While one would think this concept is common sense, these are a few links to a video of a hearing to determine whether an attorney showed up drunk to court! The videos are pretty funny (all about 5-10 min each), the attorney just keeps digging himself deeper and deeper. I assume his next court appearance will be in a malpractice suit.

By: JDOasis – Papa34

There are courtroom dramas and there are courtroom dramas. Some will make you want to scratch your eyes out while some will make you proud to (or want to) be a lawyer.

Here are five scenes from the latter.

By: JDOasis - Frieds

Man… after a few weeks off from blogging (as sporadic as it was for the last few weeks, it will be similar in the coming months), I was ready to jump right into the saddle and manage both blogging and school. Two weeks ago at orientation, I realized I’d be screwed on that one. Let me back track… about 3 weeks before school started, my Law School suggested that we spend the rest of our summer enjoying life with the implication that we would be going through hell during our 1L year.  Yup, best advice is to wish your loved ones well right now ‘cause you sure as hell aint gonna be seeing ‘em… that’s what the letter should have said. So, I roll into orientation and from the moment I sat down to the moment we were finally dismissed on Friday, the undertone from the faculty and the outright admission from our guest speakers was that of prepare to have no balance your first semester and slowly regain it your second. Clearly I’m starting to understand what they mean.

In my week under the gun, I’ve read more than I think possible, survived an earthquake, survived a hurricane and then helped clear out waterlogged basements and driveways, and have yet had found the opportunity to go out and enjoy a beer with friends. Yes, the Virginia Aftershock made its way to where I am and we got hit by some rain and wind from a storm that they called Irene. I’m also not sure if I’m ahead or behind in my reading, but that’s the Hurricane’s fault.

In my first week of class, I’ve learned that Civil Procedure is not civil at all and that it’s all about the rules. In fact, the rules that I thought I knew made no sense at all too! In fact, the best part about it is that my professor looks like Charlie from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I finally came to appreciate the finer points of pastries and how enjoyable torts can be, even if it means I’m learning about the fine art of ambulance chasing through negligence, both the intentional and unintentional kinds. Contracts, I’ve learned, is all about the facts and how sensitively you decide to pay attention to them. It’s a bit of an emo approach, but I don’t really give one hot who ha ha about how you slice it.

Enough of the amusement though. I have to be honest; the thing I realize most is that this is all about time management. It’s not a 40 hour job, but more of a condensation of 2 years of working as an Investment Banking Analyst. The hours improve as you get further down the road, but they still suck and are rather lengthy. Getting staffed on multiple deals and wearing multiple hats is something I know, but this is a much harder challenge than expected. The time management involved for Law School is the biggest thing I can stress trying to learn and understand. There are only 24 hours in a day, of which I’m out of commission for at least 5 of them, not counting the commute and time spent in class. To all you 2Ls, 3Ls and JDs, how do you/did you manage your time? To all you current 1Ls, care to share your secrets on time management?

By: JDOasis – Papa34

Found this funny ranking of Law Schools based on Google searches. Apparently North Dakota is way ahead of Yale lol. Thoughts on the top 20? Posted the top 50 below along with their US News ranking.

