Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content Count

    10147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

epeeist last won the day on October 17 2018

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3873 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. I hate doing someone's work for them, but it took me less than a minute to Google it; as an example of things OP should research before asking questions, and to avoid the risk of their doing an unnecessary LLM (at least, unnecessary if they get called in Canada or another US state like NY first): "...These guidelines do not apply to attorneys who are already admitted to the active practice of law in a foreign country or in another U.S. jurisdiction and are in good standing. These attorneys are qualified to take the California Bar Examination without having to complete any additional legal education...." [emphasis added] http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education/Legal-Education/Foreign-Education
  2. I agree that the context may make it relevant. And I get what you said about remembering a few individuals yourself because of their positions. But, knowing the fragility of eyewitness testimony and memory even when someone believes they are remembering things accurately, isn't it reasonable to question how they remember exactly what he said over 10 years ago? If it was unusual enough and stood out in their minds I could see it as possible to remember, but wouldn't it have been a good question for the reporter to have asked, how do you remember exactly what he said over 10 years ago? And have the two of you discussed what happened in class at any point in the intervening time?
  3. Since repeating myself I'll be brief, all of the information it makes sense to limit the number of exams within a 5-year period. I still can't understand the rational basis for a lifetime ban, even with the possibility of an appeal, especially since they don't retain scores past 5 years (and law schools won't accept, etc.). Also, how will it work with disclosed/non-disclosed tests with this many exams?
  4. Ignoring a thread derail above... It seems as if the old policy (pre 2017) was maximum 3 test in 2 years, then they changed it to no limit, now they're moving to 3/year okay but the other maximums. This seems all over the place and why such a quick change after less than 2 years? Also, if LSAC only keeps scores for 5 years, then it doesn't seem to make sense to have a lifetime limit. If they want a lifetime limit, shouldn't they keep scores for a lifetime and assert that old scores are still valid (not that they would be still a good predictor).
  5. "That you say there is an appeal process makes it better, but LSAC has been notorious for being not very helpful for people with disabilities, e.g. repeated litigation involving blind test-takers. So I'm skeptical they'd be appropriately fair re other bases for wanting to write as an exception to the usual limits." [emphasis added] Reading comprehension is important in life generally, not just for the LSAT.
  6. Articling student: Hello, LSBC? I'm an articling student with a question regarding articles and termination. LSBC: Fuck you, how dare you contact us for such a wildly invalid reason!
  7. From your avatar pic, I'm assuming you're not in BC (nor am I). No-one suggested (at this point) filing a complaint with the LSBC. They suggested contacting the LSBC (or a bencher she's already spoken with?). And first sending an email clearly stating no, she's not quitting; and following-up with the actual articling principal (and OP has already said she's contacting a lawyer, who can give legal advice we can't on this board). And, if pseudo-principal said she was terminated (or misinterpreted what she said as quitting) - then that seems to be in violation of the rules per Rumpy? That is, even if she was quitting, on mutual consent, there would be an obligation for both her and the actual articling principal to contact the LSBC. So what's wrong with contacting them both to clarify she isn't quitting?
  8. Different for LSAT versus bar ads, yes, because of available tests. Though with only one experimental section, wouldn't limiting repeat takers to disclosed test sittings obviate most of the concern about spotting trends? That is, anything that could be spotted would be from disclosure anyway? If the concern is people learning more or seeing trends, that's a reason for short-term limits (annually or 5 years), not lifetime limits. A professional exam like CFE is very different from an exam to see, will you even be allowed to study (I do have concerns with 3x limit for a profession also, but that's a different discussion). Also, I've encountered people who've never written a multiple-choice test in their life - literally, in their entire life including elementary school. Others who suffer extreme test anxiety and repeated attempts to desensitize them might be appropriate (I'm not a professional in that area, I'm saying possibly). The purpose of the LSAT is to help assess, will this person do well in law school. I don't see how lifetime limits serve that function (I agree with shorter-term limits, though as noted I think the 3 per year is too generous, 5 in 5 years seems not unreasonable).
  9. Like @Iyaiaey said at least years ago I think they disliked some (or one) person writing repeatedly getting perfect scores and advertising that fact. But, I'm not so sure I agree with them that being a tutor is invalid. I'm a volunteer tutor through LSO for those rewriting the bar admission course. If I were allowed to take the exam for pedagogical purposes, it would make me a better tutor, and I would probably have comments on how some questions could be written more clearly (though I wouldn't of course be telling students about specific questions!). Yes, being an LSAT tutor by contrast is for money, but does that make it invalid? Is anyone who uses an LSAT tutor a cheater? Because unless you think they are, what's wrong with such a tutor wanting to become better? I went to law school with at least one person who was retired (in their 60s or 70s) and there were other less mature, but still mature, students. I really don't see how a lifetime ban makes sense if someone has spent decades, literally, since the last time they wrote. I could easily come up with other examples (undiagnosed learning disability when first wrote, etc.). That you say there is an appeal process makes it better, but LSAC has been notorious for being not very helpful for people with disabilities, e.g. repeated litigation involving blind test-takers. So I'm skeptical they'd be appropriately fair re other bases for wanting to write as an exception to the usual limits. On the other end, though, allowing 3 takes in one year seems excessive to me. So I see it as too harsh at the lifetime end (and maybe even at the 5 in 5 years end), especially when they're fine with someone using up 3 takes in one year.
