Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content Count

    10572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

epeeist last won the day on November 13 2019

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4055 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not only has it been discussed in multiple threads, there's a thread devoted specifically to it. Here's the last post by @Ryn (Ryn, shout-out to you in case you want to merge this with that thread - I had originally declined to respond to this post because in the wrong section, but since others have already...note the use of an ellipsis...make that ellipses...). Furthermore, why post about the SOP in a section on this board for law students? It might make sense to do so, if one gave context to law students about why they should care - regardless of one's position - but the original post here assumes the reader is already familiar with the SOP. Which is at least Ontario-centric, even if one expected Ontario law students to be aware of it.
  2. @WellThisSucks I can't speak as to current or recent hiring trends, but I noticed in passing, I hope you don't omit or bury the fact that you're trilingual. Even if the languages aren't directly of interest to employers (i.e. based on some of their clientele), isn't being fluent in multiple languages impressive anyway? Maybe someone with more recent experience can comment on that point. Unless, of course, you've decided that revealing that information would tell a potential employer sight unseen that you're a visible minority in a way that your name (whatever it is) wouldn't?
  3. Male no kids here, but just thinking about it from the client's point of view (or generally, while only PT solo I've dealt with other parties changing law firms or even lawyers within the same firm, and it's sometimes a headache anytime there's a change). If someone leaves for 6-12 months they need another lawyer running with the file. And if they are happy with the new lawyer and don't want to switch back, is that because they don't want to see billing items like "review file and consult with X", i.e. they shouldn't have to pay for time spent transferring file between lawyers at the same firm? Or is it because they are never asked or informed that the lawyer has returned and is available? Or are they just happier with the new lawyer (for reasons having nothing to do with maternity or sexism)? Because the first two items are more the firm's fault in how they deal with leave for any reason, the last is genuine client preference. Also, more a question, is it encouraged/possible that lawyers on leave, if they want to, can keep up with what's happening with ongoing files including perhaps participating in some client calls? Because it's not that someone on leave should have to do that, but if they want to, can they?
  4. In fairness to @thegreatgatsby2 they wrote the requirements confusingly. There's a place for plain English, and this is it. They should have clearly said what @Mal said.
  5. You're wrong. Please, please understand this. And as Mal said above. You need two years in-class, plus whatever core courses weren't in those 2 years you need to take exams in. But you always need 2 years in-class. " NCA assignments for distance education If you got your law degree online through distance education, the NCA will assign you two full years of in-class study. ... If you don’t complete all eight NCA core subject assignments in class at an approved law school, you will need to meet these requirements by writing the appropriate NCA exams."
  6. I agree with you, but just wanted to clarify, what the first, much earlier article said seems to have been transformed by quick misreading by later article writers as in the second: "As they filled the front of the synagogue, their en-banc presence announced, as it had on so many occasions in the past, ‘A partner has died; the firm lives.’" That is, by their presence that message is announced, as implicitly interpreted by the first writer, they don't actually say that (and from a quick search ATL disambiguated this, they don't say that). Now, I still think showing up en masse like that at a funeral is problematic. Showing up at a colleague's funeral, nice. Making a display of showing up at a colleague's funeral by everyone showing up and walking in simultaneously, is making it about you rather than the deceased or supporting their family and friends. It's not like a military, police or firefighter funeral in which conspicuously being present e.g. in uniform may be appropriate because of the public service of the deceased.
  7. From what I recall (NOT firsthand knowledge!) there's actually a huge difference between lockstep (based on seniority) and eat what you kill (based on billings) or the in-between, modified lockstep. The second article in the original post specifically discussed the situation of someone leaving a lockstep firm like Cravath to earn more at an eat what you kill firm.
  8. Well, since with rare exception (e.g. where statute defines AG as being able to act as a lawyer, i.e. by virtue of their office alone) one can't practice law without first becoming a lawyer, one couldn't - legally - try out being a lawyer before actually becoming one. Even if someone acted for themselves in litigation (criminal or civil or family), or in small claims court for a family member if permitted, that's not giving them practice at being a lawyer, but only with limited litigation in very specific circumstances. Though I will concede Shon Hopwood probably got as much experience as a non-lawyer as it's feasible to get: "...While in prison, he started spending time in the law library, and became an accomplished United States Supreme Court practitioner by the time he left in 2009...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shon_Hopwood
  9. You don't need to have experienced it first. What I was thinking of - and this wasn't necessarily applicable to @flyingfish who appears to have put some thought into it - is that someone applying to law school should want to become a lawyer, not merely want to escape their current job or not know what to do after graduation so figure, why not. Given the time and money involved, and that articling and employment are uncertain.
