Jump to content

realpseudonym

Members
  • Content Count

    616
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by realpseudonym

  1. I agree with all of this. Ideally, law school discussions would be respectful and reflective of a diverse range of views (although, as you note, not all of those discussions should be overtly political, as law students should be studying law, not turning classes into political science seminars). I agree that the ideal is not necessarily consistent with reality. But there are posters concerned that they can't write papers they believe in, or can't attend schools like Queens, because they feel that their views are too conservative. I believe that those fears are not really reasonable and cannot be reasonably accommodated.
  2. Short of hate speech, I agree that students should be permitted to express their views in class. Here's the thing, though: I was in law school for three years. I attended most of my classes, which means that I averaged around 15+ hours of class per week, for about 26 weeks a year, for 3 years (or 6 semesters). I was therefore in class for about 1170 hours (I could be wrong about that, I'm really bad at math). At no point during those hours, do I recall anyone preventing another person from expressing their views, because of the content of those views. In fact, there were several conservatives who were frequently vocal on free speech, social security programs, and human rights. They were permitted to speak. They were also generally well-liked. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but I never witnessed a law student being prevented from expressing their views. So unless there's a scourge of conservative oppression that I've missed, I don't think the issue is that conservatives are prevented from speaking in law school. I think the issue is that some people want to study at a school, where they are surrounded by peers who share their conservative opinions. And that's fine -- we live in a free society, where we're allowed to choose where we live, where we study, and who we associate with. What's less fine is this tendency to blame progressives for not validating and agreeing with conservative opinions. And again, maybe I'm missing something, but really all I've seen is an intellectually dishonest attempt to claim a form of persecution that is largely unsupported and contrary to the reality of most law school classes that I witnessed.
  3. I was interviewing a client and she's talking about how she had been diagnosed with breast cancer. I asked her whether she had evidence with her and she unbuttoned her top two buttons, before I'm like "wait no what are you doing stop I meant medical evidence, like documents from your doctors or something, stop." Also, the "oh shit" moment when someone threatens you with physical violence.
  4. There's nothing inherently wrong with asking the law society a question. But sometimes the answer is incredibly clear, so it's not necessary. And pointing out the lack of necessity is neither arrogant nor overzealous. Must we continue to have threads locked, because we call others arrogant, when they point out that we are wrong?
  5. I've now had a couple of hearings with different Leicester grads on the other side. I suppose that could instill confidence that multiple Leicester grads have graduated, returned to Canada, got called, found employment, and have been practicing for several years. However, I will state (with the important caveat that this is a very small sample size) that I found their advocacy skills and legal analytical abilities pretty underwhelming. I mean they showed up, spoke, and had done basic document preparation. But on several occasions, they seemed blind-sided on what seemed like predictable preliminary issues (e.g., problems with notice and disclosure, resulting in evidence being tossed), didn't know / understand the relevant statutory tests, or relied on case law that either had been overturned or was not actually helpful. Maybe this falls into the category of "arrogant people here caring about law school rankings or superficial bullshit," but when multiple second and third year calls from the same university are (a) practicing in an area that is pretty unlucrative for private bar lawyers and (b) getting schooled by a know-nothing articling student, you start to wonder if there is a pattern.
  6. If you're given an exam question that says, "here is the factual description of an easement, what are the rights and responsibilities of party X related to this easement" and you answer "ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY IS SACRED, COURTS THAT GRANT OTHERS ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE SJW CUCKS OMG I'M SO CONSERVATIVE," then yes, you'll get a really bad grade. If you articulately express conservative principles in discussions where conservative principles are relevant, then I seriously doubt that you will be punished for your ideology. Being conservative isn't annoying. Being relentlessly political and injecting yourself into every discussion, while your classmates are trying to learn legal reasoning and substantive law, is incredibly annoying and will only serve to distract you from the things that you're supposed to be learning.
  7. Looking for areas of debate or confusion isn't a bad idea. I started a little broader than that. I looked for a problem. For me, that often meant finding something -- an idea, a judicial decision, a legislative change, a corporate practice -- that I believed was illogical or unjust. Then I tried to narrow it down a little, by identifying what the stupid or unjust parts were. Next, I started trying to apply whatever theories / cases we'd been given in class to the problem, in order to find a solution (in my case, it was often legislative, but depending on the topic, it could be more theoretical, predictive of judicial outcomes, etc) . From this, I'd usually develop some sort of theory of my own, which I could narrow into a question. The answer to that question would generally form my thesis statement. Maybe this is just me, but I found two things made for good papers. First, I had to ensure that I asked an answerable question. Some of my papers really went off the