Should I re-apply if I am intent on international law? Forum

[PepperJack]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Also, this is anecdotal, but having gotten an A in int'l law, I am confident in saying that int'l law as a body of law is a giant flame. The law is made up as they go along, and is only enforced if the person violating it is weak. Legally, the US probably violated int'l law when they invaded Iraq, but even if we went door to door executing civilians for the fun of it, we never would have been tried. I don't know what you think int'l law is, but in all likelihood you're not only after a job that does not exist, but a job practicing law that does not exist. Your best bet would be to conquer wide masses of territory, kind of like a modern day Napoleon. After you take over Eurasia and Africa, you could start imposing international law, and maybe can offer some current law students jobs in your int'l law practice. This is the likeliest way for you to get what you're after, and really doesn't require law school. Going to UCLA won't help you. You should go to a school that will teach you how to conquer mass territories of land without an army or warheads. Hope this helps!

[BigZuck]

Considering you can tell the future, why are you asking a bunch of randos on the Internet for advice? That seems really dumb of you. I thought you had good reason to think you were smart?

you mad bro? it seems like you're mad

No, it just seems really dumb to me. Like, why bother? What could these kids tell you that you don't already know yourself? I'm familiar with a lot of these posters and I'll tell you what, they sure ain't soothsayers.

Eta: Maybe just acquire some humility and internalize what people are telling you. Or not, but if not then don't ask the question broham.

[serein]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Assuming that is addressing my questions, you are saying that in light of the fact that I would be going to UCLA I would never work on the sort of law an uniformed person considers "international"?

[serein]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Also, this is anecdotal, but having gotten an A in int'l law, I am confident in saying that int'l law as a body of law is a giant flame. The law is made up as they go along, and is only enforced if the person violating it is weak. Legally, the US probably violated int'l law when they invaded Iraq, but even if we went door to door executing civilians for the fun of it, we never would have been tried. I don't know what you think int'l law is, but in all likelihood you're not only after a job that does not exist, but a job practicing law that does not exist. Your best bet would be to conquer wide masses of territory, kind of like a modern day Napoleon. After you take over Eurasia and Africa, you could start imposing international law, and maybe can offer some current law students jobs in your int'l law practice. This is the likeliest way for you to get what you're after, and really doesn't require law school. Going to UCLA won't help you. You should go to a school that will teach you how to conquer mass territories of land without an army or warheads. Hope this helps!

hahah got it

[A. Nony Mouse]

One and two are simply finishing in the top of the class and being accented as a transfer. The first nearly entails the second, and I have no concerns about the first for good reason. But the final two points are taken; I'll be significantly set back by starting at UCLA, and I should re-apply.

Honey, there's no such thing as "simply" finishing in the top of your class. Just because you were accepted at UCLA with a scholarship does not guarantee such an outcome. Everyone thinks they'll finish at the top of their class.

[PepperJack]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Assuming that is addressing my questions, you are saying that in light of the fact that I would be going to UCLA I would never work on the sort of law an uniformed person considers "international"?

Although you're being a pompous douche, I'll answer you. Law is a service based profession. Your job is to help the partner and the partner's job is to help the client, normally as either a corporate lawyer or as a litigator. Sometimes in order to help your client you will need to use tenets of international law if say your client is not a US citizen, is suing someone who is not a US citizen, or is suing someone with ties to a foreign government. If your client was Swedish Furniture Inc. in a dispute with Norwegian Chairs LLP, you would either be a leading expert in int'l law or quickly become one. There are some great firms that specialize in these types of cases. If you find int'l law interesting, it could be a lot of fun. If you want people to see you as Bob, int'l law of mystery, you'll be unhappy.

[Mal Reynolds]

You would be lucky to land any biglaw job from ucla, let alone an international office from a firm who does European work.

[PepperJack]

What I am yet to understand is:

1.) What do people, like OP, think international law is?

2.) What seems so great about it?

I imagine it's something involving a young lawyer with long hair in a wife beater with just the right amount of peach fuzz on his face leading a band of orphaned school children out of the rubble and into the court room where they get justice before the young lawyer addresses the news cameras, and gets a mega millions movie deal. But what basis does this have in reality? Who is an example of a successful lawyer like this? Where is their salary coming from? How are they getting money to work on these cases? I can't see how it's existent.

