-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Law School & Lawyer GAF
- Thread starter SD-Ness
- Start date
ZackieChan
Member
We are professionals, ya know.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
Ended up getting an externship at the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, which lets me keep my TS/SCI clearance active.
Still looking for a "real" job in the DC area, though, after I'm 95% finished with my LL.M.
SerArthurDayne
Member
Details. IF you are willing to share.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Congrats!! Details of how it came about?
Pollux
Member
Had a call back interview with elected prosecutor today, and at the end of it he offered me a job as an asst. prosecutor and told me they would mail me all the details after Xmas. I start early January.
Best Christmas present ever haha
Would go into more detail but I'm on my phone
Best Christmas present ever haha
Would go into more detail but I'm on my phone
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Congrats again, man. You're an inspiration to keep sticking with it.
Random thread bump for a rant.
Over the weekend, I learned of my wife's former coworkers (I used to work at this company, too, and interacted with people in these roles... and they were incomptent children, really) complaining at a brunch gathering that they weren't paid enough for their jobs. Mindless office logistics bullshit jobs. The sort of job a kid fresh from undergrad can competently do with little supervision... which is precisely what most of them are. Salaries currently in the 80-90K range, but they all feel they deserve at least six figures for their work. While I worked at the company, as an in-house attorney no less, I was paid 20K less than that. I'm in government now, still earning significantly less. With a J.D. And untold debt.
I busted my ass to get into law school, to get into the school I got into, busted my ass for three years in law school, busted my ass through several years of interviewing in law school and after graduation, to be 200K in the hole, middling job prospects, and either 1) locked into 10 years of public-sector work to have my debt paid off or 2) hunting for the highest paying soul-crushing biglaw firm work?
The fuck was the point of any of this. Several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to be in a career/financial prison of sorts.
Over the weekend, I learned of my wife's former coworkers (I used to work at this company, too, and interacted with people in these roles... and they were incomptent children, really) complaining at a brunch gathering that they weren't paid enough for their jobs. Mindless office logistics bullshit jobs. The sort of job a kid fresh from undergrad can competently do with little supervision... which is precisely what most of them are. Salaries currently in the 80-90K range, but they all feel they deserve at least six figures for their work. While I worked at the company, as an in-house attorney no less, I was paid 20K less than that. I'm in government now, still earning significantly less. With a J.D. And untold debt.
I busted my ass to get into law school, to get into the school I got into, busted my ass for three years in law school, busted my ass through several years of interviewing in law school and after graduation, to be 200K in the hole, middling job prospects, and either 1) locked into 10 years of public-sector work to have my debt paid off or 2) hunting for the highest paying soul-crushing biglaw firm work?
The fuck was the point of any of this. Several years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to be in a career/financial prison of sorts.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
Good rant. Unfortunately, lots of people see law school as a golden ticket. Here are some bronze handcuffs instead.
I like my job and my career path.
The most absurd part of all this, and the reason the one comment above inspired that rant and a legitimate weekend's worth of depression, is that I could easily have switched to one of the jobs I mentioned above while at the company (considered a demotion from in-house lol), done the job so fucking easily...
But I couldn't financially afford the increase in salary that switch would have given me because my LRAP wouldn't cover non-legal public sector work, and thus I'm on the hook for an extra ~$2600 a month post-tax. It's a fantastic program, but it's not quite at the Yale "do anything good lol have fun <3" level of generosity.
LeroyPantwether
Member
I am in the early stages of considering law schools and I was wondering, Is there any big difference between studying at a private vs public university?
StevieWhite
Member
That largely depends on where you live. Generally, though, I'd say no. If it's a good school, it's a good school.
LeroyPantwether
Member
Thanks. I am mostly trying to stay in the southwest. My private vs public question mostly was in regard to schools in California. USC vs UCLA . Berkeley vs Stanford*... etc.
For what it's worth, the other schools that interest me are UT Austin, ASU**, and Washington. That said, any opinions on the aforementioned universities would be greatly appreciated.
* Probably will be an extreme reach.
** Safety School
I know ASU is moving it's law school to downtown Phoenix and building a brand new law library. I'm sure you already know about rankings, trends, and such. I can't comment on how well regarded (or not) a law degree from ASU is to employers in California, if that's where you want to end up.
LeroyPantwether
Member
I would stay in Phoenix if I went to ASU. I have a pretty good in at a firm downtown. Also, I am instate ( U of A undergrad) so going there would be basically free. But yea, ASU is really only on the list as a safety.
edit: it should be noted that I have not really considered schools in the top tier because getting in/receiving money from those schools seems impossible.
edit: it should be noted that I have not really considered schools in the top tier because getting in/receiving money from those schools seems impossible.
