Apropos of nothing,
 

Tyrone, that's just freaky. Keep em coming.

Apropos of nothing,
 

Except it's not true.

The Prophet of Rage
 

Damn if this isn't a badass pic of the S1W's

http://www.publicenemy.com/gallery/images/s1sword.jpg

Apropos of nothing,
 

Check out the site, run through the flash animations, then come back with your report, counselor.

: )

Apropos of nothing,
 

Sorry, try this link:

http://department.stat.ucla.edu:1608...n/shadow1.html

Your eyes can play tricks on you.

Securities Fraud Settlements
 

According to the New York Law Journal, "the average price of settling a securities fraud case rose 68 percent to $24.3 million, compared with $16.6 million in 2001, according to a new study by Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research." Plaintiff's lawyers say, it's just the beginning. Defense lawyers say, go back to your homes, there's nothing to see here.

Things I Wished I Had Known When I Was in Law School
 

Today I came across an old e-mail I had sent to a friend who was considering going to law school. At his request, I wrote down ten rules of thumb that I had learned at the end of my law school career that I wished I had known as a 1L.

I post them because, while the new board has been surprisingly free of LS types asking the LS Timmy questions, there should be a FAQ for law students asking the usual "Should I take 'Evidence' or 'The Law and Film'?" questions.

Feel free to post your own advice. It's not like there's much else happening on this particular board.

All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Parntership Taxation
 

Interesting list, AG, but I've got to quibble with at least a couple:

Bah! People get themselves into trouble in law school because they always think the easy, logical answer is too easy or too logical. Profs generally don't have the time or the inclination to be crafting cleverly tricky exam or lecture questions. They're too busy writing grant applications and trying to find obscure Swedish trial court opinions for their upcoming article. The only trick questions I saw in law school were the ones that tricked me by not being trick questions.

I agree that the Socratic Method is not particularly practical in 60-100 person lectures. Socrates never had more than a dozen or so pupils, if my Classics professor is to be believed. That being said, as an intellectual tool, it's vastly superior to the lecture method because it forces the student to learn the process of deriving a result, rather than merely memorizing the result. Knowing that Mrs. Palsgraf was not owed a duty is one thing, but being able to understand how the result in that case can be applied to your client's food poisoning case is another thing.

But in terms of a practical rule, you're spot on with the "don't be embarassed to not know the answer." The whole assumption of the Socratic Method is that you won't usually know the answer when the question is first presented. Nor should one be embarassed to reason-- oftentimes flawedly-- out loud. That's the whole point of the exercise.

Research & Writing may nominally be the most important class, but ironically, in most schools, it's given the least emphasis by the school and taught by the least competent instructors. When the FFH School of Law manages to get accredited, the first and second years will be typical of the current law school experience, while third year will basically be a junior lawyer trade school. Students will take an hour a day of research and two hours a day of reasoning and writing, learning how to write for various audiences, how to structure an argument, and how to develop a case strategy that consists of more than "But my adversary is bad!"

Your other observation is crap. Law review is thoroughly useless. 90% of what I edited was pseudo-intellectual gibberish postulated by blowhards. At best, it taught me that being a law professor was easily the most horrible job on Earth. On the other hand, a well-implemented moot court program (which, admittedly, is not too common) can be a good sandbox for junior litigators. Of course, instead of pointless appellate arguments, moot courts should consist of suppression hearings, preliminary injunction hearings, and the like-- shit that people will actually do when they find themselves in courtooms.

Again, partial credit. The professor won't know the difference. But goddamit, if you walk into a trial court without an understanding of how the appeals court is going to review what happens, you're committing malpractice. Knowing when the ruling you're arguing for or against is going to be reviewed for abuse of discretion requires you to handle it much, much differently than one which is going to be reveiewed de novo. (If nothing else, how can you effectively advise your client if you don't know how well your hard-fought trial ruling will stand up to appeal?) Again, that's why law school should be less focused upon theory and more focused on teaching practical skills and knowledge.

As for my substitute rules for those of yours I disagree with, how about these:

1. No persuasive argument contains the words "fair" or "unfair." Persauasive arguments usually contain the words "logical" or "illogical."

2. People who don't use pinpoint cites probably didn't read the case.

3. If you can't be a genius, be prepared. If you can't be prepared, be contrite. If you can't be contrite, go to medical school.

4. From Day 1 of first year, constantly ask yourself whether you would be willing to have each of your classmates represent you if you were accused of a crime five years from now. If, by graduation, you're not down to only about a half-dozen people you'd call in that situation, you're not sufficiently discriminating and you're going to spend many painful years with bad clients, bad cases, and bad arguments.

All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Parntership Taxation
 

And you have the temerity to lecture me that the purpose of law school is to prepare one for the actual practice of law? I can think of no better boot camp for the life I lead today. And that's just the Politics Board. :D

Well, duh. Of course you should know in advance which incantation the three weird sisters are going to use over the cauldron. I said the real world application of the standard of review is known only to appellate justices. It turns out it's a lot more flexible than your professors would have you believe. Corollary: "harmless error" is a doctrine that arose merely to allow an appellate justice to say what the law is, but not actually to apply it to the case at bar.

That's a good one.

Apropos of nothing,
 

actually, it is true. I've modified the image by taking a color swab and drawing a wide line connecting the two squares. This line cuts through the shadow and destroys the illusion.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/shadow.jpg

All I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned in Parntership Taxation
 

One of the smarter people in my section told me this about a week into our first year of law school, and it took me another two or three months to figure out that it was a trick.

Infirmation Has Been Down for Days
 

It is a good thing that lawtalkers is up and running. Infirmation is down and dead and has been for days.

Infirmation Has Been Down for Days
 

Yeah, five posts in over a week. It's a great alternative.

Infirmation Has Been Down for Days
 

Actually, this week, we have had 620 posts so far. This morning we have had 55 so far. Just not on this particular board.

Infirmation Has Been Down for Days
 

No one is forcing you to waste time on the internet.