[Julius]

Bad plan. For this to work you are banking on (1) finishing at least top 10% at UCLA (2) getting accepted into a better school as a transfer (3) that the magical circle firms or US firms with European offices that allow you to work over there are willing to seriously consider a transfer student with no grades from their new school and (4) that you actually do well in the interview.

The chances of all this coming out in your favor are very very low.

One and two should be fine but four does indeed always pose a risk. It would be great to find out more about three.

Most firms will consider transfer students for regular hire when they recruit from the original school the student transferred out of. Elite places like Wachtell and Williams & Connolly notwithstanding, many top firms still recruit from UCLA so that shouldn't be the chief concern. On the other hand, saying (1) or (2) "should be fine" belies a true lack of deep reflection about this process and your choices (no offense intended - I'm sure you're smart, that's why we're saying this). Lots of UCLA students get jobs in CA, but its ridiculous to attend on the presumption that you'll start at one of the most elite corporate firms in the country that students at feeder schools like NYU and Harvard are fighting over.

You had a bad cycle: it happens sometimes. You'll have a good one this year. Honestly no reason to throw away your opportunities prematurely.

One and two are simply finishing in the top of the class and being accented as a transfer. The first nearly entails the second, and I have no concerns about the first for good reason. But the final two points are taken; I'll be significantly set back by starting at UCLA, and I should re-apply.

Don't listen to the haters. You'll excel at 1L just as you've excelled at law school admissions and finding a concrete career track.

Also, flame.

[serein]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Assuming that is addressing my questions, you are saying that in light of the fact that I would be going to UCLA I would never work on the sort of law an uniformed person considers "international"?

Although you're being a pompous douche, I'll answer you. Law is a service based profession. Your job is to help the partner and the partner's job is to help the client, normally as either a corporate lawyer or as a litigator. Sometimes in order to help your client you will need to use tenets of international law if say your client is not a US citizen, is suing someone who is not a US citizen, or is suing someone with ties to a foreign government. If your client was Swedish Furniture Inc. in a dispute with Norwegian Chairs LLP, you would either be a leading expert in int'l law or quickly become one. There are some great firms that specialize in these types of cases. If you find int'l law interesting, it could be a lot of fun. If you want people to see you as Bob, int'l law of mystery, you'll be unhappy.

You think I should re-apply if I want to work at a firm like that?

[Mal Reynolds]

You have a 3.9 and a 170 and are going to UCLA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[PepperJack]

OP - there are big law law firms that practice int'l law intermixed with corporate practice and commercial litigation. Most of it is on enforcing foreign judgments on US soil. Realistically, this is the closest you will come to practicing "international law". This is also the most you would ever do with substantive policy even if somehow the UN appointed you, which isn't going to happen. Most lawyers would agree that getting your Brazilian client 20 million dollars from their Norwegian business partner is much more tangible than writing up an arrest warrant for Boko Haram that will never be enforced.

Assuming that is addressing my questions, you are saying that in light of the fact that I would be going to UCLA I would never work on the sort of law an uniformed person considers "international"?

Although you're being a pompous douche, I'll answer you. Law is a service based profession. Your job is to help the partner and the partner's job is to help the client, normally as either a corporate lawyer or as a litigator. Sometimes in order to help your client you will need to use tenets of international law if say your client is not a US citizen, is suing someone who is not a US citizen, or is suing someone with ties to a foreign government. If your client was Swedish Furniture Inc. in a dispute with Norwegian Chairs LLP, you would either be a leading expert in int'l law or quickly become one. There are some great firms that specialize in these types of cases. If you find int'l law interesting, it could be a lot of fun. If you want people to see you as Bob, int'l law of mystery, you'll be unhappy.

You think I should re-apply if I want to work at a firm like that?

I work at a firm like that. I'm not going to out myself or them. It's not the only thing that we do, but is incidental to many practice areas. I don't know that you need HYS, but you good grades like any other big law firm. I'm not sure how UCLA v. Cornell or UPenn is perceived. It'a not like there's a huge difference between the IQ of a median student at any of them, but I'm not familiar with recruiting.

[danitt]

You have a 3.9 and a 170 and are going to UCLA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Well if his personal statement sounded anything like his posts in this thread, are you surprised?

[Mal Reynolds]

You have a 3.9 and a 170 and are going to UCLA? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Well if his personal statement sounded anything like his posts in this thread, are you surprised?

Yes because personal statements don't ding you.

