bills_fan Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Good question. My personal experience was that law school was a blast. I went from college (UAlbany) right to law school (UBuffalo). Since they were very similar institutions, law school for me was an extension of college. I partied my ass off for 3 more years, got serious when I took the bar exam, then went to work. This, however, is not the rule. Both my wife and best friend went to different law schools (Brooklyn, New York) and hated the experience. The students were too competitive and cutthroat. The schools were a lot of work, whereas UB was not bad (I thought).Also, UB was MUCH more cost effective. As someone who writes the checks for law school loans now, my UB loan will be finished at the end of next year. My wife has 20+ years to go on hers. I, personally, like what I do and so does my wife. My money is good (not quite big firm $$, but not bad either), her benefits are better, so we're doing OK. I prosecute brokerage firms and unethical stockbrokers for NASD, she prosecutes child abuse and neglect for the City of NY. And yes, when two prosecutors have disagreements it gets heated and creative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Both my wife and best friend went to different law schools (Brooklyn, New York) and hated the experience. The students were too competitive and cutthroat. The schools were a lot of work, whereas UB was not bad (I thought). 175705[/snapback] I can speak to that just from my own personal experience. I spent my first two years at UB and my last year at Cornell. I don't think I would have enjoyed my last year as much as I did if I had had to spend three years competing with that bunch of folks. (UB didn't count my Cornell grades for purposes of computing graduation honors, so I was able to select classes at Cornell without any regard for what they would do to my average, and therefore I enjoyed it more and got more out of that year.) There was stress and competition at UB, to be sure, but only among the law review types. At Cornell the stress/competition was from top to bottom. I also ended up owing Cornell more money for one year than I would have owed UB for three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Right now I am finishing up my degree in computer forensics. This spring I plan to take the LSAT. My ultimate goal is to work in the intelligence field. I went to airborne and ranger school while in the military. I also hold a top secret security clearance. I hope that once I finish law school, I'll have all the pieces in place to do what I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 And yes, when two prosecutors have disagreements it gets heated and creative. 175705[/snapback] As opposed to here, where it just gets heated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Right now I am finishing up my degree in computer forensics. This spring I plan to take the LSAT. My ultimate goal is to work in the intelligence field. I went to airborne and ranger school while in the military. I also hold a top secret security clearance. I hope that once I finish law school, I'll have all the pieces in place to do what I want. 175779[/snapback] Good luck man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Right now I am finishing up my degree in computer forensics. This spring I plan to take the LSAT. My ultimate goal is to work in the intelligence field. I went to airborne and ranger school while in the military. I also hold a top secret security clearance. I hope that once I finish law school, I'll have all the pieces in place to do what I want. Good Luck. Whats the ultimate goal? As opposed to here, where it just gets heated? Ever hear two people try and cross examine each other at the same time about something nonsensical? It would probably make a pretty good comedy routine to an outside party listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I enjoyed the hell out of Law School. It really helps if you spend a few years working first, as that will give you a break from school and makes you appreciate it all the more. I am a patent attorney working for myself. I've done the big firm thing and it was OK but not for me. The advice given by others to NOT do it for the money is sound indeed. And there are all kinds of options to make less money and help others if you wish. As for those who think trial lawyers do not perform a service for society, no matter how much money they may make, obviously have never been harmed by someone else's stupidity, greed and/or carelessness. They will be the first one knocking on the tort lawyer's door when they are needlessly harmed by some person's carelessness or some corporation's greed (i.e. putting profits above people's safety). The biggest myth in the world is this premise that runaway juries and trial lawyers are the reason for astronomical insurance premiums in this country. This is one of the most successful cons I have ever seen perpetrated on the public in my entire life. If anyone cared to study the stats, they would discover that huge tort awards are actually the exception to the rule, and almost invariably the result of outrage felt by the jury for the behavior of the defendant. A perfect example is the McDonald's coffee case. What most people do not know is that the elderly woman who suffered the injuries was not driving, but a passenger. The car was not moving, but they had in fact pulled over to fix their coffees. Yes, she put the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add cream and sugar, which nearly anyone of us would have done because