1.            Harvard (#2 in U.S. News)

2.            NYU (6)

3.            Columbia (4)

4.            North Dakota (Tier 2)

5.            UCLA (16)

6.            Illinois (23)

7.            Texas (14)

8.            Georgetown (14)

9.            Stanford (3)

10.          Yale (1)

11.          Boston University (22)

12.          University of Washington (30)

13.          Duke (11)

14.          Kansas (79)

15.          Chicago (5)

16.          Penn (7)

17.          Emory (30)

18.          Minnesota (20)

19.          Fordham (30)

20.          Northwestern (12)

21.          Michigan (7)

22.          UC-Berkeley (9)

23.          Cornell (13)

24.          Regent (n/a)

25.          Wake Forest (39)

26.          Arizona State (40)

27.          UC-Davis (23)

28.          Georgia State (61)

29.          Rutgers-Newark (84)

30.          North Carolina (30)

31.          George Washington (20)

32.          Vanderbilt (16)

33.          Wisconsin (35)

34.          Syracuse (100)

35.          Indiana-Bloomington (23)

36.          Virginia (9)

37.          Oregon (79)

38.          Quinnipiac (107)

39.          Pace (117)

40.          Tulane (47)

41.          USC (18)

42.          UConn (56)

43.          St. John’s (95)

44.          Northeastern (71)

45.          Florida (47)

46.          Stetson (110)

47.          Suffolk (Tier 2)

48.          Seattle (84)

49.          University of Mississippi (107)

50.          Iowa (27

By: JDOasis – jd12

I don’t necessarily agree with his whole thesis (in fact I probably disagree with him on most of his points) but, University of Arkansas School of Law prof Aaron N. Taylor does make a case as to why law school should still be worth it.  What do you think?  Any of you guys agree?

“Legal training helps in tough economy

Let’s start with the legal job market. Lawyers have not been immune to the effects of the recent recession. However, they have fared much better than most workers. According to U.S. Department of Labor data, the unemployment rate for lawyers was 1.5 percent in 2010 — more than six times lower than the overall rate of 9.6 percent. Since 2009, while the overall unemployment rate has remained above 9 percent, the rate for lawyers has exceeded 2 percent only once. It is true that unemployment among lawyers has increased significantly over the last few years (it was barely 1 percent in 2007), but the increase pales when compared to other occupations….

Student loans aren’t all bad

Discussions about law school costs are often accompanied by lamentations about the extent to which students are relying on loans to pay these costs. Student loan indebtedness has skyrocketed recently — more than 400 percent since 2000. Law student borrowing has jumped 50 percent since 2001. But much of the discussion surrounding this increase is premised on an assumption that all debt is bad. Critics also seem to have a questionable understanding of the favorable repayment terms associated with federal student loans.

Before I continue, let me make clear that I’m not defending the pricing structure of legal education. Too many law school pricing structures are premised on exploiting demand for seats in entering classes, and I agree with the view that the rate of tuition increase is unsustainable. But with that said, legal education isn’t going to get cheaper, and the associated costs of attending are going to increase as well. Moreover, because most law school graduates will have careers spanning 35 years or more, judging the wisdom of attending law school based principally on the immediate costs seems shortsighted.

The fundamental purpose of debt is to allow the immediate costs of consumption to be deferred to a later date. Used wisely, debt can confer much benefit upon the debtor, particularly when the debt takes the form of an investment. Student loans make higher education possible for many students by allowing them to defer the costs of their education “consumption.” And given wage premiums associated with higher education, student loans represent one of the best investments an individual can make.

Of course, not all student loans are created equal. Federal loans are vastly superior to private loans, and fortunately, most law students are able to finance their entire cost of attendance with federal loans only. Interest rates are fixed on most federal loans, and they are much lower than rates offered in the private market. Federal student loans also come with payment grace periods, deferral and forbearance options and an array of repayment plans — the most generous of which being the Income-Based Repayment Plan (IBR).

Through IBR, debtors with low income, relative to federal student loan debt, are allowed to make reduced payments of no more than 15 percent of their disposable income (defined as the difference between Adjusted Gross Income and 150 percent of the poverty guideline). After 25 years, any remaining loan balance is forgiven. If the debtor is working in a public service job, as a prosecutor, for example, balances are forgiven after just 10 years. IBR and other repayment options help ensure that debtors don’t have to choose between basic necessities and paying their federal student loans. Moreover, the loan forgiveness aspects of these plans are essentially back-end scholarships.

Given the political obsession with the federal deficit, you should probably take advantage of these favorable options while you can. One of the cost-saving “deals” made during the debt-ceiling-debacle ended interest subsidies on graduate and professional school student loans. These subsidies went to financially needy students and were typically worth thousands of dollars. So, along with increased tuition, politics could make law school more expensive in the future….