ZackieChan
Member
This might be a long-shot, but anyone in here have any experience with Chinese law or the Chinese court system? I've got some important questions!
Ask the questions and maybe there will be answers.
ZackieChan
Member
Mostly about what the criteria for getting something to the People's Supreme Court is, and some pretty specific procedural things regarding appellate review.
There is a short time frame after a lower court decision to appeal. The lawyer handling the trial court case should probably be in the best position to explain these things.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
How does one find out who the paralegals at a firm are? I've only seen one firm with that level of staff listed on their website, but I'm in a business where it's better for me to contact paralegals directly. Lots of firms have a contact us box, but they never say who that's going to.
LinkedIn.
Hey Lawyer GAF, wanted to pipe in with my own story, and to say not to completely give up because of how terrible the legal market is/lament everything about the legal profession.
I entered law school Fall of '09 (first class in the "should've known better" camp) with bright eyes and a hope of practicing constitutional law, with a huge scholarship and the greatest of expectations. Not used to the lack of feedback or the incredibly predictable law school exam structure (which needs to be practiced as much as the subject matter itself), I got caught out and crushed by the curve.
I became quite literally depressed and anxious: my scholarship (top 20%-of-the-class dependent) was lost by the end of the year, constitutional law isn't really an area of practice, the legal market in general continued to fall apart, and I cannot emphasize how deep of a hole I fell into (like, think everything short of suicidal thoughts, drugs, and cutting).
I graduated in May of 2012, passed the bar, and saw a glimmer once I realized that at the very minimum, I could do discovery/litigation services and pay bills and student loans; I know many people who are disillusioned with their jobs, and are able to define themselves by their personal lives... realizing that this was the real "basement", things became a little better.
I took the opportunity that working in a position with relative flexibility and an expectation that I would be looking for other work to network hard and figure out my options based on where I was at and what I enjoy doing. I loved tax in law school, and was encouraged by pretty much everyone I spoke with to try for a LLM if I could track down a specific interest, so I enrolled half-time in an LLM program with an idea of focusing on international tax (based on my own undergrad background).
Fast forward to now, and I've been part of the Transfer Pricing group for one of the Big 4 accounting firms since January; it doesn't have a super-glitzy Big Law salary, and in June, two just-graduated-undergrads will be starting at my level (w/a slightly smaller salary due to education), but I can tell that my law school education and focused study in a fast-growing area give me a huge advantage on the career track. I absolutely love my work, and I'm told that this is the grunt stuff.
The point honestly isn't to say "wheee-look-at-me", but rather to say that you absolutely *can* come back from lacking direction out of law school if you look at where your interests and what's realistic align. Understanding that you're in this situation and can't turn back the clock is the biggest thing, and while I will never hesitate to recommend against law school, acknowledging the sunk cost is essential to moving on.
I entered law school Fall of '09 (first class in the "should've known better" camp) with bright eyes and a hope of practicing constitutional law, with a huge scholarship and the greatest of expectations. Not used to the lack of feedback or the incredibly predictable law school exam structure (which needs to be practiced as much as the subject matter itself), I got caught out and crushed by the curve.
I became quite literally depressed and anxious: my scholarship (top 20%-of-the-class dependent) was lost by the end of the year, constitutional law isn't really an area of practice, the legal market in general continued to fall apart, and I cannot emphasize how deep of a hole I fell into (like, think everything short of suicidal thoughts, drugs, and cutting).
I graduated in May of 2012, passed the bar, and saw a glimmer once I realized that at the very minimum, I could do discovery/litigation services and pay bills and student loans; I know many people who are disillusioned with their jobs, and are able to define themselves by their personal lives... realizing that this was the real "basement", things became a little better.
I took the opportunity that working in a position with relative flexibility and an expectation that I would be looking for other work to network hard and figure out my options based on where I was at and what I enjoy doing. I loved tax in law school, and was encouraged by pretty much everyone I spoke with to try for a LLM if I could track down a specific interest, so I enrolled half-time in an LLM program with an idea of focusing on international tax (based on my own undergrad background).
Fast forward to now, and I've been part of the Transfer Pricing group for one of the Big 4 accounting firms since January; it doesn't have a super-glitzy Big Law salary, and in June, two just-graduated-undergrads will be starting at my level (w/a slightly smaller salary due to education), but I can tell that my law school education and focused study in a fast-growing area give me a huge advantage on the career track. I absolutely love my work, and I'm told that this is the grunt stuff.
