Is it worth going to a top law school today? I am looking to finish a B.S. in mathematics next year, and I am at a fork in the road in terms of career options, as I am deciding whether to pursue a Ph.D. in mathematics or go to law school. I have worked very hard in school and have a strong research background with many published math papers, so it is looking like I will be able to get into a top 10/20 math Ph.D. program. On the other hand, I recently took a practice LSAT test &quot;for fun&quot; as I am also interested in law, and I got a 170, so if I studied I could probably do better. From what I have read, with an LSAT score in the 170s, a decent GPA, and a background in rigorous high-level research, I should have a decent shot at some of the top law schools. That said, I have heard in some circles that it is hard to get a job as a lawyer (I am most interested in corporate law), and if I decide to go to law school instead of a math Ph.D., I want to be sure that it is not a dead-end career choice where I would be relegated to doing horrible work with poor pay until my 50's when I get promoted to a more senior role. I am wondering if anyone here could say if it is worth going into law, particularly when coming from a good law school (and assuming I have a real interest in the subject and enjoy research, etc.). Is it true that the profession is contracting, and that it could be hard to find a decent job? Is there decent upward mobility in the profession, or should one expect a sub-60-70k salary for many many years after school? Is there anyone here that thinks not going into law (ie pursing a Ph.D. instead) is a better choice?
I am wondering if anyone here could say if it is worth going into law, particularly when coming from a good law school (and assuming I have a real interest in the subject and enjoy research, etc.). Is it true that the profession is contracting, and that it could be hard to find a decent job? Is there decent upward mobility in the profession, or should one expect a sub-60-70k salary for many many years after school? Is there anyone here that thinks not going into law (ie pursing a Ph.D. instead) is a better choice? I went into a top law school (the University of Michigan, ranked #8 when I matriculated, graduated in the top 25%, cum laude, with an editorship of a law journal under my belt) with almost the same academic background (undergraduate math major) and a similar LSAT score to you. It was a somewhat easier choice for me. I was a solid A- math student, but didn't have the chops and talent to pursue a PhD in math and make an academic career out of it, even though I was something of a math prodigy. I also didn't have the passion for it. I saw that I was spending my free time focused on the humanities, social sciences and campus politics and journalism, rather than on math (although tutoring and grading paid my way for all of my personal and living expenses). A legal job definitely provides a secure lifetime of decent employment, can be intellectually challenging in some subfields (other kinds of practices not so much), and provides a certain amount of interpersonal interaction and immediate, easily understood relevance that you can't secure as an academic mathematician. It isn't that hard to find a decent job for a graduate of a top law school, and the profession is not meaningfully contracting. Indeed, almost no occupation has been less impacted economically by the pandemic. Post-law school compensation is bimodal. A minority (maybe 30-40%) start at large law firms (sometimes after a judicial clerkship) and make very good money (low 100s) right off the bat. The rest get decent middle class jobs at first. Most, from both routes, end up eventually self-employed in small and medium sized law firms, although a lucky few (maybe 5%-10%) end up as partners in big law firms and a similar share end up as senior civil servants. The problem is that the instincts you learn getting as far into math as you have are not very advantageous to a Big Law career, which places a huge premium on social skills, upper middle class to upper class social capital, and hard work as what amounts to being a super-bureaucrat at relatively menial details for long uncreative hours that are only dimly connected to results. A lawyer needs to be smart, but being a &quot;genius&quot; intellectually doesn't provide much marginal benefit. Most economically successful lawyers have quite narrow and specialized practices that present fewer intellectual challenges as you mass produce the same kind of work over and over, and lawyers derive a lot of their income from their capacity to market their services effectively to the affluent and the powerful. Also, a lot of your compensation in law is basically for your marketing, for taking on highly stressful responsibility, and for dealing with very unpleasant situations. It often isn't the most enjoyable life style unless you have a very particular type A, competitive, extraverted personality who understands people extremely well but isn't academically oriented. Corporate law, in particular, values your interpersonal skills very highly and doesn't place much of a premium on your intellectual legal knowledge and research ability. Those things are factors of production in corporate law but they aren't what leads to success there and are often pawned off on junior associates who never have a shot at making partner. I could have done better economically (I basically took what amounted to a mommy track for various reasons), but didn't understand the profession, or what the work involved, or what was critical to get ahead at the time and in my early career and had other priorities and a set of values and world views ill suited to the work. If I was doing it all over again, I would have chosen a quantitative heavy but non-math PhD path (maybe Economics or physics or operations research or statistics) or would have become an actuary, rather than becoming a lawyer. I love knowing the things that I know because I went to law school (which I loved) and because I've have an incredibly diverse (although not terribly well paying) legal practice for 25 years. I was a professor (in a gradate estate planning program for financial planners) for a while, and it was the best job I've ever had and I still enjoy teaching a lot. I also spend lots of time in math related hobbies to exercise and enjoy math related talent that I have but can't use very often at work. If I were in your shoes, with publications already and an acceptance in a top graduate math PhD program, I would definitely take that path. It is a field within academia with a healthy trend line of stability or growth within academia, and being a professor (which you have a viable shot at doing) is a wonderful way to live. There are fewer job seekers per open position for PhDs in math than in most academic disciplines. I've never met a math prof whose regretted his choice (and I know many, having grown up all my life as a child of a professor and a college administrator in a small college down and having been a math major).