Applicant environment is favorable

The bad publicity about legal education contributed to a historic decrease in applications for admission during the 2010-2011 cycle. Applications fell 11 percent — the largest one-year decrease on record. When applications fall, law schools tend to admit a higher percentage of their applicants. And if applications fall again during the 2011-2012 cycle, as predicted, applicants will find themselves in a very favorable environment for gaining admission. At some schools, applicants who would have been considered “borderline” just two years ago might be shoo-ins for admission this year. So the strategic benefit of applying during a string of down years is worth ample consideration.

Another benefit of the bad publicity is that law schools will likely provide more detailed employment data. The anxiety over jobs prompted a grassroots movement for more transparency from law schools. The result was a mandate by the American Bar Association that law schools provide employment data that goes beyond traditional employment rates and provides better information about the types of jobs graduates are getting. The ABA will make this information available to the public, allowing applicants to better compare schools and make better informed decisions about where to attend — or whether to attend….”

By: JDOasis – Papa34

Come on, we’ve all seen those on TV; the tacky lines, the terrible acting, and the cheap special effects, so I thought we’d have a little fun and have everyone post their favorite.

Check out the JDOasis post for the videos!

By: JDOasis – jd12

Seriously, would any of you take these cases?

• Edward Brewer sued Providence Hospital back in 2002 for $2 million. His claim? That the hospital was negligent in stopping him from raping other patients.

• Anheuser-Busch apparently caused emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss for a Mr. Richard Overton back in 1994 when the beermaker did not make the beerdrinker’s fantasy of hot chicks on the beach materialize whenever he drank as, here’s the kicker, supposedly advertised.

• A supposedly legendary 77 year old German playboy named Rolf Eden brought charges on a 19 year old fraulein claiming “Ageism” when the little minx told him he “was too old for her” when he asked her to have sex with him.

• Universal Studios was sued for $15,000 by Cleanthi Peters back in 2000 because the complainant suffered extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress when she… wait for it… went inside Universal Studios Haunted House.

• A 16 year old Connecticut high school student suffered substantial hearing loss and whatever when his teacher smacked his desk with her palm to wake him up. Naturally, his parents thought the best recourse was to sue her. Quite naturally as well, he became the butt of all jokes in his school.

• Suing Oliver Stone definitely popped into my head while watching that coat hanger abortion he called Wall Street 2, but Patsy Anne Byers had a slightly different idea: she sued Stone for making Natural Born Killers, claiming that the movie inspired two low lifes to go on a crime spree where she ended up getting shot and paralyzed from the neck down.

So that’s it for me, any other stupid cases I’ve missed?

By: JDOasis – jaja

Steve Jobs was a great man; he was a genius, a dreamer, and most of all, a sociopathic tyrant who had the balls to take on the world. I have nothing but respect for him.

Larry Bodine had a pretty good article on what we could’ve learned from the man and its particularly suited for the new guys or those who’re contemplating starting their own firms.

“Develop a niche.

It doesn’t matter that Apple’s market share of computers is only 9%. His customers are fanatically loyal. The moment a new product was announced, his loyal base would immediately buy it. He developed a niche in computers, cell phones and table computers that no one could rival.

They way you do something is more important than what you do.

Jobs personally designed the iPhone. They are renowned for their beauty and style. Sure, it has a “death grip” problem that causes the phone to disconnect a call and Consumer Reports recommended people shouldn’t buy it. But it didn’t matter. Customers forgave the technical flaw because they love its look and feel. People even pay a premium price for an iPhone. Lawyers should learn from the corporate world: present or package what you do in a new way.

Personalize the brand.

A lawyer must realize that he or she is a brand. Clients don’t hire law firms – they hire lawyers. Every time Apple introduced something new, it was Steve Jobs presenting it on a big stage. Similarly, lawyers should get in front of audiences, make presentations on webinars and talk to news reporters. Clients want to find a lawyer they know, trust and like, and lawyers must be easily found by being in the public eye.

Don’t just compete, strive to make your competition obsolete.

Steve Jobs never played catch-up; instead he was the guy to beat. When he introduced the Apple 1 computer in 1976, there was nothing else like it. Jobs instantly made the typewriter and typesetting obsolete. When he introduced the iPhone in 2007, it made the Blackberry and every other cell phone obsolete. When jobs released the first iPad in April 2010, it created an entire new category. Lawyers should similarly look for new ways to provide service and charge for it that leapfrog ahead of what other law firms are doing.”