The point honestly isn't to say "wheee-look-at-me", but rather to say that you absolutely *can* come back from lacking direction out of law school if you look at where your interests and what's realistic align. Understanding that you're in this situation and can't turn back the clock is the biggest thing, and while I will never hesitate to recommend against law school, acknowledging the sunk cost is essential to moving on.
stn
Member
'Sup legal GAF? Got a question about cover letters. When sending an e-mail to apply, are you including your cover letter as the e-mail body or as a separate attachment? I've been framing my cover letter as the body, along with my credentials as file attachments (resume, reference letters). Insight, please? Thanks.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
TangoAlphaLima
Member
StevieWhite
Member
I prefer this, but it really depends on recipient expectations. Some old timers just love to print things out, and e-mails just confuse them.
They shouldn't be printing off the cover letter. If they're going through a lot of applications, they may skim the email and then open the resume. There's a chance they'll only look at your resume if you're not saying anything in the email.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I think it's very presumptuous to assume they don't print the cover letter. At the very least, if you're a candidate of interest, I would think they would print both the cover letter and resume.
Ultimately, a cover letter is a letter, not an email. I just don't think it's a good look to slap the cover letter content in your email, but do what you will.
I don't think it's presumptious because I've seen it from experience. You might get an oddball person that doesn't like reading emails, but that's less and less likely in this age. You're statistically even more likely to encounter someone that ignores cover letters, so it will at least be possibly skimmed through in an email.
And at least with how business is conducted these days, it is perfectly proper to communicate through email instead of attaching PDFs to emails and redundantly asking people to open the attachment to see what you have to say.
If you want to use the term "cover email" to be more specific, that's fine. It's not called a cover attachment either. It is supposed to be the correspondence that sets the stage for review of the items attached/enclosed with the correspondence.
Ultimately, you'll be judged by things that are very far removed from how your cover attachment or email looks like printed out. But at least putting it in the email body ensures it will be read.
Also recommended by others:
http://lifehacker.com/include-your-cover-letter-in-the-body-of-your-email-so-1580677156
TangoAlphaLima
Member
And I've seen from experience that many 50 and 60-something law firm partners don't like to review things like cover letters and resumes on a computer, they want it printed out. Those are the people you need to make an impression on. The HR director or whomever screens the applications is merely looking for required qualifications.
If a job posting asks for a cover letter, and you send an email without a specific cover letter attachment, I think that's a mistake. If you want to copy and paste the cover letter content in the body of the email as well, go right ahead, but you should still be attaching the cover letter separately.
I still maintain that it's rare that they'll print out the cover email/attachment. And if they do, you really won't be making any impression simply based on whether they printed an email (which can be formatted as much as a Word doc) or a PDF.
I work in a big firm that sends emails to/fro every day from colleagues/partners/clients, it would just be very anachronastic to get an email that basically says, "please open the attachment to see what I have to say."
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I fail to see how that is at all analogous to the situation we are discussing. If a client asks to see a copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment you are preparing for them, do you copy and paste it into the body of an email, or do you include it as an attachment?
They do not send a cover email that says, "please open the attached cover letter to see my request."
I do not send a cover email that says, "please open the attached cover letter to see my comments on the attached motion."
TangoAlphaLima
Member
But they request your Motion for Summary Judgment, and you submit it as an attachment. So when a job posting asks you to email your resume and cover letter, you should...
Hmm, I don't know, this is a hard one...
If the client tells you to email your Motion for Summary Judgment and your comments on the likelihood for success, do you send 2 attachments? It is okay to use email for communication, and yes, the body of an email can be the cover letter.
A client asks for comments on the tax implications of this spin-off structure, they detail the structure in the email. The email reply will include the comments. You don't need to unnecessarily go attachment crazy, you are allowed to communicate via email.
Pollux
Member
It's been answered, but I generally include a summary of my cover letter - who I am, why I'm applying, and what I've been doing recently (or currently am doing) in the body of the email. Then I attach the cover letter, resume, list of references, and writing samples (if they request them) as separate documents.
I honestly would be floored if a single partner has ever printed out a cover letter. They just don't care. Resume is all that matters. Cover letter probably more important for an in-house gig.
Confession: I only read cover letters to look for mistakes. Same with thank you notes.
Also, stn, I wouldn't include reference letters until asked.
Confession: I only read cover letters to look for mistakes. Same with thank you notes.
