I get super jazzed about employment law, IP, and oddly, bankruptcy. I think I would love law school, but I am not sure that I actually want to be a lawyer. I am a legal assistant for bankruptcy and think it’s great. But I also want flexible hours in my life and attorney’s don’t seem to get that. Is there a field in law that can lead to good work/life balance?
Non-prosecution government is good hours, but often not super flexible (work 9-5, no one will bother you outside that absent a genuine emergency). Private practice is more flexible, but typically a lot more hours (you can go have a long lunch with a friend in town if you don't have something urgent, but you will likely regularly be working late). If you don't want to make a ton of money there can be small firm/solo practice situations that get you both of these things but not all small practice firms are good and being a solo is hard.
Makes sense. Law professor sounds nice but I imagine you have to have a good amount of professional experience to do it. Govt work is probably the route for me.
Has anyone had experience with going into law school/ interviewing at law jobs with tattoos? I have a few that I want that would be somewhat visible (nothing inappropriate) but I don't want to jeopardize any opportunities.
As long as you’re not getting tattoos in crazy locations (face, neck) or getting super aggressive imagery tattooed on you, you’ll be fine. Tattoos are not as taboo as they used to be in this profession.
I’ve got two pretty big tattoos, one on my forearm and one on my upper arm/shoulder. If I roll my sleeves up (which I always do if I’m not in court), then my forearm tattoo is fully visible, but it hasn’t been a problem.
I just want to get a little spade on my wrist which would probably be easy to cover with a watch or bracelet. I also am getting matching ones with my sisters on our ankles but I'm not the kind of person anyone ever sees my ankles 😂
I love learning about widely different topics really intensely. I’ll spend a few weeks learning about a part of mechanical engineering, a few weeks learning about specific biotechnology, or get engrossed in an element of computer science/software engineering. I enjoy all the aspects of analysis, problem-solving, and even document review that are part of the law but am wondering if there is an area of practice that would lend itself to learning about a variety of different fields in this manner. Thanks!
General civil litigation maybe? A lot of that will be incumbent on you being able to/choosing to represent clients from a variety of fields for a variety of issues, but potentially that’s possible.
This may be more specific employer dependent rather than field dependent.
Question about OCI for big law firms. I understand that, to get a big law summer associate position (say, as a 2L), one needs to have good grades, a good class rank, etc. And I think that the grades/class rank that will make one competitive for such positions vary from school to school depending on the school's tier (like, maybe you can have a lower GPA/class ranking at a T14 and get an offer than at a T25). (Please correct me if the second of these beliefs is false.)
But I'm wondering whether there's a cut-off for *participating* in OCI for big law firms. Like, if some student at a T25 has a GPA that's not great and a class ranking that's not great, might they not even be permitted to submit their resume to \[well, I guess I don't know where they'd submit it\] in hopes of getting one or more big law firm interviews?
I understand that these firms won't be interested in people who aren't doing well enough in their classes. But my question is whether people who aren't doing that well aren't even allowed, as it were, to try to get an interview.
Hi there. Most schools won't cut you off - anybody can submit applications and bids through OCI. It's also why people always say to ignore the "Top X%" requirement that firms put in their OCI description. Don't reject yourself, make the firm reject you.
Also, I agree with the poster above me, pre-OCI is the new trend and most firms will start interviewing 1Ls in November and 2Ls in March/April. Unfortunately CDO offices are very hit or miss with their advice. I will say that my firm has already been interviewing 1Ls for 2L spots and it's known as one of the more conservative firms out there so I'd imagine that others have already done so.
This post pretty much sums it up. https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/s/EmxG5NDqqs
Ok. Good to know. Thanks. I've heard from enough people that pre-OCI is becoming the new trend to trust that I at least have to take very seriously the possibility that that is so. And in any case, it's better to be safe than sorry, and I can't imagine how working under the assumption that you have to get out ahead of OCI could hurt you (unless it means you're not studying as much or whatever).
But just to clarify: When you say "most firms will start interviewing 1Ls in November and 2Ls in March/April," do you mean that most firms will start interviewing people *for 1L SA positions* in November of their 1L year and *for 2L SA positions* in March/April of their 1L year? In other words, for most firms, the interviews for all types of SA positions---the 1L ones and the 2L ones---begin in the relevant student's 1L year?