it is virtually the only way to do it in a car. There are no solid, stable surfaces upon which to rest a cup to free both hands to tear packages and remove the lid. Moreover, back when this occurred, those styrafoam cups were cheap and flimsy at best. Her injuries were so severe, primarliy to her genitalia, that she was treated for a week in the hospital, including skin grafts and other treatement associated with severe burns. The coffee was well above the temperature that was appropriate, at roughly 190 degrees, and there was evidence that McDonald's did this to keep people from drinking the coffee on the premises and requesting refills. McDonalds was well aware that serving the coffee to drivers at that temperature was unsafe, as they turned up hundreds of reported cases of severe burns and claims made against them, many of which McDonald's even paid for treatment, yet they did nothing to make it safer. And the topper was that all the lady wanted from McDonald's originally was for them to cover the cost of treatment of her injuries, which was refused outright. And taking the position that regardless of all of that, people should simply know that there is a chance of severely buring themselves if they buy and try to fix coffee in a car is crap when a company like McDonald's advertises, cajoles and otherwise exhorts peope to pay them money to put themselves in that position. Who thinks that anything that bad could happen to them if the Clown is inviting them to the Golden Arches to buy coffee on the run while making $$Millions per day doing so? And then, in the face of hundreds of cases of people really hurting themselves, continues to do so without the slightest regard for those risks or even the most feeble of attempts to lower the risk or lessen the damage. But it is so easy to dupe people on these cases because the general public will not do the reseach to get the true facts. And they have the benefit of using the media to make jokes about it as an example of the system gone wrong. The reality is that insurance premiums are high because insurance companies are guaranteed a minimum profit, they abuse what restrictions or controls exist on them, they lose money on their investments when the stock market dives, and they will often spend a lot of money trying not to pay claims they are obligated to pay. Moreover, corporations will virtually always opt for profits over safety, especially when they believe that their liability will be less than the profits they expect to reap. So what if you harm a few individuals, disrupt their lives and their families, so long as it costs you less to pay out compensation than it does to either fix the problem or do without the profits. Placing limits on recovery only serves this goal further, by making it even easier to disregard potential liability in favor of profit, as that potential libility ha not been capped for them by a duped public. And if you read any studies of those states who have passed "tort reform" they will see that virtually know relief has been provided in the cost o premiums, as insurance companies and corporations have not passed on those savings in liaility to the patsy public. OK, I am off my soapbox now. Just don't let the ignorant opinions of some dissuade you from a legal education and career if you are interested and you have the aptitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 who pissed in your coffee this morning? sheesh. I have a feeling there are a few obgyn's out there that would disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 almost invariably the result of outrage felt by the jury for the behavior of the defendant. A perfect example is the McDonald's coffee case. 175925[/snapback] First, ditto to everything you said. I am a trial lawyer and do it because I want to help people and create systemic change. Also, the Defendant's damages argument in the McDonald's case is another unknown fact about that case, which further supports your statement that large jury awards are "almost invariably the result of outrage felt by the jury for the behavior of the defendant." There McDonald's argued that the damages should be limited because the most severe burns (which were VERY severe) were to an elderly woman's genitals, and what would an old woman need her genitals for? I would venture a bet that many in the jury box wanted to punch that lawyer right there and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 And what would THEY know except what the insurance companies are telling them? Sure, you always get some doctors who are willing to stand up and repeat the insurance company/corporate line. They are either as duped as the public, or they are being paid for it. And nobody pissed in my coffee. I read a post early in this thread making some ignorant comment about meaningful tort reform, and I couldn't help myself. I have no vested interest in the Trial Lawyers Association. I do not practice that kind of law, and I do not like to see people abusing the system any more than the next guy. But if you buy this crap that the insurance companies and corporate America is selling you and the public, then you are not looking into the facts that there for anyone to see if they are willing to spend the time. But then again, big business is counting on the fact that you and most of the public won't! Just get a few docs on the payroll ready to support the assertion, and that's all people need. So much easier than actually studying the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Ever hear two people try and cross examine each other at the same time about something nonsensical? It would probably make a pretty good comedy routine to an outside party listening. 