LSAT prep?

Re: Hi mbaonline

My 15 yr old daughter tells me that I'm weird daily...I think it's teenagers' job.

I agree with the idea of going to school. I wish I could, too. I had an even lower undergrad GPA but like you I've gotten wiser (or more stubborn) and love the challenge now! But I've got two kids' schools to pay for and they are each going to do a JD/PhD/MD so I have to worry about where I'm going to get their tuition.

If I was going to stay in Washington, I'd be tempted to do this but I guess if I do a law degree (instead of the PhD that I'm planning) I'll do it DL. I'm going to go to California when my kids are grown.

 

One gentle admonition: be sure practicing the law's what you REALLY want to do before you dive in.

I have a friend who I'm trying a case with right now who left a good-paying sales manager job (making about $100K a year) in the pharma industry about a decade ago to fulfill his life's dream. Quit his high-paying job and went into debt to the tune of $100K. This was in his early 40s. Went to Marquette law--another one of those expensive Catholic schools.

Now, nearly a decade later, he has yet to recover and make as much as he did at the job he left, he still has a good chunk of the debt, and he pretty much surrendered his time with his boys during their crucial teen years. Wife not so happy, needless to say, not as many warm snuggly eves if ya know what I mean (he's been very candid with me).

And he's such a great guy--an outstanding guy, really: kind, bright--but that one little decision has put a huge strain on his family life that may never right itself.

Just remember, if you're a middle-aged dude, there won't be people falling all over themselves to offer you high-paying law jobs when you get out. Yopu may end up choosing between the $35K/yr public defender job and the $40K/yr county attorney job. This is not to say you can't make it work, as a very green attorney, I did contract work for an attorney in MN who did one of those mid-career changes and went to law school and kicked serious derierre in his new career--he's become regioanlly famous, known all around the frozen tundra of MN as one of the best, most eccentirc, most entertaining lawyers around. His name is Sam McCloud, google him, he's one heck of a lawyer.

Sam's the one who famously quipped: "A man is innocent until proven broke." Having worked six months or so with Sam, that quote sums his business savvy up perfectly.

Anyway, it can work both ways, but look before you leap and do some serious soul searching with the wife and kids before you do so.

 

Okay, now I realize that asking you this specific question is vastly unfair, but I'm okay with that.

I'm presently in a situation not unlike your friend. So my wife has been encouraging me to put in an application to law school, which I have done. Now, I'm a bit of a longshot candidate but that's a whole other story.

I have specific professional expertise and if I was to become a lawyer I would like to practcie within that expertise. How is a firm, in your experience, likely to react to a middle aged dude who is used to running his own business?

Specifically I would graduate at approximately 40 years old and would be looking to local firms for a job in maritime law. T'here are small specialist firms right up to the big daddy firms. I have almost 15 years experience in the field generally that would come in handy. It's okay if I don't make what I made, because I'm a bit fed up anyway.

So while I appreciate that you don't really know how firms will react, what would be your guess?

 

More I think of it, if you wanna challenge yet you currently have a good solid job, why dontcha just get into a DL Criminology PhD program that you can complete PT and become the best durned, best educated criminologist (or whatever your current career is) guy in the world? That way, you avoid the danger of settting your life and career aside for three years or more, only to find out that your new career ain't so fun and doesn't even pay as well as your current job (to which you've devoted two decades of your life).

Just a thought...

P.S. - Doesn't UNISA have a whiz bang DL PhD program in Criminology that can be had for a song?

 

No question is unfair.

I don't know how a particular firm would react to you, lots of intangibles I don't know because I don't know you.

But if you're talking big firm, with rare exceptions, they want the guy/gal who's young and naive and indefatigable and smart as a whip who's willing to destroy all semblance of personal life to bill 2,500 hours a year for the free riders--ahem, the partners--and make them lots of money. If that results in a divorce or three, so be it, just means more time the young drone--ahem, associate--can spend burning the midnight oil at the Center of the Universe--ahem, the firm.

Since few middle-aged fellers are monumentally naive and earnest (and therefore unlikely to be willing to submit to da massah--sorry for the racial stereotype, but when have I been one to shrink from controversial statements?) and would go berzerk under such conditions, and big firms know this, the odds would be stacked against you unless you had one stellar law school career (Law Review, Order of the Coif, high Latin honors, etc.).

Assuming these specialized firms are smaller, there might be a chance. I would go around to some of these firms and talk to them, take them out to lunch (be prepared for some rude blow-offs) when possible and find out if there'd be some interest, as near as they can tell, in hiring a bright middle-aged fellow--who really knows the maritime ropes--to do some cheap bondslavish interning work the Summer after the first year of law school, perhaps someday leading to membership in their fine upstanding firm. If so, then you've probably laid out a career path. Go for it, if you dare.

