My board is bigger than your board

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
this is kinda cool.

Tyrone, that's just freaky. Keep em coming.

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Tyrone, that's just freaky. Keep em coming.

Except it's not true.

[Alex_de_Large]

Damn if this isn't a badass pic of the S1W's

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by thebigbaddawg
Except it's not true.

Check out the site, run through the flash animations, then come back with your report, counselor.

: )

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
Check out the site, run through the flash animations, then come back with your report, counselor.

: )

Sorry, try this link:

http://department.stat.ucla.edu:1608...n/shadow1.html

Your eyes can play tricks on you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

According to the New York Law Journal, "the average price of settling a securities fraud case rose 68 percent to $24.3 million, compared with $16.6 million in 2001, according to a new study by Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research." Plaintiff's lawyers say, it's just the beginning. Defense lawyers say, go back to your homes, there's nothing to see here.

[Atticus Grinch]

Today I came across an old e-mail I had sent to a friend who was considering going to law school. At his request, I wrote down ten rules of thumb that I had learned at the end of my law school career that I wished I had known as a 1L.

I post them because, while the new board has been surprisingly free of LS types asking the LS Timmy questions, there should be a FAQ for law students asking the usual "Should I take 'Evidence' or 'The Law and Film'?" questions.

Feel free to post your own advice. It's not like there's much else happening on this particular board.

[list=1][*]There is no such thing as a non-trick question.
[*]The Socratic Method is not an enterprise in group learning. It is a game of "Hide the Ball" that would be punished with violence if played in any self-regulating schoolyard. Don't ever be embarassed not to know the answer, because wrong answers slow the Socratic learning process down to a pace that can actually be withstood by its pupils and that actually fits the professor's secret reading schedule for the semester.
[*]Everything that seems incomprehensible will eventually be reduced down to an outline, usually just before the exam and sometimes just before The Exam. You will be forced to pay extra for this outline. This outline contains what you need to know for their purposes, so buy it. Corollary: Do not believe that this outline actually contains the law.
[*]Remember your job: Half the time you'll be looking for a reason the rule applies. The other half of the time you'll be looking for a reason the rule doesn't apply. You never know which side you're on until it's too late.
[*]Intelligence is necessary in law school, but law school does not reward it. It rewards compliance with an intellectual tradition. Intelligence gets you into law school; compliance gets you through it. (It's not as bad as it sounds, and will prepare you for the life you have chosen.)
[*]The most important class you will take is Legal Writing & Research, or whatever your school calls it. Corollary: Sadly and contrary to all reason, moot court is a ridiculous waste of time, but law review is not.
[*]When reading a case, remember that it's necessarily on appeal and what happened in the trial court matters, but was probably a close call. When in doubt, assume the trial court obtained real justice based on inadmissible evidence, and/or that the losing party or lawyer was an asshole and couldn't hide it. Assume that the appellate court always cares more about The Law than it does about the litigants or justice in the individual case. Corollary: Decisions in law school case books are almost always unjust, but produce sensible rules that are easily applied in other cases you don't have in your case book. They picked that particular case just to fuck with your mind, or because it was first, not because it's the best.
[*]There really is a difference between de novo review and the abuse of discretion review. However, the real-world application of this difference is known only to appellate justices. Corollary: Your law professor is not an appellate justice.
[*]All evidence to the contrary, the law is never intentionally dumb. If dumb, it will be construed narrowly and will naturally seek never to be applied, except by a contrarian professor who is jerking your chain.
[*]When you feel like you can't take it anymore, remember that there's nothing quite like standing in open court and introducing yourself. "Good morning, Your Honor. [Your Name Here] for the plaintiff." Corollary: Never never never never use "Esq." on your correspondence. Not even once. Not even as a joke.[/list=1]

Special bonus advice: Learn Community Property law, even if your state does not apply it. If married, live your life according to Community Property principles. Any other regime is barbarism.

Interesting list, AG, but I've got to quibble with at least a couple:

There is no such thing as a non-trick question.

Bah! People get themselves into trouble in law school because they always think the easy, logical answer is too easy or too logical. Profs generally don't have the time or the inclination to be crafting cleverly tricky exam or lecture questions. They're too busy writing grant applications and trying to find obscure Swedish trial court opinions for their upcoming article. The only trick questions I saw in law school were the ones that tricked me by not being trick questions.

The Socratic Method is not an enterprise in group learning. . . Don't ever be embarassed not to know the answer, because wrong answers slow the Socratic learning process down to a pace that can actually be withstood by its pupils and that actually fits the professor's secret reading schedule for the semester.

I agree that the Socratic Method is not particularly practical in 60-100 person lectures. Socrates never had more than a dozen or so pupils, if my Classics professor is to be believed. That being said, as an intellectual tool, it's vastly superior to the lecture method because it forces the student to learn the process of deriving a result, rather than merely memorizing the result. Knowing that Mrs. Palsgraf was not owed a duty is one thing, but being able to understand how the result in that case can be applied to your client's food poisoning case is another thing.