[serein]

We all agree there are Americans working at international law firms around the world. I would like to work in Europe. The assumption is I will be able to transfer to a top law school after my first year. My question is should I re-apply. I would really appreciate the advice of people informed on the likely advantages and disadvantages of each choice.

[Mal Reynolds]

The assumption is I will be able to transfer to a top law school after my first year.

Lol

[baal hadad]

Considering you can tell the future, why are you asking a bunch of randos on the Internet for advice? That seems really dumb of you. I thought you had good reason to think you were smart?

you mad bro? it seems like you're mad

2011 called they want their old memes back

GOing to UCLA to transfer so you can work abroad is sublime idiocy

[A. Nony Mouse]

We all agree there are Americans working at international law firms around the world. I would like to work in Europe. The assumption is I will be able to transfer to a top law school after my first year. The question is should I re-apply. I'm hoping for the opinions of people informed on the likely advantages and disadvantages of each choice.

Your assumption is that you can transfer to a top law school after your first year. Everyone here is going to tell you that this assumption is erroneous.

[JVK]

Considering you can tell the future, why are you asking a bunch of randos on the Internet for advice? That seems really dumb of you. I thought you had good reason to think you were smart?

you mad bro? it seems like you're mad

Come on, dude, quit it.

Nobody can predict getting top 10% in their class. This isn't undergrad, where work ethic was the main thing holding people back from getting A's. Everything's predicated on class rank.

If you start at UCLA and "plan to transfer," you're setting yourself up to be crushed when you realize that UCLA has plenty of talented students who are willing to work just as hard as you are. They're not dumb - there are tons of kids with scholarships, and others still who will outperform their LSAT upon starting. Everyone has debt and dreams motivating them more than they had as undergrad students.

You don't seem very good at managing/minimizing risk.

It's great that you know what you want out of law school, but saying that top 10% at UCLA'll be easy for you isn't true. Securing a big law firm at all from most law schools is a huge accomplishment, let alone specifically Cravath or Cleary. Your other London firms aren't going to hire a lot of students per year either, and you'd better believe there are students at NYU, Columbia, and Harvard who are looking the same direction you are.

Have goals, but please, please don't organize your life path on the belief that you'll be able to transfer to an elite school. You're setting yourself up for heartbreak.

[Snuffles1]

Setting aside whether or not you're likely to be able to transfer and whether or not transferring will help you land one of your target firms, I'm just not sure I understand why you would choose UCLA now. You know you've underperformed your numbers, and you know that transfer don't get financial aid. Starting at UCLA and transferring means much more debt than waiting and starting, probably with some $, at a higher ranked school. You don't know (and neither do I) how many US graduates are hired to work in European markets, but it's probably a tiny number. Given that you want to work abroad, what's the advantage in starting off at a school that largely places regionally and accruing more debt?

[sideroxylon]

OP this is going to sound mean, but if your only goals are to work abroad, you shouldn't go to law school.

Even if you go to a T-6 school, you have now guarantee you'll get the grades you need to get to Europe.

More importantly, even if you get the grades you need, you might not survive the interview process.

It's pretty foolish to go to law school if you're not willing to work as a lawyer in a major US market. (i.e., are you willing/able to work in NYC, DC, Texas, Chicago or California?)

[PepperJack]

The difference between a median UCLA student, and a median CCN student is going to be close to 0. You're talking about 2 LSAT questions. It would be much harder to be top 10% at UCLA than top 10% at Pepperdine. I don't think expecting to be top 10% at Pepperdine if you get a full ride there is that outlandish despite the group think here. At UCLA it's just as hard as it would be to do well at HYS.

[ymmv]

Don't listen to the haters. You'll excel at 1L just as you've excelled at law school admissions and finding a concrete career track.

Whose alt are you, Julius?

[MidwestLifer]

If you're so sure of your intelligence, OP, why not just retake the LSAT for a 180 and then go to Columbia for free?

[Tiago Splitter]

The difference between a median UCLA student, and a median CCN student is going to be close to 0. You're talking about 2 LSAT questions. It would be much harder to be top 10% at UCLA than top 10% at Pepperdine. I don't think expecting to be top 10% at Pepperdine if you get a full ride there is that outlandish despite the group think here. At UCLA it's just as hard as it would be to do well at HYS.

You might want to check those medians again. UCLA's LSAT median is six points behind Harvard's and seven ahead of Pepperdine.