Law School (1 Viewer)

[Dre]

Congrats, Saintsfan. You have always approached topics here in a very reasonable way, and I think that quality is certainly a good foundation from which you can start off your career. Best of luck with your future.


Just dont do medmal

 

[byudrew]

None of the three. Go to Michigan.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Anyway, if your issue was being able to work for pay your first summer, you can do that at LSU. Several people I know clerked at New Orleans firms and went to Loyola Summer School or they clerked at a Baton Rouge firm.

That aspect of it really didn't factor into my decision. I was using that in calculating the cost (full summer of work vs. summer abroad).

And thanks for all of the advice and wishes. It was a tough decision and I took what everyone said here into consideration.

 

[THAJCODE]

None of the three. Go to Michigan.

 

[JimEverett]

LSU makes you go for 3.5 semesters? Wow.

I thought the general consensus was that 3 years was one year too long - just a way for law schools to squeeze out more money per student.

 

[Saint Mike]

I thought the general consensus was that 3 years was one year too long - just a way for law schools to squeeze out more money per student.

Amen. First year they try to scare you to death, second year they try to work you to death, third year they try to bore you to death.

 

[where yat brah]

Make it your goal to develop quality medical malpractice tort reform, PLEASE!!!

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Well, the most legitimate answer is that over the full course of your career your inherent skills and work ethic will make the most difference to your level of success, not the school you attend.

However, if forced to paint with a broad, inaccurate and somewhat dated brush, my experience is that LSU grads have the best overall combination of basic legal knowledge, practical approach to law and personal resiliency. Tulane has a reputation for excellent professors but the students are less tested by law school attrition pressure (the old saying for Tulane was: you pay your fees, you get your B's). I am a Loyola grad and was severely disappointed both in the overall quality of the professors and the profit-centric focus of the administration. I had some excellent professors here and there but as a group they were pretty underwhelming.

In the interest of full disclosure, my opinion is largely based on anecdotal experiences (many of which extend back 20+ years) but, if I had the choice and intended to practice in Lafayette, LSU would be the clear choice for me. Gird your loins for the attrition process though -- I've seen incredibly smart people crap out first year and absolute idiots make law review, so who really knows??????

 

[superchuck500]

Congratulations, SaintsFan11. Tulane's got a great program and I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice in the long run.

3) Download old exams and do them. Start really doing them 2-3 weeks before your exams. Getting to Maybe, prep books, nutshells all pale in comparison to the advantage you gain practicing on old tests, especially 1L year. Try to mimic the methods of argument that you see in your cases -- I think this is the fastest way to learn how to take law school exams. Also -- and this'll save you the $100 I spent on law school guides -- the only important piece of information contained in all of those law school prep books is this: the argument is way, way, way more important than the answer.

4) Try to identify the core material of the course and learn it cold. In my experience, it's better to know 60% of the material stone cold than have a "decent" grasp of all of it. Don't start trying to narrow it down until you've caught your breath during your first semester.

5) Make friends with 2Ls, especially if they're on law review. They'll hand over their outlines pretty willingly, and those are a fantastic resource. If you have a class that you don't have a 2L's outline for, find someone who does. They'll almost always be willing to trade.

Congrats SaintsFan11. It sounds like you put some good thought into your choice, and as I said before, that's what's more important - there is no one statistic or feature that is going to set them apart. Its about what you're looking for.

I just wanted to add that Sardonios's advice is pretty good - these three items in particular. Most professors have old exams (and representative answers) posted or filed in the library. It is imperative that you review these. Remember that most professors are reasonably lazy and may not stray too far, year to year, from their tried and true test questions. I also think it helps to get these early in the semester, to help frame your understanding of the class, and what issues are most important.

Also, get outlines! Even if you have to buy them. If there are 2 significantly different ones for a class, get both. $20 for an outline can be a very wise investment. Again, it is better to get these reasonably early, so that the course material doesn't seem so all over the place. When you start, it might be hard to see the forest for the trees- outlines will help you. Also, they will help you if you miss a class or two - you won't necessarily have to get notes from someone.

