Law school questions for anyone, but mostly the lawyers here. (classes)

bigred177

bigred177

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,014
Location
Round Rock, TX
Display Name
Display name:
bigred
I was informed today that it is almost time to start signing up for classes next semester and that I should be thinking about what I want to take. Next semester will be the second of my 2L year so I will be able to choose all but one class. I will also be able to choose most of my 3L classes.

I'm looking for thoughts from lawyers or anyone who deals a lot with the legal profession. What direction do you see everything going? What types of classes would be good to take to put myself in the best position to find a job/business when I get out?

I think that I want to do litigation with a focus on IP. But I also realize a lot of potential litigation is stopping due to ADR and such. My school offers an ADR cert. that you get by taking a few elective courses. I'm pondering doing that. So with that background, what are some classes that you think would place me in front of the market to be in the best position when I graduate?

Thanks, let me know if I need to throw in some more information.
 
In all honestly take what you find interesting. To be blunt nothing in lawschool teaches you anything about being an attorney. It teaches you how to think and analyze like an attorney and the basic concepts. If you love contracts don't cram yourself into a torts class because if you follow that route when you get out you will be miserable.

I disagree that litigation is on the downswing. ADR is on the upswing but that doesn't mean the courts are empty, far from it!

That said what areas are busy now, well IP, International business and relations, Bankruptcy, Criiminal is usually always steady. Whats on the downswing? Domestic, M&A, Real Estate, Tort law.
 
Hmmm.

No new, green lawyer is going to make any money doing ADR (mediation or arbitration); when selecting neutrals, you look for someone who's experienced and seasoned. Exception: if you have specialized knowledge in a particular subject matter.

Which brings up my next comment.

What is your area of core knowledge *outside* the law? That can have a material impact on what you should be doing and, thus, what classes you should be taking.

How are your 1L grades? What are your 2L clerkship prospects?

Gotta tell you - the only people I am seeing who are really set-up for after law school are those who are at the very pinnacle of their classes (as always), and those whose family own large law firms, or large businesses which employ them. It is tough out there, just now.

Feel free to PM me with more background about you and what you are doing, your background, what you want to do.

/s/ Spike
 
bigred177 said:
I was informed today that it is almost time to start signing up for classes next semester and that I should be thinking about what I want to take. Next semester will be the second of my 2L year so I will be able to choose all but one class. I will also be able to choose most of my 3L classes.

I'm looking for thoughts from lawyers or anyone who deals a lot with the legal profession. What direction do you see everything going? What types of classes would be good to take to put myself in the best position to find a job/business when I get out?

I think that I want to do litigation with a focus on IP. But I also realize a lot of potential litigation is stopping due to ADR and such. My school offers an ADR cert. that you get by taking a few elective courses. I'm pondering doing that. So with that background, what are some classes that you think would place me in front of the market to be in the best position when I graduate?

Thanks, let me know if I need to throw in some more information.
Click to expand...

First, I agree 100% with what Adam said. Nothing in law school - with what I feel is one exception - teaches you a damned thing. And, I do agree that ADR is become more prominent, but: 1) a lot of ADR is just litigation outside a court (for instance, arbitration can be "we hire a private judge instead of filing suit, and keep everything confidential); 2) litigation ain't goin' anywhere.

Anyway, my advice: take as many "procedure-oriented" classes as you can, which is the exception. Advanced civil procedure, criminal procedure, Federal jurisdiction/procedure, conflicts of laws, etc. Those things are the building blocks and are important to understand, no matter whether you do litigation or not.

Also, if you can, try to take some clinical classes: trial procedure, pre-trial procedure, whatever.

Procedure is the name of the game.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on classes teaching substantive law. First, the specific subjects are fairly easy to learn once you're out in the real world. Second, the laws on many specific areas (property, estates and trusts, business corps, torts, environmental law) vary from state to state, so what you spend time learning might not even be applicable to where you end up practicing. Third, the legal world is changing: for instance, estates and trusts used to be what kept the lights on from month to month, but most people don't go to a lawyer for a will these days (you can just order a fill-in-the-blank form off the internet). If you've got a particular interest in something, by all means take the class - but just keep these things in mind. My personal experience: I've used nothing substantive that I learned in law school.

As to litigation with a focus on IP: it's certainly doable, and there is a ton of litigation surrounding IP issues. But, three important things about it: 1) it's a pretty specialized area; 2) you'll probably spend the first 5 years of your career pushing paper in the discovery process; and 3) you pretty much have to live in one of the big cities in the country. I don't mean to deter you, but those are all things worth thinking about.

Anyway, good luck with year #2.
 
Last edited:
Spike, my undergrad is in Mechanical Engineering. That's why I'm leaning towards IP. It seems pretty enjoyable. I spent a year at a prep. and pros. firm and even though applications and office actions make me want to kill myself, the patent part was fun. I'm also sending you a PM later.