175920[/snapback] I see it all the time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 who pissed in your coffee this morning? sheesh. I have a feeling there are a few obgyn's out there that would disagree with you. 175945[/snapback] Were these the ones who were prevented from practicing their love with women across the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 And what would THEY know except what the insurance companies are telling them? Yeah, what would they know. It's not like they are the ones getting sued or anything. It's not like they are the ones who order unnecessary tests because they know what happens when they don't. And doctors are generally pretty dumb people as well, right? They'll believe whatever the insurance company tells them evidently. Any jackass can get a law degree, the same cannot be said for doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Were these the ones who were prevented from practicing their love with women across the country? 175983[/snapback] And if you're looking for a wife/girlfriend in law school, I say, forget it. Female law students back in the early 90's didn't exactly remind one of Lindsay Lohan. I did know one couple in law school who married later, and they have three children, but damn, she was the hottest one there. There was another who was a childhood friend who had become very attractive, but she and I were almost polar opposites by the time we had gotten out of college. Most of the women I knew in law school were feminists who, let's say, didn't mesh well with my conservative Republican tendencies. That's why I married a nurse. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Yeah, what would they know. It's not like they are the ones getting sued or anything. It's not like they are the ones who order unnecessary tests because they know what happens when they don't. And doctors are generally pretty dumb people as well, right? They'll believe whatever the insurance company tells them evidently. Any jackass can get a law degree, the same cannot be said for doctors. 175994[/snapback] Like I said, most doctors who stand up and agree are ones that are on the payroll. Moreover, I do not believe understanding or researching facts regarding the economics of insurance companies and corporate policies on liability vs profits is within the expertise of most doctors. And of course, doctors don't like to be sued for their mistakes, even when they deserve to be sued. As for jackasses not being able to get medical degrees, from where do you get this? I've known lots of jackasses with medical degrees. Why, just recently the father of a very good friend of mine was diagnosed by one of these supposed non-jackasses as having stomach cancer. This non-jackass told my friend and his mother and father that his only hope was to have his stomach removed, a surgery which was then scheduled and was imminent. When they asked him for more details regarding the operation and how many he had performed, he arrogantly asked them, without answering any of their questions, "How many would make you comfortable? 10, 20, 100?" They told him they might seek another opinion, to which he once more responded with incredible arroagance: "Fine, go ahead. Any doctor that knows what he is talking about will tell you the same thing." They did get that second opinion. It turned out that he had esophageal cancer instead. Rather than remove his stomach, they removed his esophogus and fashioned a new one from part of his stomach that had he not sought the second opinion, he would not have still had and he would most certainly have been dead by now. The physician that provided the second opinion was incredulous that this guy made the diagnosis he did based on the various diagnostic tests that he ran, telling them that not only was the stomach cancer not revealed by these tests run by the first (because he did not have it) but neither was the cancer in his esophagus revealed. It turns out that his father is actually in remission, has a great prognosis and still has his freakin' stomach which was healthy to begin with. But I guess this guy they went to first is clearly not a jackass, or at least not any old jackass, and had he removed this man's stomach, leaving the real cancer in him, he should not have been sued when the man would surely have died prematurely, right? And can any old jackass get a law degree? Perhaps, but not any old jackass actually passes the bar. Otherwise perhaps you would be a member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 so you don't think lawyers have anything to do with higher insurance premiums? It is simply a case of evil insurance companies lying to the world? I'm glad to know that doctors aren't getting sued more than they used to be....except they are getting sued more than they used to be. oh well. I shouldn't crap on lawyers too much, I did get a check for $2.11 last year for a class action settlement. I was pretty excited about that, especially because the lawyers made $15 million. and as for the bar exam, I have a lot of friends who are NYS lawyers, and all of the halfway smart ones passed on their first try. It's no cakewalk, but it's not like you are part of an elite group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 it's not like you are part of an elite group. 