rails, when I did things like conduct a very broad literature review, or canvass a whole bunch of different theories in my paper to ensure I got the best possible answer. The end product usually had a tonne of loose ends and wasn't very persuasive. In other cases, I've really tried to narrow in on something specific, like how tax policy instrument X will create a greater increase in labour force participation rate Y, than the legislature current approach of Z. Or how adding language for a specific minimum standards provision in regulation X would create desirable outcome A, whereas the current legislation is ambiguous and has left open the door for courts to create undesirable an undesirable reasonableness approach . In these cases, I had space to work out my reasoning, and usually ended up with good grades and end-products that I was happy with. Second, make sure that your paper is about the course material. I think that this is what the above pet project conversation is about. Pet project papers are good, because you're focusing on the relevant issues to the course, insofar as you'd be discussing issues important to the prof, who designed the course you're writing the paper for. However, I don't think that picking a prof's pet issue is the only way to ensure that you're writing a paper about the relevant course material. I just made sure that I was integrating some of the literature, theories, or cases from the syllabus/class into the core of my discussion, and that was usually fine.
  8. I don't know what any of you are talking about -- this has been an extraordinarily efficient use of the last ten minutes.
  9. If they've already worked there for four months, then this is probably more an example of being hired back based on four months of very relevant experience, than some sort of favouritism or "rigging." I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be outraged or aroused.
  10. Privilege is being in a position to get defensive about my hard work and accomplishments (and I do love to get defensive).
  11. I wouldn't say never do free articles. But yeah, I'd approach with caution. I'm not sure that they'll necessarily be bad principals. But I really didn't know how to tell and that scared me away from doing free articling. I'm a little ambivalent about how much quality mentorship and experience arises from these positions, especially your supervisors might be lawyers running high-volume practices that depend on free labour to survive. You could end-up doing tonnes of grunt work for someone who doesn't have time to help show you the ropes. Or, they might be struggling to hold their practice together and wouldn't necessarily be the best lawyers to emulate (I talked to some who might've fit into this category).
  12. I bankrupted her while I was in 2L. And I wholeheartedly enjoyed it.
  13. Honestly, getting rid of third year and mandating unpaid articles wouldn't be that bad. I skipped a lot of 3L classes and spent huge amounts of my last year volunteering. In some ways, I feel like I did a year of unpaid articles.
  14. There's actually a state-imposed ban on discussing this subject any further. Don't worry -- it's fully Charter compliant. Everyone with a fully functioning frontal cortex agrees that killing the next person who mentions admissions policy and degree difficulty in the same sentence is a reasonable limit, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
  15. In fairness, epeeist never restricts the length of his wind to what's warranted
  16. I agree. I started getting legal questions from family and friends before I'd even taken a class. I think I knew enough to not give any specific advice, but we weren't taught anything concrete about what was authorized and what wasn't until third year. It'd be helpful to get definitions of legal information and advice right away, and to understand the restrictions around provision of legal services until we're called.
  17. While there's stuff I agree with here, I don't think that placement at the end of a list indicates lesser importance. If my ex had given me a grocery list and I said I didn't get the last few items, because I assumed their placement near the end indicated her intention to show that they weren't important, she'd have rightfully looked at me like I was crazy. I think you're reading too much into the order of the instructions. I'm not trying to be a dick, but how carefully edited was your personal statement? Your posts typically have a few grammatical errors. I get that forum writing is different than formal writing (and that this might be a second language?), so it doesn't matter that much here and it's possible that your style differs in other contexts. But your statement should really be error-free. I worked hard on that - I edited my personal statements multiple times and had others read them. If you're prone to little mistakes, like mixing-up "its" and "it's," then you really want to iron that out for the adcoms. Law profs are sticklers for detail.
  18. Do you enjoy vomit in the showers? Sleeping on Friday nights? Someone pounding on your door screaming: "Ronald! Rooonnnnaalllldddd! I know you're in there. Rooonnnnaaalllllddd!" Even though you just assured them that no one named Ronald was in your room.. Dal res is full of people who just finished high school and moved out of their parents' houses. They're enjoying their newfound freedom. That's fun for them. I wouldn't have enjoyed their freedom during first-year of law school.
  19. Even if this is right and seems common sense, I consider advocating for a specific course of action within a regulated context to be legal advice.
  20. There isn't? Depending on the area of practice, I could see harm arising from practicing law as a part-time hobby. I mean, I guess OP could either confine their practice to something simple and unchanging, or keep up with legal developments /develop the necessary skills for competence. But setting-out to dabble is weird. If I knew that someone only ever practiced as a hobby, I don't know that I'd entrust important legal affairs to them.
  21. Wow. For the sake of your own sanity, some of you really need to step back from your screens. It's summer: go outside?
×
×
  • Create New...