I bring up the ADR stuff because I met a new guy at the airport last weekend who is an attorney and claims to be THE ADR guy of OK and a few other states. He was talking quite a bit about ADR and its surge so I thought I'd look into it.


Obi Heed Kenobi said:
First, I agree 100% with what Adam said. Nothing in law school - with what I feel is one exception - teaches you a damned thing. And, I do agree that ADR is become more prominent, but: 1) a lot of ADR is just litigation outside a court (for instance, arbitration can be "we hire a private judge instead of filing suit, and keep everything confidential); 2) litigation ain't goin' anywhere.

Anyway, my advice: take as many "procedure-oriented" classes as you can, which is the exception. Advanced civil procedure, criminal procedure, Federal jurisdiction/procedure, conflicts of laws, etc. Those things are the building blocks and are important to understand, no matter whether you do litigation or not.

Also, if you can, try to take some clinical classes: trial procedure, pre-trial procedure, whatever.

Procedure is the name of the game.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on classes teaching substantive law. First, the specific subjects are fairly easy to learn once you're out in the real world. Second, the laws on many specific areas (property, estates and trusts, business corps, torts, environmental law) vary from state to state, so what you spend time learning might not even be applicable to where you end up practicing. Third, the legal world is changing: for instance, estates and trusts used to be what kept the lights on from month to month, but most people don't go to a lawyer for a will these days (you can just order a fill-in-the-blank form off the internet). If you've got a particular interest in something, by all means take the class - but just keep these things in mind. My personal experience: I've used nothing substantive that I learned in law school.

As to litigation with a focus on IP: it's certainly doable, and there is a ton of litigation surrounding IP issues. But, three important things about it: 1) it's a pretty specialized area; 2) you'll probably spend the first 5 years of your career pushing paper in the discovery process; and 3) you pretty much have to live in one of the big cities in the country. I don't mean to deter you, but those are all things worth thinking about.

Anyway, good luck with year #2.
Click to expand...

I am currently taking a year-long course on litigation. We do all of the pre-trial stuff this semester and then litigate it next. All of it is based on the FRCP. Good to see something like that on your list. It's actually my favorite class.

I will definitely look into the procedure courses moving on. Strangely enough I like these classes more than the substantive classes.

On the IP stuff, 1) like I said to Spike above, 2) I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about that one, not sure on MASSIVE amounts of reading, and 3) for now I want to stay in Texas, I'm from Austin and don't care to move back, don't think Dallas is for me, but I think I could really like Houston (aside from the crippling humidity).

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.
 
Remember the very last thing most individuals and companies want to do is get to court and real litigation. That's f-ing expensive, exposes the person or company to loss of privacy, etc.

The best lawyers are the ones who set things up so their customers never even get close to a courtroom. Thus, I not being a legal beagle at all, can see why you've just gotten advice to learn procedures inside and out.

Not following procedure or common best practices is what trips up the bad lawyers. Thus, someone who knows them cold can make serious money keeping their customer out of court, never in it.

Or as a friend of mine puts it, "Lawyers are those kids you remember from the playground who knew all the rules of the games and never got them wrong." ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Remember the very last thing most individuals and companies want to do is get to court and real litigation. That's f-ing expensive, exposes the person or company to loss of privacy, etc.

The best lawyers are the ones who set things up so their customers never even get close to a courtroom. Thus, I not being a legal beagle at all, can see why you've just gotten advice to learn procedures inside and out.

Not following procedure or common best practices is what trips up the bad lawyers. Thus, someone who knows them cold can make serious money keeping their customer out of court, never in it.

Or as a friend of mine puts it, "Lawyers are those kids you remember from the playground who knew all the rules of the games and never got them wrong." ;)
Click to expand...

+1

Here's something I say about civil litigation, that I think is a true at least a significant part of the time: if you end up in court, at least at trial, there is someone who is being unreasonable.

Part of being a good lawyer is putting everything on the table in front of a client, and that can include telling a first-class jerk that you think he/she is in the wrong.

It's tough to do, and it will almost definitely get your client angry, and it might even get you fired, but I can tell you two things from experience: 1) you don't want the client that will fire you for being frank and honest; and 2) you might be on the losing side, and that always stings, but you can call it a "win," both for yourself and your client, if your client walks away without blowing a whole bunch of money on a lost cause.

What I'll say is, "I'm glad to take your money from you, and I don't like turning away business, but you'll ultimately be a whole lot better off if we keep this out of court." Granted, you're frequently on the "reasonable" side and get dragged into court, but it's still worth an effort to stay out.

The same thing applies to contracts and contractual disputes. Keep 'em out of court if at all possible.
 
Last edited:
Like every other lawyer on this board, I'll chime in. I'm not an IP lawyer (but I know a few).