But remember, look before ya leap!

BTW: Why are you a longshot? I wanna hear the story, let me tell you if you are.

 

Thanks very much.

My plan of action was to (basically) forget the big firms and when I have some time do some research on the small firms that specialize. I have a couple contacts at those firms that will at the very least get me through the door for a conversation. They might tell me nicely to get lost, but then at least I know.

Having dealt with a lot of firms like this over the years I know they could someone like me. Equally, I am NOT willing to screw up my life for them so that's kind of a strike against me. My wife holds out on me enough as it is!

 

They might, but if you have some legit contacts, they probably won't.

They might see it the same way, if you've got some significant experience in a specialized industry, that might work under these circumstances.

At least you have a clear conception of what you want to do, and how it's a natural stepping stone from where you currently are with your experience and expertise.

So why are you such a longshot???

 

Missed you!

I agree with every word little fauss posted in this thread.

Heck, if I could get him to see the error of his Scaliaist ways, I might agree with him even MORE often

btw, where ya been? 12 step program for strict constructionists?

On a serious note, though, the poster is asking the same, or nearly the same, question I posted about getting a tax ll.m. from Denver U. At MY age, would any firm be interested in hiring me for enough money to make the degree pay for itself? A substantial part of me thinks that the answer is, "Not likely." for exactly little fauss' reasons.

little fauss' advice applies just as stongly to ME as it does to the original poster and I'm glad he put it here.

 

Oh, yeah.

Sorry, I forgot. New Mexico is not one of the few states that still permit "reading the law".

Washington's program is quite small, IIUC, but surprisingly successful.

I seem to remember that Virginia also has some successful "readers".

Lessee, who else? California allows it but I can't recall the last time anyone did it and passed the Bar.

I'd be surprised if there were ten Bar applicants nationwide last year who "read".

Now it should be kept in mind that after a person in, say, Washington State "reads" and passes and practices for a few years, there are a few additional states that will allow that lawyer to take the Bar even without a law degree. I think that the District of Columbia will even waive such a lawyer in without examination after five years of practice.

"Reading the law" has a cloistered existence but it DOES still survive here and there and, in some ways, the cloister is less narrow than might at first appear.

 

Re: Missed you!

No, 24 step, strict constructionists are a bit more pedantic and precise about such things.

I took a job in another city, moved there, then resigned two months later, and moved back to my home town--with 5 kids and the move and the craziness, I haven't had the time or mental wherewithal to post.

Why the quick resignation (aside from my natural flightiness)?

Here's the story: you know one of my primary occupations has been in sales/sales mgmnt (though I've never stopped practicing law). I was hired to manage sales for four branches for a new line that a decent-sized ofc equipt company was taking over. I was having trouble with the rigidity of their system--in fact, I thought it was perfectly insane and the handiwork of a bona fide control freak--but my wife told me to stick it out, so I did.

That is, until...

Two months into my employment, the president called me into his ofc. He told me that one of the primary aspects of their ridgid "System from hell" was to instruct reps to find out what leasing partner a prospective customer utilized. Then, behind the customer's back, you call said leasing ptnr and tell them "This is Mr. Block from XYZ company (the name of the prospective customer/company), would you mind sending me the complete lease records from my account? My new fax mumber is... [fax number of my company, not the customer's]."

"So, you see, Little Fauss", says the Prez, "we're able to get all the inside scoop that way: lease history, late pays, monthly payments, the amount they purchased the machine(s) for--everything, and the customer's none the wiser!" I guess knowledge like that in such a deal is invaluable in the negotiation process. But I told him from a legal and moral perspective how unethical it was for him to require that reps misrepresent their identities to lease companies and secure info--some of it confidential--without consent of the prospect. (I know that at least some of that data is public record, I'd have no problem obtaining that by paying Experian or what have you, but it's the misrepresentation--the downright lying--that rankled me).

So I told him he had one heck of an unethical system, and I refused to do it or counsel a single rep to do it. At that point, the prez's face turned to stone, and I knew I was toast. It didn't help that another manager was present, I was showing the guy up in front of a subordinate, but at this point, I didn't care.

Even though I was dead dead dead at the point of trashing his ethics, the official coup de gras was a few minutes later when he told me that communication at his company was paramount, and he expected better from me than he'd gotten. I responded, suicidally at this point: "You know, you say that, but it seems every time I come into your office lately, you get a look on your face like I'm removing your hemorrhoids with a pair of pliers, doesn't exactly facilitate communication, does it?" (and it was true, he had acted that way, he was a dastardly mgr to try and approach, I had no respect for him, the unethical policy revelation was just a confirmation for me of what I'd already suspected about the guy from the first month). This comment actually elicited a belly laugh from both him and the other manager. But he followed up with: "Seems to me, Little Fauss, that you may not be a good fit for the company" and I said "Why it seems just that way to me also." I then thanked him for the compliment. He asked for my resignation and he got it with pleasure.