Kaplan is proud to announce a new partnership with JD Oasis! All this month, we’re pleased to feature blog posts created by the JD Oasis team. Check out all their great content at www.jdoasis.com.

Found this interesting op-ed in the NYTimes. Clifford Winston, whoever he is, suggests that the monopoly held by ABA-licensed schools and the state bar exams over the choosing of who gets to practice Law has to be put to an end…

…to open the field for everyone???

“FOR decades the legal industry has operated as a monopoly, which has been made possible by its self-imposed rules and state licensing restrictions — namely, the requirements that lawyers must graduate from an American Bar Association-accredited law school and pass a state bar examination. The industry claims these requirements are essential quality-control measures because consumers do not have sufficient information to judge in advance whether a lawyer is competent and honest. In reality, though, occupational licensure has been costly and ineffective; it misleads consumers about the quality of licensed lawyers and the potential for non-lawyers to provide able assistance.

Rather than improving quality, the barriers to entry exist simply to protect lawyers from competition with non-lawyers and firms that are not lawyer-owned — competition that could reduce legal costs and give the public greater access to legal assistance. In fact, the existing legal licensing system doesn’t even do a great job at protecting clients from exploitation. In 2009, the state disciplinary agencies that cover the roughly one million lawyers practicing in the United States received more than 125,000 complaints, according to an A.B.A. survey. But only 800 of those complaints — a mere 0.6 percent — resulted in disbarment.

What if the barriers to entry were simply done away with?”

Thoughts? I think it’s ludicrous. As we all know, law, with its ever-changing intricacies, is as complicated as breeding a human centipede/iPad baby. Just to play devil’s advocate though I’d like to open up the discussion; are all these requirements really necessary?

What do you think?

#1: Underestimating the test

So you sailed through college with an impressive GPA at an impressive school thanks to your impressive SAT score?  Well so did most of the people taking the LSAT.  If you’re figuring that just because you’ve been in the 95^th percentile your entire life, you should be in the 95^th percentile on the LSAT, it’s time to realize that the competition has stepped up.  The pool of test-takers no longer includes slackers and dropouts-to-be like it did in high school.  You’re attempting to distinguish yourself from other well-schooled college graduates who have the desire and aptitude to go after an extremely demanding professional degree.

And that’s not all.  This test is designed to be difficult and challenging for exactly those people.  Sure you might know someone who walked in cold and scored in the 170s, but I know an NFL cheerleader.  That doesn’t mean I plan on taking my pompoms and hot pants out to the field anytime soon.  The reality is that the vast majority of people who walk into the LSAT relying merely on natural aptitude end up sorely disappointed.  Spend the time to understand what you’re up against.

#2: Rushing your prep

Many other students who will consent to prepping for the LSAT treat it more as a side dish than an entrée.  I’ve seen many students walk in four weeks before the test, saying they want to study hard and get the best score possible… as long as it doesn’t interfere with work, school, family, friends, fantasy football or hot yoga.  It just doesn’t work that way.

The LSAT demands a different way of thinking about problems and analyzing data that doesn’t lend itself to cramming facts into your brain over a short period and hoping to hold onto them just long enough to get through the test.  In order to train your brain to think through the LSAT, you really should spend at least two months preparing and making the test a priority in your life.

#3: Hiding behind excuses

Now that you’re coming into the LSAT process more aware of what is required, the excuses have to stop.  Nothing inhibits scores more than an attitude that focuses on the negative.  Time and time again I’ve seen students enter the classroom repeating “I’m not that smart”, “I don’t do well on standardized tests”, “I’m too slow” and similar self-defeating statements.  All those ideas serve to do is to provide excuses to hide behind.  There will be challenging and difficult moments over the course of studying, but the best students step up to those moments and make an effort to fight through them rather than accepting a mediocre fate.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Henry Ford, who once said, “Whether you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”  Attitude is huge.  Keep yours in the right place and you’ll avoid these common LSAT pitfalls and be well on your way to that Civ Pro class.