Becoming a good law student is a process- you will learn what works for you and what doesn't. It isn't always the same as your friend. I found that getting an outline early, then reading the Nutshell series about a week before the final, and then really studying the old exams was a pretty good method. I cruised through the last 3 semesters pretty easily after I had this down.

Its easy to blow time on ineffecient study habits. As Sardonios said, understanding the core principles at a very solid level is better than knowing a superficial level about all of it. I think a good review of the old tests and outlines as you go along with the class - and not just waiting til you're in final exam prep - will help you understand what the core material is.

Best of luck! Don't forget to enjoy yourself.

 

[JimEverett]

The following advice pertains more for when you get of law school and start practicing law: get mean as hell. I mean real mean, practice and practice cultivating hate. At the same time learn how to control that hate and direct it towards your opponents. Don't do anything stupid. But if you want to become a litigator the best advice I have is to treat it as controlled (meaning it has rules) warfare.

 

[SaintJ]

Or, you could do estates law and just hope your clients keep dying.

 

[St. Widge]

Make it your goal to develop quality medical malpractice tort reform, PLEASE!!!

You mean get rid of the cap on liability that doctors have for their own malpractice?

Docotor's must have one serious set of lobists to get that kind of special treatment, along with the Medical Review panel. No other porfession enjoys that kind of safety and protection.

 

[superchuck500]

The following advice pertains more for when you get of law school and start practicing law: get mean as hell. I mean real mean, practice and practice cultivating hate. At the same time learn how to control that hate and direct it towards your opponents. Don't do anything stupid. But if you want to become a litigator the best advice I have is to treat it as controlled (meaning it has rules) warfare.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

The warfare part may have some merit, but I have serious reservations with the advice of "practice cultivating hate." It is my experience that the a calm, level head in all situations generally allows the best course to make itself clear. A good attorney may use meaness and hate to succeed. But a great attorney can recognize that attribute of his opponent and use it against him.

IMO.

 

[jpcdolphan]

I couldn't disagree with this more.

The warfare part may have some merit, but I have serious reservations with the advice of "practice cultivating hate." It is my experience that the a calm, level head in all situations generally allows the best course to make itself clear. A good attorney may use meaness and hate to succeed. But a great attorney can recognize that attribute of his opponent and use it against him.

IMO.

Sounds like advice from the Yoda School of Law.

However, and speaking as someone looking in from the outside and not in any way affiliated with the legal profession, it seems like your advice makes a lot more sense. If legal jousting can be equated to combat, or just to a competitive sport, than I would think that being in control of yourself and your emotions would give you the upper hand. If you "hate" your opponent, that wouldn't lend itself to rational decision making...even if you believe that you've got it bottled up and focused.

Plus, I would think that would come through somewhat in front of a jury, even if it is unintentional and would make them uneasy. They like their competitors tough...but charming.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Just thought I'd let y'all know my decision. I'm going to Tulane.

Some simple advice:

1) Outlines, outlines, outlines. Develop a reputation for getting good ones and you'll have your choice of study groups.

2) Choose your study group well and remember that you don't have to like them to study with them. Look for people who are reliable, unemotional, well-spoken and independent thinkers (pretty much in that order). Avoid the classroom jack-in-the-boxes at all costs.

3) It is not your responsibility to ensure that your drinking buddy has a spot in your study group. It doesn't have to be dog-eat-dog -- help him study separately if you want to -- but don't jeopardize your relationship with your study-mates.

4) Check your personal opinions and emotions at the examination door -- spot the issues, argue both sides logically and succinctly, and move on to the next issue.

5) Keep an open mind about what specialty you will pursue when you get out. Litigation is just a small slice of the pie. I entered a "boring" one-year-and-out specialty just to get some experience and, twenty years later, I've experienced a large part of the world on someone else's nickel and still enjoy the hell out of what I do.

Good luck!!!