Sorry, the language in my comment was confusing. Yes, your interpretation is correct. You should be interviewing for 1L summer positions in October-January of 1L fall, and interviewing for 2L summer positions in March-June of 1L spring/summer.
First, if you're relying on your school's OCI, you have essentially already fallen extremely behind and have shot your chances in the foot. For better or worse, a lot of hiring is now done through direct campaigns between the student and the law firm and significantly earlier than your law school's OCI. Second, to answer your question more squarely, some firms employ GPA cut-offs and others do not. You will not know this information, so you should apply anywhere and everywhere that seems like a place you want to work.
Right, I've heard of pre-OCI. I assume that's what you're referring to. Am I also right that (at least some) schools don't really want their students knowing about pre-OCI because it makes one of the major initiatives that the schools offer, namely the OCI program, less relevant? In other words, should I expect when I start law school this fall not to hear from my law school about pre-OCI, or at least to hear only very little about it and perhaps that it isn't that important?
EDIT: I have heard from at least one other person in the online law school/admissions space that pre-OCI is not really that important, that one isn't really behind the eight ball if one doesn't participate in pre-OCI. How am I supposed to know who to trust?...
I'm not sure. My school compiles a list of all law firms and provides information about their pre-OCI plans and when you can begin applying, but I don't know how many other schools do it. Assume yours does not and be prepared to do that research yourself including by visiting the firm websites, collecting info on when they start taking applications, or emailing them directly and asking.
Or is it rather the case that anyone can "opt in" to participating in OCI season. But then one might simply not get any interview invitations from big law firms if one's grades/class rank aren't sufficiently high? I'm assuming that's it, but am I wrong?
That's how it works at my school - no grade/rank cut off to participate but obviously it will affect how many interviews invites you get. Our OCI also has non-big law employers participating though
Trying to decide between these two and Im just lost and it’s resulted in many many panic/anxiety episodes over not being able to make one. My offers are even and I want to go into business/corporate with medium sized - big law being the ideal. Idk what to do, both seem to be pretty even on everything across the board as they’re both schools that aren’t focused on what I want to do.
Where I live after grad is wide-open as long as it’s a city, the bigger the better. I have until Thursday to either submit a Wisco deposit and 5/16 to withdraw from Maryland. Any insight would be great.
We need more info. Which UW (Wisco or Washington?) and how much for tuition? And do you really have no location preference at all-even between the east coast, the midwest or the west coast in general?
Wisconsin, my b. Updated the post. Tuition is about even after factoring in scholarships for both.
Not really, I have no family anywhere and while I’d love to stay closer to Philly to be by friends, it’ll always be there for me and I can visit when I’m missing it. At the end of the day, my decision is going to be contingent on what’s going to provide the better opportunities.
Ah, I go to Washington so I can't give you any special insight. If their employment stats really do look similar I'd probably heavily favor the cheaper one, but that's just me. And if they're pretty similar in cost, I'd go to Maryland just because I feel like it'd have a stronger network near Philly.
Try to knock out as much "life stuff" as you can. Get your health squared away including a manageable exercise routine, any doctor's appointments needed (or a general physical), dentist appointments, insurance issues etc. Dealing with that little stuff is really annoying when you're already stressed.
It's good practice (probably)! Most cases don't have convenient Quimbee summaries, and I suspect that having students read and digest cases in school is to teach them how to extract rules and standards from appellate decisions, and learn how to analogise/distinguish facts.
This "case method" of teaching really started in American law schools around the late 1890s - 1900s; if you want to learn more, it might be fruitful to look up law review articles on it from the time!
Either participation points or more importantly, they help you understand what you’re going to be tested on. You learn the point of each case and that’s what your exam covers at the end. It’s like every other homework assignment, they have you do them so you learn the point of the topic. That being said, you don’t necessarily need to read to be successful on your exams.
Then why does every "1l guide" say basically that briefing is a waste of time and you should just study for the final from day 1? are they trying to reduce competition or something?