Lots of reasons The citing case may be in a higher court than the cited case but might not actually add anything. You always go for the highest authority on record. From time to time, a case makes a big review and consolidation of all the case law on a particular point. It is then easier to cite that case rather than half a dozen cases that it summarised. More recent cases are worth more, all else being equal. A case from 2002 shows the law hasn’t changed since the decision in 1997. Repeated precedents are worth more, all else being equal. By using the citing case you get the weight of two judges (or more for multi-judge appeals) for the price of one. Some judges write better than others. Citing their cases may better clarify the point.
Civil cases are frequently decided by arbitration (a non-court process), so there's nothing particularly problematic here. Both parties have to agree to participate in the process, and one may (but need not) assume that there is a clause that the losing party has to live with the outcome. Odds are good that the parties are paid to participate, so there would be incentive to accept the verdict. One difference between this show (apparently) and a normal binding arbitration clause is that with the latter, this is part of the original contract which would state that all disputes must be resolved by such-and-such arbitration firm. Such verdicts are generally enforceable, unless there is some extreme impropriety (e.g. the defendant bribes the arbitration firm to flagrantly overlook the law). In the present case, torts as well as contracts can be the subject of a show, and the arbitration agreement would be separate from and after any underlying contract. A lot depends on the agreement that the show has participants sign. The Facebook-jury would, of course, not pass any form of scrutiny in a real court. So it is possible that afterwards, an unhappy party can press the case in real court, without prejudice.
About the same as it is for engineers, doctors, architects, hairdressers, plumbers etc. to be collegiate It’s a job. You have shared interests (at least your profession). Why wouldn’t you be friendly? It’s your client’s who have a dispute; not you.
The core principle of stare decisis is that the law should not depend on what judge you got; two cases with the same facts should have the same outcome. In the common-law tradition, there weren't really written statutes; there was only "what's been done in the past," and so the only reference you'd have to what the law should be in some situation is past court decisions. If judges didn't have some constraints to rule similarly to before, there really wouldn't be any legal standards (because there was no written law to go back to; in civil-law countries, there always has been a written law, so precedent isn't so important). Stare decisis doesn't actually directly stop a judge from entering a decision that goes against binding precedent. However, judges are expected to obey precedent, and for the most part do what they're supposed to do. If they don't, the case will likely be reversed on appeal. Binding precedent only applies within the area a court serves; a court doesn't have to listen to precedent from a different court that has nothing to do with the case. The rule is that precedent from any court up the appeals chain is binding; federal district courts are bound by their circuit court and SCOTUS, state courts are bound by higher state courts and SCOTUS (but not other federal courts, as the case can't be appealed to them). A court can sometimes overrule its own precedent, but the cases where it can do that are rare (and so applying a higher court's precedent can also be viewed as "if you appeal to them they'll say X, so we're saying X.")
Could I get into legal trouble for this? No. Relax. Your three emails are very unlikely to cause a data privacy professor to feel harassed. Just move on regardless of whether he replies at all. Don't keep sending another email just because the recipient has not replied to your previous one. As for the issue that prompted you to start emailing the professor, what everyone else has told you is correct. And the other email user is unlikely to take court action for something like this. The effort and cost of drafting &amp; filing suit, and then pursuing discovery would dissuade most people unless they are incurring actual losses (which is not the case with your messages). Just move on so that this other user also can move on.
Is there a bright line / contours as to what constitutes practicing law? For the most part, no. There are some activities that clearly constitute the practice of law almost everywhere (e.g. representing someone in a court proceeding), and there are some activities that clearly do not constitute the practice of law almost anywhere (e.g. preparing your own tax return based upon your interpretation of the tax laws). There are many activities that are in gray areas and the definition varies from state to state. For example, analyzing deeds to determine who is in title to real estate on a commercial basis is considered the practice of law in New York State, but not in Colorado. What are the elements ('litmus tests') to recognize practicing law As applicable to the example in the question (there are an infinite number of possible situations so a full treatment is too broad), evaluating the law for purposes of guiding your own actions is generally not considered the practice of law. An individual can represent themselves in any court proceeding to which they are a party (although usually they can't represent entities that they own) without practicing law. Similarly, the Community Association Manager has to make one decision or another, and the law (outside of court proceedings) rarely requires that one hire a lawyer simply to make a decision that you are required to make in the course of your job. Consulting a lawyer increases the odds that the CAM will make the right decision, but interpreting the law as it applies to what you personally are required to do in carrying out your job responsibilities will very rarely constitute the practice of law. On the other hand, if someone who was a former Community Association Manager held himself out as a "consultant" for current Community Association Managers, and in the course of that consultant work told Community Association Managers what the law required them to do, this would very likely be the practice of law, because it applies legal knowledge to particular facts for someone other than yourself. The term "attorney" in its broadest definition means someone who takes action on behalf of another, and if someone is doing something on behalf of another, and it involves legal knowledge or a legal dispute, usually this will be found to constitute the practice of law.
Even if you're a white guy, you could get a report from 23andMe and you'll probably find out that you have at least 1/100 "African American" heritage. The way America is now (and especially the university system) it is more relevant what you "identify as" than what you are. What exactly is the wording on the scholarship application form? If it says "Do you identify as African American?" then feel free to say you do. In this case, the contract is clear that what you identify as is what is important. If the application says "Do you have at least 50% African DNA?" and you lied about it then they could sue you, but I doubt that's what it says. So check the wording and if you answer truthfully, they can't sue you. What you "identify as" is completely up to you.