On the ADR issue, I think interest in ADR has peaked. A lot of people (in-house counsel) now believe the cost and time savings are illusory. Also, remember that ADR is always the result of an agreement, and a lot of IP litigation (e.g. infringement, validity) is based on a statutory cause of action that will not be in ADR. Also, all IP litigation takes place in federal court where the parties have more confidence in the process than they would in state court proceedings. So, IMO, ADR - particularly from an IP perspective - is not a real conversation starter.

If your interest is in IP, I would take as many IP classes and litigation related classes as I could.

There is almost a complete divide between patent prosecution lawyers and IP litigators. While there are plenty of small firms that engage in patent prosecution (and other practice before the USPTO), IP litigation is largely the domain of large law firms.

Until recently, my wife was the placement dean at a not top ten law school. So, I've been hearing lots (and lots) about the job market for new lawyers.

Right or wrong, in today's job market a first year associate job at a large law firm is dependent on where you went to school and how your grades were. If you don't fit the bill, then you need to be honest with yourself and recognize that it's going to tough getting the job you want. That said, your engineering degree is a huge asset if you want to go into IP practice.

If you want to do IP litigation, and your grades or school won't get you into a big firm, then you'll (most likely) have to start somewhere else (doing something else) and try to lateral over.

Most of all, don't listen to me. Talk to some IP lawyers. If you don't know any, cold email some and ask to take them to lunch. Make it clear you're not asking for a job but want to pick their brain about IP practice. Hopefully, you'll get some positive responses. In case you haven't noticed, lawyers love to pontificate :D.

Good Luck !
 
I'll go ahead and say that ADR is BS, and the type of crud that only law professors actual believe in.
The cases I've had go through ADR would have been over faster, and resolved better if they just went to a real trial in the first place. Maybe other attorneys have had different experiences. I think that it boils down to the fact that most attorneys and even more so law professors are terrified of the courtroom.

The vast majority of law school classes are totally useless. With the exception of the trial advocacy classes, I learned next to nothing in law school, everything had to wait until I started practicing and trying cases. I will echo the sentiment from above that the procedure classes are good, and that evidence should be taken as early as possible if you intend to be a trial lawyer. You should also take advantage of every single trial advocacy class offered. It is never too early to start working on that.

I'm not sure why you want to be an IP lawyer. It seems like you spend a lot of time on this forum, so why wouldn't you want to go into aviation law? I've found it to be an extremely fun field to practice in, and I'm not really sure that I could handle many other fields of law. You get to talk about airplanes all day which is really nice. If you want to talk about aviation law, send me a PM. I had a technical background too, but IP litigation just sounds really boring to me, I don't know how people survive doing that stuff.

Finally, I would say that in this awful job market you will be best served by skipping as much class as possible and going to as many conferences and other events as possible, and perhaps doing a bunch of internships. Getting a job today is really about who you know when you are coming from anything less than a top ten school with anything less than top 25 percent grades. Buy and read "Gorilla tactics for getting the legal job of your dreams." I would try to aim to get a first job at a public agency or DA's office. You'll get much better experience actually trying cases, which will place you head and shoulders above the people that went to firms and spent the first five years of their careers shuffling discovery motions around their desks.

Those are my blunt, unedited thoughts, feel free to PM me if you want to talk about any of this. Good luck.
 
I have thought about aviation law, I am very passionate about aviation. But I talked to another member on here that dabbles in it and he told me that I really need to live on the east coast if I wanted to do it.

I'm not set on IP litigation, it just seems logical to go into with my background. I'm just interested in litigation in general.

I was going to PM this to Spike but I'll put it up for everyone so they can be better informed: my 1L grades were okay, right now I'm in the top 35%. I also don't have any clerkship opportunities right now because honestly I don't have the first clue how to go about getting them. I have that tactics book, I'll start reading it.

I'm going to PM some of you to talk a little more. I promise I haven't forgotten, just have 100 pages to read tonight, and tomorrow night, and the next.... :D
 
I assume you're at OU?

I hate to admit it, but I have an OU Law grad as one of my firm's associates. He seems to know some law...

...and for the rube who claims you have to be east coast to be in aviation law? News to the very successful aviation lawyer I know, Houston-based. Guess he never got the memo.
 
Unfortunately no, I'm at Oklahoma City University Law. :(

That's some good news. I'll have to do some looking into that one.
 
Feel free to shoot me a PM, if you want. Your underlying degree gives you some options that aren't necessarily open to others.
 
So not saying flat out that ADR is BS, it would be best to not take the required classes solely for the ticket is probably not the best route? If they fall under classes I'd mostly take anyway then might as well just happen to get it though?

Here's a list of the classes:

The Law of Alternative Dispute Resolution;

Client Representation in Arbitration;

Client Representation in Mediation; and

Client Representation in Negotiation.
 
What about the AF JAG? They have a deal tonight at the school for them. Would my previous medical disqualification from the AFA be an issue for the JAG?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top