No. Briefing in the traditional sense is a waste of time since your exams 9/10 will only require you to know the rules. No one cares about the facts in the end. But, feel free to do as you wish. Just giving my 2 cents as someone with a 4.0 lol
Hey. Thought I'd add my thoughts here. Law school recommends a lot methods and things to do to succeed, and plenty of people have opinions. A lot of it is what works for you. While I just jot notes to the side of cases if I do some briefing, Thumper1k92 has a great point that this is a skill you can use in practice. I've had supervisors who requested briefs of cases to review for different reasons.
I'd also disagree with Anxious\_Doughnut, on the value of reading and cases. I've taken several exams where the professor makes the question an iteration of a case or a combination of cases. It's not just about the rule that you can pull from a case but the facts that impact that rule. The more I know about how a particular rule works with different sets of facts the more easily I can analyze what the outcome in a new set of facts looks like. Helpful for exams, and I'll leave it for an attorney to weigh in on the practice point.
Hi. Attorney here. I spend most of my day quickly analyzing caselaw and synthesizing it into my briefs. It's a skill I learned in law school.
Just because it doesn't help on the exam doesn't mean it isn't a critical skill to learn in law school.
I think most people recommend the traditional brief at first because you need to learn how to read a case and be able to parse through it efficiently. Otherwise you might miss the point and at first a lot of my cohort took an hour per reading. Eventually, everyone was good enough to get the readings done rather quickly while still understanding. There are aids which allow you not to read and some professors are excellent at explaining material so you don’t have to read. However, skimming was helpful so I could go to my professors with more pointed questions and have deeper conversations.
How closely are firms tied to their regional economies? If you're a transactional lawyer and the economy of the city you're in goes to shit, is it going to screw you in terms of potential earnings?
Biglaw firms are national. I work with clients from all over. That said, in person BD is a thing so eventually a weaker local economy will trickle down.
Smaller firms are more affected.
I get super jazzed about employment law, IP, and oddly, bankruptcy. I think I would love law school, but I am not sure that I actually want to be a lawyer. I am a legal assistant for bankruptcy and think it’s great. But I also want flexible hours in my life and attorney’s don’t seem to get that. Is there a field in law that can lead to good work/life balance?
Non-prosecution government is good hours, but often not super flexible (work 9-5, no one will bother you outside that absent a genuine emergency). Private practice is more flexible, but typically a lot more hours (you can go have a long lunch with a friend in town if you don't have something urgent, but you will likely regularly be working late). If you don't want to make a ton of money there can be small firm/solo practice situations that get you both of these things but not all small practice firms are good and being a solo is hard.
Makes sense. Law professor sounds nice but I imagine you have to have a good amount of professional experience to do it. Govt work is probably the route for me.
if I were to go into Patent Law, would it matter if my degree in Biology/Physics were a Bachelor of Arts degree instead of Bachelor of Science?
Are you eligible for the patent bar? Check the requirements and find out. That's really all anyone cares about.
Has anyone had experience with going into law school/ interviewing at law jobs with tattoos? I have a few that I want that would be somewhat visible (nothing inappropriate) but I don't want to jeopardize any opportunities.
Would strongly recommend that you don't get tattoos that can't be hidden by normal professional clothing.
As long as you’re not getting tattoos in crazy locations (face, neck) or getting super aggressive imagery tattooed on you, you’ll be fine. Tattoos are not as taboo as they used to be in this profession. I’ve got two pretty big tattoos, one on my forearm and one on my upper arm/shoulder. If I roll my sleeves up (which I always do if I’m not in court), then my forearm tattoo is fully visible, but it hasn’t been a problem.
[удалено]
I just want to get a little spade on my wrist which would probably be easy to cover with a watch or bracelet. I also am getting matching ones with my sisters on our ankles but I'm not the kind of person anyone ever sees my ankles 😂
this is entirely fine!
I love learning about widely different topics really intensely. I’ll spend a few weeks learning about a part of mechanical engineering, a few weeks learning about specific biotechnology, or get engrossed in an element of computer science/software engineering. I enjoy all the aspects of analysis, problem-solving, and even document review that are part of the law but am wondering if there is an area of practice that would lend itself to learning about a variety of different fields in this manner. Thanks!
General civil litigation maybe? A lot of that will be incumbent on you being able to/choosing to represent clients from a variety of fields for a variety of issues, but potentially that’s possible. This may be more specific employer dependent rather than field dependent.
Maybe general litigation or IP litigation?