So two moves in the last few months, and a new job, and five kids, accounts for my absence. But I'm back.

One thing I can't figure is this: what's with my wisdom here? Last job ended up as a horror stiory which I recounted about 6 mo ago, now this one ends up the same. If I went to the race track and picked a horse and it were leading the race by 20 lengths, I tell you it would stop and taking a big steaming dump three feet from the finish!

 

"rigid", not "ridgid" Latter a tool company, former an actual word. My bad.

 

Oh, boy.

Eeewww.

More than unethical, it sounds like some sort of fraud. Could have gotten you into all sorts of trouble with the Bar as well as the police. You are well out of there.

So now what? Are you gonna take my advice and go to work for the gubmint?

 

Yeah, I didn't wanna get disbarred over any ol' sales job, even a supposedly good one.

No, forget the gubmint, I'm signed up to teach five classes as an adjunct this yr B&M and trying my best to secure some online teaching positions as well. I also took a PT youth director job at the little mainline Protestant church that sponsored the Messianic stuff that my family volunteered for last year (don't pay a lot, but has benefits) and it's doing the right kind of work from my perspective. And they're allowing me to lead a church-wide Seder this year, so this may be cool.

Finally...

There's the computer games software stuff that I was talking about last year. The Christian games. One of the founders is a pastor I had a Seder with one time, (so at least he's the right, knowledgeable kind of Christian, at least from my perspective ). The whole thing is heating up, product getting ready to go, distributor for Christian bookstores lined up but for inking the k, product ready for beta testing, voicework, and packaging design. Release set for June or so. The product actually looks pretty impressive. This thing might actually make a modest profit, maybe more than modest, but that's pie in sky at this point.

I'm taking a semester off from UMass, just too crazy.

 

Re: Missed you!

I don't know, not much of a fount of knowledge on tax law. Have you talked with any of the prospective tax firms around to see if they'd be interested?

And at this point in your career, how crucial is the money? I assume with two reasonably decent incomes, you two can swing it, can't imagine you'd have to make six figures or bust in a new career field. I'd think your primary motivation would be that you can do something you like, so long as the $$$ doesn't stink out loud.

Denver overall isn't the greatest school and isn't as flashy as either UNM or my alma, U of A, but they do admittedly have a borderline elite tax program. If I were you, though, I'd see if I could suck up to somebody at UT-Austin and get in there--that's a truly elite program that's about as close as Denver to your home town.

 

Initial impressions

Yes, I am doing okay for money. Better than okay, really, when you crank in the guaranteed benefit pension and the declining mortgage balance.

Your impressions re Denver are reflected in an LL.M. Tax forum I was looking at last night. (If anyone cares, I'll try to find it again.) Common wisdom is:

-The standards to get into one of the Big Three tax LL.M. programs (NYU, Georgetown, and University of Florida) are not exactly astronomical. Bottom tier B average students with some success in their J.D. tax classes have a decent shot at one of the three. Anything better has a GOOD shot.

-An NYU tax LL.M. will do little or nothing to improve private firm employability. Basically, the advisors seem to say that, if you can get into Big Law WITH the LL.M., you could have gotton into Big Law WITHOUT the LL.M. And vice versa.

-An LL.M. from the Big Three is absolutely NO guarantee of finding a tax law job in ANY firm; there are a lot more applicants than jobs. An LL.M. from Denver or UWash. carries essentially no weight at all and should be looked upon only as a means of acquiring a particular skill set to augment one's business law practice.

-Very few firms are large enough even to HAVE a tax department and those that do don't hire very often. Most LL.M.s end up in the tax compliance departments of Big Accounting rather than Big Law. Some of these folks never even take the Bar.

-J.D.s that get jobs with Big Law tax departments usually end up earning their NYU (or wherever) LL.M. degrees at partial firm expense, part time.

-Earning a tax LL.M. typecasts you forever as a tax lawyer and actually closes off opportunities outside of tax law.

-The IRS hires but again, the tax degree really doesn't matter that much.

-The legal education academy does not care whether its professorial applicants have an LL.M. except possibly in tax. Even then, the J.D. record and publications count far more.

-And no other LL.M. is ever necessary, or financially sensible, for an American lawyer to earn. With the exception of UFlorida, there are no cheap B&M tax degrees. Most tax programs are at private schools. Even UWash gets about $22,000 for tuition and fees.

If I'd known how important the J.D. really IS, I'd have gone to a better school and worked harder!

No, not really. UNM is a second tier school and was abundantly cheap. My wife's Georgetown J.D. is unquestionably top tier but here in New Mexico, I don't see much advantage to it.