Also, stn, I wouldn't include reference letters until asked.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Legal GAF, I need your help. I've been hustling to try and land this client, and yesterday I talked to the head of the firm on the phone and he gave me a damned riddle about service of process. It seems straight forward at first, but I'm not so sure that it is. This is the scenario:
A bar and its owner are named in a suit. A process server serves the bar, but papers for the owner list him as an individual, so several attempts must be made before service can be substituted. Multiple attempts are made, and eventually service on the owner is substituted to the bar. The question is, is this a good serve?
The catch is this: He doesn't work at the bar. He's a regular there, he's known to both the staff and the patrons, but has nothing to do with the running of the establishment. This is specifically a federal suit, and federal guidelines say that an individual needs to be approached for service at their residence or regular place of abode. If someone works somewhere it would normally be considered their place of business and could be substituted at the site if absolutely necessary, but at the same time you can't substitute service on the owner of a house to a tenant if the owner doesn't live there, even though it could technically be considered the owners business.
I've looked for a good answer, but the specific elements of this question have made it hard to find an answer that's exactly applicable. I was able to find this paper, but I don't really feel that it helps me in giving an answer to the question.
So, to put it more simply: Can service to an individual be substituted at a place they are known to frequent in a federal suit? Can a business that a person owns but doesn't work at be considered a place of business, and can service be substituted there?
Also, this question wasn't given to me as a riddle. The lawyer I talked to spoke about it as if it were an actual issue he was dealing with, so even if I'm not able to give him a right answer, I at least want to give him a good answer, just in case it's not hypothetical. And if someone is able to find better sources that I can site, well that would be great. I'm going to keep looking into this, but any help that you guys can give me would be greatly appreciated.
A bar and its owner are named in a suit. A process server serves the bar, but papers for the owner list him as an individual, so several attempts must be made before service can be substituted. Multiple attempts are made, and eventually service on the owner is substituted to the bar. The question is, is this a good serve?
The catch is this: He doesn't work at the bar. He's a regular there, he's known to both the staff and the patrons, but has nothing to do with the running of the establishment. This is specifically a federal suit, and federal guidelines say that an individual needs to be approached for service at their residence or regular place of abode. If someone works somewhere it would normally be considered their place of business and could be substituted at the site if absolutely necessary, but at the same time you can't substitute service on the owner of a house to a tenant if the owner doesn't live there, even though it could technically be considered the owners business.
I've looked for a good answer, but the specific elements of this question have made it hard to find an answer that's exactly applicable. I was able to find this paper, but I don't really feel that it helps me in giving an answer to the question.
So, to put it more simply: Can service to an individual be substituted at a place they are known to frequent in a federal suit? Can a business that a person owns but doesn't work at be considered a place of business, and can service be substituted there?
Also, this question wasn't given to me as a riddle. The lawyer I talked to spoke about it as if it were an actual issue he was dealing with, so even if I'm not able to give him a right answer, I at least want to give him a good answer, just in case it's not hypothetical. And if someone is able to find better sources that I can site, well that would be great. I'm going to keep looking into this, but any help that you guys can give me would be greatly appreciated.
ZackieChan
Member
You're a lawyer? I'm confused about your role in all of this.
The rules of the state may still be relevant.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
California doesn't have tons of rules about service of process, I've never seen anything that would address this specifically. Basically California's rules are that you can't serve someone on Sunday at church, within 500 feet of a church they attend, or on the way to or home from a church service. You can serve people after or before recommended hours of the day, drop on people you think are lying, leave them at a locked door if you have reason to believe someone is home and not answering, but he seemed to think that federal rules might bar a service like what I've described.
To substitute you still have to be reasonably sure that the person will return to a place and receive the documents. If the guy doesn't work someplace, meaning his work doesn't affect the income that he gets from the business, you can't reasonably assume that he will return there, it's not like he's taking wages from the place and is expected to return there on a schedule.
A lot of it would come down to whether a judge would think that the staff of the bar could reasonably get in touch with the owner, which in this case they could. But his labor isn't needed there, and he doesn't have a boss to tell him "come in or you're fired" or anything like that. So you could also say that it's reasonable that he has no reason to return to the bar, so can't say with certainty that he'd see the documents even if someone contacted him.
ZackieChan
Member
I don't deal with litigation or service of process issues, but I can't imagine that this is some novel legal issue that has no precedent.
I still don't understand why you're so interested in this? Isn't the person who is dealing with it a lawyer? They would probably have access to case law about the subject. Is this some sort of test or something for you to get them as a client?
I still don't understand why you're so interested in this? Isn't the person who is dealing with it a lawyer? They would probably have access to case law about the subject. Is this some sort of test or something for you to get them as a client?