Question about OCI for big law firms. I understand that, to get a big law summer associate position (say, as a 2L), one needs to have good grades, a good class rank, etc. And I think that the grades/class rank that will make one competitive for such positions vary from school to school depending on the school's tier (like, maybe you can have a lower GPA/class ranking at a T14 and get an offer than at a T25). (Please correct me if the second of these beliefs is false.) But I'm wondering whether there's a cut-off for *participating* in OCI for big law firms. Like, if some student at a T25 has a GPA that's not great and a class ranking that's not great, might they not even be permitted to submit their resume to \[well, I guess I don't know where they'd submit it\] in hopes of getting one or more big law firm interviews? I understand that these firms won't be interested in people who aren't doing well enough in their classes. But my question is whether people who aren't doing that well aren't even allowed, as it were, to try to get an interview.
Hi there. Most schools won't cut you off - anybody can submit applications and bids through OCI. It's also why people always say to ignore the "Top X%" requirement that firms put in their OCI description. Don't reject yourself, make the firm reject you. Also, I agree with the poster above me, pre-OCI is the new trend and most firms will start interviewing 1Ls in November and 2Ls in March/April. Unfortunately CDO offices are very hit or miss with their advice. I will say that my firm has already been interviewing 1Ls for 2L spots and it's known as one of the more conservative firms out there so I'd imagine that others have already done so. This post pretty much sums it up. https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/s/EmxG5NDqqs
Ok. Good to know. Thanks. I've heard from enough people that pre-OCI is becoming the new trend to trust that I at least have to take very seriously the possibility that that is so. And in any case, it's better to be safe than sorry, and I can't imagine how working under the assumption that you have to get out ahead of OCI could hurt you (unless it means you're not studying as much or whatever). But just to clarify: When you say "most firms will start interviewing 1Ls in November and 2Ls in March/April," do you mean that most firms will start interviewing people *for 1L SA positions* in November of their 1L year and *for 2L SA positions* in March/April of their 1L year? In other words, for most firms, the interviews for all types of SA positions---the 1L ones and the 2L ones---begin in the relevant student's 1L year?
Sorry, the language in my comment was confusing. Yes, your interpretation is correct. You should be interviewing for 1L summer positions in October-January of 1L fall, and interviewing for 2L summer positions in March-June of 1L spring/summer.
First, if you're relying on your school's OCI, you have essentially already fallen extremely behind and have shot your chances in the foot. For better or worse, a lot of hiring is now done through direct campaigns between the student and the law firm and significantly earlier than your law school's OCI. Second, to answer your question more squarely, some firms employ GPA cut-offs and others do not. You will not know this information, so you should apply anywhere and everywhere that seems like a place you want to work.
Right, I've heard of pre-OCI. I assume that's what you're referring to. Am I also right that (at least some) schools don't really want their students knowing about pre-OCI because it makes one of the major initiatives that the schools offer, namely the OCI program, less relevant? In other words, should I expect when I start law school this fall not to hear from my law school about pre-OCI, or at least to hear only very little about it and perhaps that it isn't that important? EDIT: I have heard from at least one other person in the online law school/admissions space that pre-OCI is not really that important, that one isn't really behind the eight ball if one doesn't participate in pre-OCI. How am I supposed to know who to trust?...
My school's career office explicitly held an info session about pre-OCI so it's not all schools that hide the info
I'm not sure. My school compiles a list of all law firms and provides information about their pre-OCI plans and when you can begin applying, but I don't know how many other schools do it. Assume yours does not and be prepared to do that research yourself including by visiting the firm websites, collecting info on when they start taking applications, or emailing them directly and asking.
Or is it rather the case that anyone can "opt in" to participating in OCI season. But then one might simply not get any interview invitations from big law firms if one's grades/class rank aren't sufficiently high? I'm assuming that's it, but am I wrong?
That's how it works at my school - no grade/rank cut off to participate but obviously it will affect how many interviews invites you get. Our OCI also has non-big law employers participating though
Trying to decide between these two and Im just lost and it’s resulted in many many panic/anxiety episodes over not being able to make one. My offers are even and I want to go into business/corporate with medium sized - big law being the ideal. Idk what to do, both seem to be pretty even on everything across the board as they’re both schools that aren’t focused on what I want to do. Where I live after grad is wide-open as long as it’s a city, the bigger the better. I have until Thursday to either submit a Wisco deposit and 5/16 to withdraw from Maryland. Any insight would be great.
