw2007]

I disagree in that I have learned a lot about background legal principles in a lot of my core classes that I think will be very useful (i.e., essential)

i'm very happy for you. in the interim, see below (let's not even start on shitlaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/busin ... d=all&_r=0

Thanks for your happiness on my behalf, it means a lot to me. As to your link, please. You want to take a class where you learn that when you close a merger you "draft a certificate of merger and file it with the secretary of state?" That took five seconds and now I know it. Every entry level job involves someone "underwriting the training" of new employees. This "law school is useless" thing is just one of those new pieces of conventional wisdom about law school that has some truth to it but is severely overblown. I agree that law school would be improved by cutting a year off and/or focusing on more practical skills, but it's really egregious bullshit to say that LRW is the only useful class you take.

I totally agree with this statement. 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.

A great law school, in addition to having a premium student body capable of getting good employment, is one that teaches its students how to think. In litigation, the common thread that binds all cases is the concept behind the remedies involved and the calculation of damages, conceptually. The principles are the same across the board. Obviously, jurisdictional issues are the same. Learning how to find distinctions among superficially similar facts that render the application of laws differently in each case, I feel is learned in law school. Arguing facts and support for those facts is not really learned in law school. But arguing the application of law, jurisdiction, especially if arguing whether sovereign immunity is waived, or any question of law that may arise at the trial level, is learned in law school if that law school has sufficient teaching of legal curriculum.

Real life cases are always going to have a slight twist from the situations used in law school to teach those concepts. And many times, there is a drastic twist in your case. But learning those principles and even more importantly, performing the mental gymnastics of sorting through and analyzing relevant factors, helps a great deal in the practice of litigation.

Two months ago, I did the impossible, I reached a significant, confidential settlement against a very large defendant before we had even reached summary judgment. I had terrible facts. Every lawyer said I would get nothing. Every expert scientist said I would get nothing. They all told me my theory was flawed. I finally found a nationally renown scientist that loved my theory. He thought it was spot on. And I eventually forced a significant settlement. I proved everyone wrong.

The point of that story is not to say that I learned how to do that in law school. That was all ability that God gave me. But the confidence in knowing that if a lawyer's argument for something is incredibly sound, it is as good as gold, I obtained through law school. And I feel law school sharpened those abilities.

[utlaw2007]

I guess Joe Jamail is also a lawyer that practices shit law since he never practiced biglaw. Yet he pocketed, in contingency fees alone, 335 million dollars, off of one case, back in the 80's for winning in the shit law practice area of "tortious interference with a contract." He is the richest lawyer in the country at a net worth of 1.5 billion dollars. And he is a fellow UT Law alum. Not bad for a shit law lawyer.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/joe-jamail-jr/

[utlaw2007]

Oh and he's quick witted and has tons of charisma, too. But since some of the qualities that help make him successful as a trial lawyer are too similar to tv, they must not count. The same could be said for lots of other successful trial lawyers. But I'm guessing they don't count, either.

[Blessedassurance]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

you seem unhinged. why are you so angry?

are you as charismatic as this guy?

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

[utlaw2007]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

you seem unhinged. why are you so angry?

I'm not unhinged. I'm not angry now although I was very annoyed at first. And I do apologize for the angry responses. Perhaps it's because many of the people on this site appear to just stir the pot and belittle people. I do not think that is productive or fair when people seek info for help. All it does is make people very apprehensive about seeking that help. So with that said, I give advice on these boards with that thought in mind. So I have a tendency to assume the worst about a response. I think it's just the nature of internet discourse, at least, the discourse that I have had. It's been very hostile at times.

But I do want to shed light on my experiences. I'm not saying they are gospel, although I feel there are fundamental truths to many of them.

[utlaw2007]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

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.

[archibaldcox]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

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.

[utlaw2007]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

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.

[Blessedassurance]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

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.

you presume most of us are young.

if you disagree with somebody's statement, simply attack the statement, and let your arguments stand on its own merit. your experiences in texas may or may not be of use to someone trying to practice in minneapolis, or new york, or dc. state your arguments, concisely, without theatrics and warrantless personal attacks, so a neutral observer can judge the validity of each side of the argument. there's a simple way to dispute people's assertions, and there's a long way that takes us from nowhere to nothing.

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

if you disagree with somebody's statement, simply attack the statement, and let your arguments stand on its own merit.

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

Oh, Irony, thy handle is Blessedassurance.

[utlaw2007]

I'd be more concerned with your confidence in making a statement about one's composure on the basis of a post made in a casual forum as if that type of forum and a formal courtroom are so similar that they warrant the same type of decorum.

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.

you presume most of us are young.

if you disagree with somebody's statement, simply attack the statement, and let your arguments stand on its own merit. your experiences in texas may or may not be of use to someone trying to practice in minneapolis, or new york, or dc. state your arguments, concisely, without theatrics and warrantless personal attacks, so a neutral observer can judge the validity of each side of the argument. there's a simple way to dispute people's assertions, and there's a long way that takes us from nowhere to nothing.

Fair enough. But I think you began with the personal attacks when you stated that I watched too much tv. I thought that was very disrespectful. But that is old news and I'm past that. I hope you are, too. And your comments are fair enough.

[utlaw2007]

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.

[Blessedassurance]

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.