  10. It's good you've put thought into it, but what seems to be missing is something like: "I want to be a lawyer". Which for almost anyone (some rare exceptions), I think is the only good reason for anyone to go to law school. You've bracketed this sentiment - talked about a fit for your abilities, income, being a professional, etc., but not actually said you want to be a lawyer. Maybe I'm being nitpicky (get used to it...) but you haven't actually said anything about being a lawyer or potential fields of practice (though pre-law predictions of interest or where one will end up are notoriously unreliable). Note, my perspective is from someone who only practices law part-time (full-time other work), so don't pay undue attention to me compared to someone in FT practice.
  11. The second more recent article, discussing dissatisfaction with compensation as a reason to leave, reminded me of this recent ABA Journal article about a survey that compensation isn't the number one reason partners leave firms: "Contrary to popular belief, dissatisfaction with compensation is not the No. 1 reason why partners leave their law firms, according to a new survey of more than 1,300 lateral partners. The top reason, cited by 44.2% of lateral partners, is lack of confidence in firm management and strategy, according to the 2020 Lateral Partner Satisfaction Survey, released Tuesday by legal search firm Major, Lindsey & Africa. The survey, developed with legal market researcher Acritas, is available here. The next most-often cited reasons were a lack of support to build their practice (about 35%), dislike of their firm’s culture (about 31%) and compensation (about 31%). The lawyers were allowed to choose more than one factor. Female and male partners placed a different emphasis on law firm culture as a reason for their move. Dissatisfaction with the culture was cited by nearly 39% of female respondents and 28% of male respondents...." [emphasis added] http://abajournal.com/news/article/lack-of-confidence-in-law-firm-leadership-is-no-1-reason-why-partners-leave-survey-finds
  12. It's also not necessarily fair to the physicians to blame them (I mean, yes ones taking bribes, but otherwise). In medical treatment, unless reason to disbelieve one should believe the patient. One reason many physicians hate employers requiring medical notes for brief absences (I was recently discussing with a physician I know who agreed, if a patient says they were throwing up and it's now stopped, WTF purpose other than imposing costs on the employee-patient and the health care system, but that's another discussion). There are genuine conditions, physical or mental, for which accommodation should be given, which can be faked by someone. That's not a reason not to offer accommodation, it's not a reason to disbelieve people (unless they boast about gaming the system); but it seems that in reaction, the documentation required for accommodation has gone through the roof. Like, I think I've given the example of someone needing to have a snack during an exam. That was for a proven medical condition. But let's say someone gets bad headaches, or can get bad headaches, if they don't eat. It's not 100%, but they just want to be able to have a (quiet) snack. In some places, where in-room snacks not allowed, the documentation required and that it be a recognized medical condition would make it almost impossible to get this accommodation. But it's actually something that anyone should be able to get, regardless of whether or not they can establish a medical condition, because it provides no advantage.
  13. Some law firms ask improper questions. Sometimes it's accidental (e.g. the interview becomes so friendly/conversational an interviewer slips and forgets themselves and asks the sort of question they might ask in a non-work situation about family or something). But I can't see how one would accidentally ask about accommodations in that way. With the exception, after an offer has been made, it might be okay to ask about accommodations in the sense of what might be needed (don't rely, this is not legal/HRC advice!). Or if it's so obvious the person had to have had accommodation that might be different -- a blind person at an interview with a seeing-eye dog, for instance? But it would be wrong to assume that everyone with a disability necessarily received accommodation. Also, if someone knows something private or personal about other students (accommodations, sexual orientation, religion, family status, etc.), they should keep it that way. With rare exception it's nothing a potential employer should know unless the person chooses to share it.
  14. While I generally agree, there are some instances (easy course but highest mark a B+, versus difficult course but prof more willing to give As) in which someone planning on working hard and challenging themselves would be better off with the more challenging option.
  15. Allowing aid sheets used to be thing (I'm thinking university program before law school), the rules at the time required one double-sided handwritten aid sheet (for those courses that allowed them), so there was no minimum font size. Because of messy handwriting I asked one prof for permission to use a printer, which he gave, and when he was present at the exam and saw my 4-6 point laser-printed aid sheet (really more of a security blanket at that point!) he laughed and asked if he could show it to others after the exam. Same here (about the closed book exams and memory). Which made preparing for the closed-book NY bar (previous version, not the current one) tortuous. My worst mark had nothing to do with being closed book, it was in a course taught by a practitioner, generally they seemed to mark to a lower curve than other profs and instructors. I would have appealed but it was the last term, I didn't want to come back over the summer to first meet with the prof (as the first step of the process, to review the exam) who'd been unreasonable in other ways also.
×
×
  • Create New...