But in terms of a practical rule, you're spot on with the "don't be embarassed to not know the answer." The whole assumption of the Socratic Method is that you won't usually know the answer when the question is first presented. Nor should one be embarassed to reason-- oftentimes flawedly-- out loud. That's the whole point of the exercise.

The most important class you will take is Legal Writing & Research, or whatever your school calls it. Corollary: Sadly and contrary to all reason, moot court is a ridiculous waste of time, but law review is not.

Research & Writing may nominally be the most important class, but ironically, in most schools, it's given the least emphasis by the school and taught by the least competent instructors. When the FFH School of Law manages to get accredited, the first and second years will be typical of the current law school experience, while third year will basically be a junior lawyer trade school. Students will take an hour a day of research and two hours a day of reasoning and writing, learning how to write for various audiences, how to structure an argument, and how to develop a case strategy that consists of more than "But my adversary is bad!"

Your other observation is crap. Law review is thoroughly useless. 90% of what I edited was pseudo-intellectual gibberish postulated by blowhards. At best, it taught me that being a law professor was easily the most horrible job on Earth. On the other hand, a well-implemented moot court program (which, admittedly, is not too common) can be a good sandbox for junior litigators. Of course, instead of pointless appellate arguments, moot courts should consist of suppression hearings, preliminary injunction hearings, and the like-- shit that people will actually do when they find themselves in courtooms.

There really is a difference between de novo review and the abuse of discretion review. However, the real-world application of this difference is known only to appellate justices. Corollary: Your law professor is not an appellate justice.

Again, partial credit. The professor won't know the difference. But goddamit, if you walk into a trial court without an understanding of how the appeals court is going to review what happens, you're committing malpractice. Knowing when the ruling you're arguing for or against is going to be reviewed for abuse of discretion requires you to handle it much, much differently than one which is going to be reveiewed de novo. (If nothing else, how can you effectively advise your client if you don't know how well your hard-fought trial ruling will stand up to appeal?) Again, that's why law school should be less focused upon theory and more focused on teaching practical skills and knowledge.

As for my substitute rules for those of yours I disagree with, how about these:

1. No persuasive argument contains the words "fair" or "unfair." Persauasive arguments usually contain the words "logical" or "illogical."

2. People who don't use pinpoint cites probably didn't read the case.

3. If you can't be a genius, be prepared. If you can't be prepared, be contrite. If you can't be contrite, go to medical school.

4. From Day 1 of first year, constantly ask yourself whether you would be willing to have each of your classmates represent you if you were accused of a crime five years from now. If, by graduation, you're not down to only about a half-dozen people you'd call in that situation, you're not sufficiently discriminating and you're going to spend many painful years with bad clients, bad cases, and bad arguments.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by fnordfnordhummingbird
Your other observation is crap. Law review is thoroughly useless. 90% of what I edited was pseudo-intellectual gibberish postulated by blowhards.

And you have the temerity to lecture me that the purpose of law school is to prepare one for the actual practice of law? I can think of no better boot camp for the life I lead today. And that's just the Politics Board.

But goddamit, if you walk into a trial court without an understanding of how the appeals court is going to review what happens, you're committing malpractice.

Well, duh. Of course you should know in advance which incantation the three weird sisters are going to use over the cauldron. I said the real world application of the standard of review is known only to appellate justices. It turns out it's a lot more flexible than your professors would have you believe. Corollary: "harmless error" is a doctrine that arose merely to allow an appellate justice to say what the law is, but not actually to apply it to the case at bar.

3. If you can't be a genius, be prepared. If you can't be prepared, be contrite. If you can't be contrite, go to medical school.

That's a good one.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by thebigbaddawg
Except it's not true.

actually, it is true. I've modified the image by taking a color swab and drawing a wide line connecting the two squares. This line cuts through the shadow and destroys the illusion.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fnordfnordhummingbird
People get themselves into trouble in law school because they always think the easy, logical answer is too easy or too logical. Profs generally don't have the time or the inclination to be crafting cleverly tricky exam or lecture questions. They're too busy writing grant applications and trying to find obscure Swedish trial court opinions for their upcoming article. The only trick questions I saw in law school were the ones that tricked me by not being trick questions.

One of the smarter people in my section told me this about a week into our first year of law school, and it took me another two or three months to figure out that it was a trick.

It is a good thing that lawtalkers is up and running. Infirmation is down and dead and has been for days.

Originally posted by janal
It is a good thing that lawtalkers is up and running. Infirmation is down and dead and has been for days.

Yeah, five posts in over a week. It's a great alternative.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by WHTFH
Yeah, five posts in over a week. It's a great alternative.

Actually, this week, we have had 620 posts so far. This morning we have had 55 so far. Just not on this particular board.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by WHTFH
Yeah, five posts in over a week. It's a great alternative.

No one is forcing you to waste time on the internet.