176075[/snapback] But if he were a doctor, he would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmate Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 As an attorney who also teaches legal writing at the University of South Carolina Law School, I thought I should also chime in. First and foremost, a law school education is a great thing. If you work hard at it, you will learn to think critically and will improve your writing skills. Law school can be a great building block for many careers, but I would not suggest anyone go to law school unless he or she really wants to be a lawyer. I liked law school, but I did not care for my fellow classmates. Law school classes are small, and tend to be the size of high school classes, 100-300 people, so cliques run rampant. After law school, I clerked for a federal judge, worked as a public defender, and now work as a Plaintiffs' lawyer doing Class action work. I also have some Social Security disability cases, Workers' Compensation cases, and some federal criminal work. For me, it took only 3 years to figure out the type of legal work I enjoy. I like complex procedural issues, including due process, so class actions are fun for me. But at the same time, class actions are difficult because you have to win every procedural hurdle, and the defense only has to win one. If you are interested in law school and wish to chat, PM me. I have some insight on civil, criminal, plaintiff, and defense. If you have the time, I suggest trying to work as a paralegal for a firm. Many law firms hire college grads as paralegals rather than trained paralegals knowing that the college grad will eventually go to law school. Seeing what lawyers do day to day will give you some true insight in deciding whether you want to be a lawyer. As for tort reform, if anyone wants to have an informed debate, feel free to PM me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 But if he were a doctor, he would be? not necessarily. But IMO becoming a doctor is more difficult than becoming a lawyer by a factor of 10. (I base this on the fact that some of the dumbest people I know are lawyers, and I can't say that for the doctors I know). lawyers aren't bad people, my dad was an attorney and judge for 40 years. Some lawyers (like some doctors) are crooks, but saying insurance companies are the bad guys moreso than the lawyers is off base..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 so you don't think lawyers have anything to do with higher insurance premiums? It is simply a case of evil insurance companies lying to the world? I'm glad to know that doctors aren't getting sued more than they used to be....except they are getting sued more than they used to be. oh well. I shouldn't crap on lawyers too much, I did get a check for $2.11 last year for a class action settlement. I was pretty excited about that, especially because the lawyers made $15 million. and as for the bar exam, I have a lot of friends who are NYS lawyers, and all of the halfway smart ones passed on their first try. It's no cakewalk, but it's not like you are part of an elite group. 176075[/snapback] ROTFLMAO! Why am I not surprised to see this sort of non-response retreat from my last post? Perhaps you should just do the research on the subject and then come back for more, rather than simply re-stating your original premise and reinforcing the fact that your gut feel tells you that it must be so (just what the insurance industry loves to see BTW!). Do lawyers have something to do with premiums? Yes they do. Were it not for lawyers keeping morons in check that harm people out of their own carelessness and/or greed, why would such people and corporations even need insurance? Perhaps we should just let people dupe, swindle and otherwise harm other people for their own pecuniary gain without any recourse to those being hurt. Then we can go back to a society that largely settled these types of disputes with guns in the street! Of course, if it weren't for people taking advantage of others with regard to their safety in the name of profit, or for those who conduct themselves professionally below a reasonable standard of care, we wouldn't need trial lawyers at all. As for class action lawsuits, the whole premise for them is that individual liability is small, but harm to society in the aggregate is not small. Were it not for class action-lawsuits, these types of fraud and other harms would go unremedied, unpunished and unchecked. The whole purpose of class-action suits is the ability to aggregate the wrong and make it worthwhile to pursue. The point is not to compensate you as an invidual, nor to justify the earnings of the law firm based on an invidual's recovery, but to prevent corporations from taking advantage of the public at large for the mere fact that the harm is spread over many people and would otherwise be unremedied because of that. You obviously have a harsh opinion of lawyers. It appears this is based primarily on ignorance and cliche. One can argue, and reasonable minds can differ, regarding whether attorney's belong to an "elite" group. But one of the reasons why most law school graduates from highly reputable schools pass the bar the first time is that they were well-screened upon admission to have the types of intrinsic skills that would make one a success at the profession, and they are well-prepared by those schools to pass the bar. Given the number of people trying to get into a good law school that are turned away each year, and given the rather small number of people that actually take and pass the bar in the 50 states each year relative to the population in general, I am proud of the fact that I accomplished that task, whether or not it makes me elite in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts