Job Prospects Out of T14 Schools? Forum

[IAFG]

In the experience of some people I know, as understood by me as a 0L third person (to people with actual lawyering experience, no less) my experience, the "conventional wisdom" of TLS fails again.

ftfy

[Chickensoup]

In the experience of some people I know, as understood by me as a 0L third person (to people with actual lawyering experience, no less) my experience, the "conventional wisdom" of TLS fails again.

ftfy

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

[Tom Joad]

In the experience of some people I know, as understood by me as a 0L third person (to people with actual lawyering experience, no less) my experience, the "conventional wisdom" of TLS fails again.

ftfy

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

Were your lawyer buddies recent law school graduates?

What do you know about hiring out of law school?

[IAFG]

In the experience of some people I know, as understood by me as a 0L third person (to people with actual lawyering experience, no less) my experience, the "conventional wisdom" of TLS fails again.

ftfy

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

How is the experience of people you know "first hand experience"?

[Chickensoup]

In the experience of some people I know, as understood by me as a 0L third person (to people with actual lawyering experience, no less) my experience, the "conventional wisdom" of TLS fails again.

ftfy

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

How is the experience of people you know "first hand experience"?

It wasn't "people I know". I worked with them. I have firsthand experience working at a law firm. They argued frequently about the firm's cases with each other (every Monday over lunch). They read and summarized an insane amount of stuff. The boss used to go home with a stack of papers that weighed at least 10 pounds and read it while home. It was all marked up the next day and he then dictated summaries of it to his secretary.

How is this experience anything less than first hand? Even if you call it "second hand" because I wasn't the one doing the actual lawyering, how the hell can you call the information invalid? It's not. Lawyers argue. They read. They summarize. To say someone is not cut out for law for saying that they like to argue, read, and summarize, is idiotic and absurd.

[EvilClinton]

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

Trust me, I used to think the same thing before going to law school. I had a ton of professional experience and had worked with lawyers for years.

Your experiences before law school are very different than those of a law student and prospective lawyer.

1. Because lawyers treat you very differently when you are a prospective colleague. Clients, employees, and staff are treated very differently than other lawyers.
2. Big law is a very different environment than any small or medium sized firm. (If your experience was at a big firm then this is not applicable)
3. After you enter law school your perspective about why lawyers do the things they do will completely change. Many times the decisions lawyers make (both in business, legal, and HR decisions) are informed by their experience and understanding of the law. The first glimpse you get at this will be in law school. But it becomes even more amplified as you start to practice law.
4. You have no idea how the hiring and OCI process works until you go through it.

[Chickensoup]

Explain to me how my firsthand experience is less valid simply because I am a 0L. You sound like an idiot.

Trust me, I used to think the same thing before going to law school. I had a ton of professional experience and had worked with lawyers for years.

Your experiences before law school are very different than those of a law student and prospective lawyer.

1. Because lawyers treat you very differently when you are a prospective colleague. Clients, employees, and staff are treated very differently than other lawyers.
2. Big law is a very different environment than any small or medium sized firm. (If your experience was at a big firm then this is not applicable)
3. After you enter law school your perspective about why lawyers do the things they do will completely change. Many times the decisions lawyers make (both in business, legal, and HR decisions) are informed by their experience and understanding of the law. The first glimpse you get at this will be in law school. But it becomes even more amplified as you start to practice law.
4. You have no idea how the hiring and OCI process works until you go through it.

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

[IAFG]

It wasn't "people I know". I worked with them. I have firsthand experience working at a law firm. They argued frequently about the firm's cases with each other (every Monday over lunch). They read and summarized an insane amount of stuff. The boss used to go home with a stack of papers that weighed at least 10 pounds and read it while home. It was all marked up the next day and he then dictated summaries of it to his secretary.

How is this experience anything less than first hand? Even if you call it "second hand" because I wasn't the one doing the actual lawyering, how the hell can you call the information invalid? It's not. Lawyers argue. They read. They summarize. To say someone is not cut out for law for saying that they like to argue, read, and summarize, is idiotic and absurd.

I worked in a doctor's office every summer of college but that doesn't make me fucking qualified to tell someone if they'd like being a doctor.

And I also was a lobbyist before law school, spent 95% of my time working with lawyers, reading legislation and case law and then summarizing it all for laypeople. It was nothing, NOTHING, like the practice of law, though at the time I assumed it was. I feel very lucky that it turns out I actually do like law, because I was so shocked at how misplaced my arrogance was.

[EvilClinton]

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

I didn't tell you that. I told you that your experiences as a 0L don't really mean anything on these forums. In fact people actually get upset when a 0L tries to give advice on here (regardless of their experience). That is why people aren't listening to you. Your opinion may be correct (although I suspect it really varies by lawyer and firm) but the fact that your are a 0L makes people skeptical of your opinion.

[Chickensoup]

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

I didn't tell you that. I told you that your experiences as a 0L don't really mean anything on these forums. In fact people actually get upset when a 0L tries to give advice on here (regardless of their experience). That is why people aren't listening to you. Your opinion may be correct (although I suspect it really varies by lawyer and firm) but the fact that your are a 0L makes people skeptical of your opinion.

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize. That's what a brief is for christ sake. A summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading. Please stop telling people that an interest or skill in arguing/reading/summarizing disqualifies them from becoming lawyers. There are no three skills more central to the life of a lawyer than those three.

[rad lulz]

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

I didn't tell you that. I told you that your experiences as a 0L don't really mean anything on these forums. In fact people actually get upset when a 0L tries to give advice on here (regardless of their experience). That is why people aren't listening to you. Your opinion may be correct (although I suspect it really varies by lawyer and firm) but the fact that your are a 0L makes people skeptical of your opinion.

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize. That's what a brief is for christ sake. A summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading. Please stop telling people that an interest or skill in arguing/reading/summarizing disqualifies them from becoming lawyers. There are no three skills more central to the life of a lawyer than those three.

lol that's not what a brief is

[EvilClinton]

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

I didn't tell you that. I told you that your experiences as a 0L don't really mean anything on these forums. In fact people actually get upset when a 0L tries to give advice on here (regardless of their experience). That is why people aren't listening to you. Your opinion may be correct (although I suspect it really varies by lawyer and firm) but the fact that your are a 0L makes people skeptical of your opinion.

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize. That's what a brief is for christ sake. A summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading. Please stop telling people that an interest or skill in arguing/reading/summarizing disqualifies them from becoming lawyers. There are no three skills more central to the life of a lawyer than those three.

lol that's not what a brief is

+1, the irony is overwhelming

[rad lulz]

Also the #1 skill of a lawyer is getting clients.

HTH

[BullShitWithBravado]

None of your numbered reasons are relevant to the point I was making. All I was saying is that lawyers argue, read, and summarize. If you deny this, you are crazy.

I didn't tell you that. I told you that your experiences as a 0L don't really mean anything on these forums. In fact people actually get upset when a 0L tries to give advice on here (regardless of their experience). That is why people aren't listening to you. Your opinion may be correct (although I suspect it really varies by lawyer and firm) but the fact that your are a 0L makes people skeptical of your opinion.

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize. That's what a brief is for christ sake. A summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading. Please stop telling people that an interest or skill in arguing/reading/summarizing disqualifies them from becoming lawyers. There are no three skills more central to the life of a lawyer than those three.

You forgot to add "analyzing" to your comprehensive list of skills that are central to the life of a lawyer. If you deny that this is an invaluable skill, they you're crazy (or you're a 0L).

[Chickensoup]

Also the #1 skill of a lawyer is getting clients.

HTH

That's what a brief is. Explain to me how I'm wrong.

[dingbat]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

[EvilClinton]

Also the #1 skill of a lawyer is getting clients.
HTH

That's what a brief is. Explain to me how I'm wrong.

Nah bro. I don't want to ruin 1L LRW for you.

[Chickensoup]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

My description of a brief is accurate and perfectly reconcilable with that wiki article.

HTH.

Thanks bro.

Eat my shit.

[rad lulz]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

My description of a brief is accurate and perfectly reconcilable with that wiki article.

HTH.

Thanks bro.

Eat my shit.

Saying a brief is a summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading is like saying Mody Dick is a "decent book about a whale."

[dingbat]

Eat my shit.

that's a brief... summary of your contribution to this thread

[FattyMcFatFat]

troll is getting trolled lol

[ajr]

Also the #1 skill of a lawyer is getting clients.

HTH

Enjoy solo practice.

I don't want to say anything more in this thread (I have real work to do) but it's shocking how much people want to act like they know everything.

[Davidbentley]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

My description of a brief is accurate and perfectly reconcilable with that wiki article.

HTH.

Thanks bro.

Eat my shit.

Saying a brief is a summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading is like saying Mody Dick is a "decent book about a whale."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[nygrrrl]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

My description of a brief is accurate and perfectly reconcilable with that wiki article.

HTH.

Thanks bro.

Eat my shit.

Chill out, 0L. (I mean it.)

[Chickensoup]

I don't care if they are skeptical. I am right. Lawyers do argue. They do read and they do summarize.

actually, I've worked very closely with a number of lawyers who did no summarizing whatsoever, did little to no arguing and did not do nearly as much reading as you imply.

Also, brief

My description of a brief is accurate and perfectly reconcilable with that wiki article.

HTH.

Thanks bro.

Eat my shit.

Saying a brief is a summary of an argument based on a shitload of reading is like saying Mody Dick is a "decent book about a whale."

Don't act like a brief is some epic piece of literature that only a sage graduate of law school imbued with all the magic secrets of legal education can understand. It's a summary of an argument. Dumpy shitlawyers who went to New York Law School write them all the time.