We need more info. Which UW (Wisco or Washington?) and how much for tuition? And do you really have no location preference at all-even between the east coast, the midwest or the west coast in general?
Wisconsin, my b. Updated the post. Tuition is about even after factoring in scholarships for both. Not really, I have no family anywhere and while I’d love to stay closer to Philly to be by friends, it’ll always be there for me and I can visit when I’m missing it. At the end of the day, my decision is going to be contingent on what’s going to provide the better opportunities.
Ah, I go to Washington so I can't give you any special insight. If their employment stats really do look similar I'd probably heavily favor the cheaper one, but that's just me. And if they're pretty similar in cost, I'd go to Maryland just because I feel like it'd have a stronger network near Philly.
[удалено]
Practice typing skills, you don't need to be a 50s secretary but at least so you can type as fast as you can think. Read getting to maybe.
Try to knock out as much "life stuff" as you can. Get your health squared away including a manageable exercise routine, any doctor's appointments needed (or a general physical), dentist appointments, insurance issues etc. Dealing with that little stuff is really annoying when you're already stressed.
Do nothing. A good law writing program will have to unteach you the bad writing habits, better if you never formed them in the first place
Do nothing. They will teach you how to write and how to be a law student. Enjoy your time off
If the readings that you do for homework have no benefit to your scores on exams, why do they have you do them and quiz you about them in class?
It's good practice (probably)! Most cases don't have convenient Quimbee summaries, and I suspect that having students read and digest cases in school is to teach them how to extract rules and standards from appellate decisions, and learn how to analogise/distinguish facts. This "case method" of teaching really started in American law schools around the late 1890s - 1900s; if you want to learn more, it might be fruitful to look up law review articles on it from the time!
Either participation points or more importantly, they help you understand what you’re going to be tested on. You learn the point of each case and that’s what your exam covers at the end. It’s like every other homework assignment, they have you do them so you learn the point of the topic. That being said, you don’t necessarily need to read to be successful on your exams.
Then why does every "1l guide" say basically that briefing is a waste of time and you should just study for the final from day 1? are they trying to reduce competition or something?
No. Briefing in the traditional sense is a waste of time since your exams 9/10 will only require you to know the rules. No one cares about the facts in the end. But, feel free to do as you wish. Just giving my 2 cents as someone with a 4.0 lol
I mean the question I'm getting at is that what is the reason that they suggest that these things should be done if they do not help you at all
Hey. Thought I'd add my thoughts here. Law school recommends a lot methods and things to do to succeed, and plenty of people have opinions. A lot of it is what works for you. While I just jot notes to the side of cases if I do some briefing, Thumper1k92 has a great point that this is a skill you can use in practice. I've had supervisors who requested briefs of cases to review for different reasons. I'd also disagree with Anxious\_Doughnut, on the value of reading and cases. I've taken several exams where the professor makes the question an iteration of a case or a combination of cases. It's not just about the rule that you can pull from a case but the facts that impact that rule. The more I know about how a particular rule works with different sets of facts the more easily I can analyze what the outcome in a new set of facts looks like. Helpful for exams, and I'll leave it for an attorney to weigh in on the practice point.
Hi. Attorney here. I spend most of my day quickly analyzing caselaw and synthesizing it into my briefs. It's a skill I learned in law school. Just because it doesn't help on the exam doesn't mean it isn't a critical skill to learn in law school.
I think most people recommend the traditional brief at first because you need to learn how to read a case and be able to parse through it efficiently. Otherwise you might miss the point and at first a lot of my cohort took an hour per reading. Eventually, everyone was good enough to get the readings done rather quickly while still understanding. There are aids which allow you not to read and some professors are excellent at explaining material so you don’t have to read. However, skimming was helpful so I could go to my professors with more pointed questions and have deeper conversations.
How closely are firms tied to their regional economies? If you're a transactional lawyer and the economy of the city you're in goes to shit, is it going to screw you in terms of potential earnings?
Biglaw firms are national. I work with clients from all over. That said, in person BD is a thing so eventually a weaker local economy will trickle down. Smaller firms are more affected.