  10. In at least some instances this could lead to unfairness (I'm thinking more of the lifetime bans). Let's say someone gets a perfect score and goes to a Canadian law school. Then 15 years later, they're moving to US to a state where it makes more sense to go to law school again. The law school requires LSAT but won't accept 15-year-old scores. So, too bad because LSAC won't let them write again? Or, someone over 5 years tries, doesn't do well. Then 10 or 15 years later in a better place mentally and family wise, they want to reapply, they only get two more attempts? In both these instances, it's not like the information from the test is fresh in their mind.
  11. On your general topic, I'm in the boat of some others, sympathetic, but not surprised. One may be treated unfairly in an unenforceable moral sense, but not in a legal or ethical sense. And of course, know far too little to give advice (and wouldn't even if knew more). Just don't let your cathartic self-pity affect your need to continue to do the work professionally and get good references, stay on good terms, etc. Many years ago my articling principal left the firm on very short notice (to me at least) and I had to scramble to get a replacement at the firm. While I was annoyed, I can understand (now at least, not so much then...) that until it was certain they were leaving, they couldn't/wouldn't tell me that they might be leaving (as an employee of the law firm, and not a lawyer, what duties if any did I have to my articling principal to keep that information confidential if they had told me?). About the real estate transaction, let me put it this way: assuming it's the assistant's job to enter data per the instructing lawyer, or to assist you with other matters, in what way is it their responsibility to teach you? It's not part of their job, and what if teaching you takes so much time that they have to work late to finish other work? Wouldn't that be...unfair? If you want to be taught, why not speak to your articling principal or another RE lawyer? Then they can either teach you, or instruct the assistant to teach you. Or you might ask, "Hey, do you mind if I ask SACA [Stubborn And Controlling Assistant] to show me what happens in a real estate closing?" Assuming they say yes, ask SACA about when would be the best time.
  12. One huge concern I have is, more the sort of thing to talk to an immigration lawyer about: if you go to law school in Canada, will you, when no longer a student, be permitted to live and work in Canada? Under whatever rules exist then, in the future, not just now (there's uncertainty about what will happen even if the current deal is implemented, let alone if it isn't or is cancelled again). Because if not, you'll be going back to the US with a foreign law degree that you paid a high price for (international student rates in Canada).
  13. Assuming law students who prize location above all else are incredibly rare, that might be because of (for Toronto) difficulties in getting into Toronto or Osgoode? Wouldn't one have to look at, not just applications, but people who never applied because they knew maybe they could get into another law school but couldn't leave Toronto so didn't bother applying anywhere? Though, if Ryerson is similarly difficult to get admitted to the effect on the admitted students cohort may similarly be negligible, as contrasted with those who might have applied/gone. I mean, for first undergrad degree people choosing where to go based on proximity to Toronto (or elsewhere as applicable) re family/SO is not that unusual. Even law school, this is anecdotal and not recent, but I knew someone who only applied to (and was admitted and went to) Queen's law, in part because for family reasons that was where they needed to go. Toronto is much larger than Kingston, I'm sure there are all sorts of potential applicants who are in a relationship with someone with a job in Toronto, not to mention all sorts of other possibilities (medical care, ability to live with family in Toronto for free versus pay elsewhere, etc.) who would be unwilling to travel even as far as Kingston or London.
  14. From a quick search I thought Cooperators had a decent clear summary of how marijuana use may affect home, auto and life insurance policies: "Home insurance In all provinces except Manitoba and Quebec, you can legally grow up to four cannabis plants on your property for personal use. These four plants are treated the same as any other legal plant on your property and are covered under your Home insurance policy. If you illegally exceed the number of plants allowed in your province or territory, your claim may be denied entirely. Household members who smoke cannabis aren’t eligible for our non-smoker discount." [emphasis added] https://www.cooperators.ca/en/Resources/protect-what-matters/cannabis-legalization.aspx Re the home sale situation, like so many things, even if there's no obligation to disclose, can one put in the agreement (so not excluded by no reps and warranties clause) a condition on the offer? Your original disclaimer applies of course, and I'm not a RE insured... EDIT: also more generally, I knew anyway but also had a buyer's agent who advised me that anything I cared about needed to be in writing, such as fixtures or information about whether prior resident had been a smoker. But how many people don't realize that the real estate agent is an agent for the seller, and if not required to disclose anything, won't?
  15. I work full-time non-law job, do some part-time legal work. My contract for my non-law job expressly permits me to work independently as a lawyer, because that's what we agreed on. And yes, both LSO and LawPro are aware. I would think even moreso for someone working full-time as a lawyer (in-house counsel) in a salaried position that lack of an express prohibition on "side work" wouldn't be enough, you'd need express permission to do "side work". But, from a relatively recent discussion re moonlighting here some others disagree. Pay them for legal advice... That is not legal or ethical advice, it's more moral/common sense advice. Whether or not conflicts would be a nightmare depends, obviously you have to be aware, but it might be that one's in-house work and what friends ask you to do are so far apart that the chance of conflict is negligible (I mean, you still have to be alert, I just mean that it's not like you'll be rejecting every second potential client).
×
×
  • Create New...