 

I found the forum

www.taxtalent.com

 

Re: Initial impressions

So with all this money burning a whole in your pocket, I presume you'd like to diversify the portfolio and invest a bit in a new computer software games venture--gound level opportunity!

The you have a good shot, as UNM is anything but "bottom tier", it's starting to nibble around the edges of top tier.

And this is ultimately what I thought was your motivation, anyway. If you got the LL.M., I assume perhaps the greatest pleasure at your point in the career cycle would be to hang a shingle and practice tax law--to stop working for Da Man, or Uncle Sam, or whatever--and go at it on your own. Success would probably just be a matter of letting the estate planning attorneys and financial advisors and accountants know that you were in business.

By this time in your career, you must surely know everybody in your relatively small community--why not go for it?

This is true of law school faculty--though I still hear that it can give one a boost that the J.D. alone may not give--my dean at the U of A, who later went on to be dean of the University of Minnesota college of law--told me this personally. In fact, he was the one who sneered a bit, in a nice diplomatic way, about those who "had to get their LL.Ms before the law academies would consider them"--reverse discrimination, against those with the more advanced degrees! I suppose C.S. Lewis managed to teach at Oxford for decades and become a full tenured prof at Cambridge by dint of "nothing more" than three UG firsts from Oxford, but then again, how many Jack Lewises are there?

This is not true for all business law faculty positions at graduate schools of business, the area that's my ultimate goal. Last tenure-track faculty position that I didn't get, I talked to the department head directly, he told me they were specifically looking for someone with an LL.M., an M.B.A., or both in addition to a J.D. This was an AACSB-accredited school, maybe at lesser schools, they don't expect as much.

Ditto that!

 

Okay, Mr. Fauss, you asked why I'm a longshot!

The reason is that the school to which I've applied gets about 1700 applications for about 170 first year spots.

My advantages are (Immodestly): Great resume, great marks in my DL LLM thus far at Northumbria. An award and a couple distinctions in my professional exams.

My disadvantages are (being realistic): Poor undergraduate GPA (well, poor relative to the average that they normally look for). I was an above average student but not outstanding. My one year towards the LLB at UoL was solid but very unspectacular. Part of me regrets admitting to it on my application. Finally, I live in Quebec and my French is decent yet unspectacular. If I progress to the interview stage it will be partly in French.

No LSAT required for the school but they'll look at if you have it. I didn't take it.

I'm not sure how many places they look at for "mature" candidates. They always give the same story... "Regardless of your situation if you're a strong candidate you will be admitted". Unfortunately they don't define strong.

So it comes down to whether my professional experience will get me in. Who knows?

 

Novemberdude:

Don't know about your particular school, but those numbers can be deceiving. They may have a lot of apps, but some of them will undoubtedly fall into one of the following two categories:

1). People who aren't even close but are just throwing out applications. Maybe have poor grades or other bad intangibles, but they're shooting out an app to your school because it's a dream school and they figure nothing ventured, nothing gained. But they have zero chance of getting in, so they're just there to make it look all the more impossible to get in, but it's an illusion;

2). People who are superstars with straight As and fabulous references and 175 LSATs who are applying to your school just in case Harvard or Yale turns them down--a safety school. Even after being accepted by your school, as soon as the thick letter comes from the Big H, they will turn your school down. So again, those are just more numbers there making it look impossible, but it's an illusion.

Your chances are probably better than you think, but I would want to know more about your UG grades. At least in the states, the UG GPA and the LSAT are pretty much the admissions king for law schools.

Bottom line: if you really want to go to law school, you have a better than 50% chance of getting in somewhere, so long as your GPA isn't in the area of Mr. Blutarski's (yet he became a Senator, if you remember the close of the movie). You may not get into your dream school, but more than likely there will be a school for you, and where you went to school, so long as you do well once you get there, will not hamper your law career much. In the U.S., one of our most prominent SupCt Chief Justices ever went to the now-named "William Mitchell College of Law", anything but a prestigious institution.

 

Little Fauss,

My undergraduate GPA was a stellar 2.78 (at a tough AACSB school). Above average, but nothing to write home about. The school to which I'm applying sets a floor of a 3.00 GPA for traditional applicants, and they will tell you that 94% of accepted (traditional) students had a UG GPA in excess of 3.3. So in terms of marks I'm not there.

The school I'm applying to is http://www.law.mcgill.ca/ which is kind of first choice school around these parts.

Agreed that numbers can deceive. I'm sure they're counting in their applicants the candidates who never even complete the application process and so on. Once you pay the 60 bucks to apply you become a statistic.

Do I have a good chance? No way of knowing until the letter comes one way or the other. Then, even if I am accepted, who really knows if I'm going to go. That's a whole other decision. The program is full time only.