Hey Lawyers! (Tips on Law School Admission)

Well, I think General Questions is the right place to put this, and not MPSIMS. Don’t hurt me too much, Manny, if I’m wrong.

Anyway, I’m going to be applying to law schools in the fall (having graduated this spring) with a view to attending in 2001, and I was wondering if any of the lawyers on this board could give me some pointers on the process.

Here’s a little of my background: I entered college at 16, way back in 1992. I started at an extremely prestigious school, and did poorly my two years there grade-wise–mainly because I was an irresponsible young kid. I left that school, took a couple years off, and re-enrolled in a little state college two hours away from my hometown in 1997. In the process, I changed my major from Theatre to Political Science. This June, I graduated summa cum laude–the school’s not very good, frankly, but the political science department is superlative for a small public college.

I’d like to study constitutional law. My dream is to be a Supreme Court clerk when I finish school, but I understand how exclusive those positions are. I’m definitely applying to Cornell, UVa, and Michigan. In addition, I’ll probably send an application to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; one of my professors knows the chair there, and has been urging me to consider it.

So do y’all have any advice you could offer me about the applications, the interviews, and the LSATs that’ll get me where I want to go? And any advice about law school life in general? It’d be much appreciated.

“The poor have been rebels but they never have been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone in there being some decent government; the poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. --G. K. Chesterton”

The poor now think that the road to riches is to sue the rich.

Well, thank you, Major, for that enlightening response to my OP. If you have an issue with my .sig, might I kindly suggest that you start a thread in Great Debates (or the Pit) about it. 'Preciate it.

…I bet you’re not even a real major.

Q: what does a lawyer use for birth control?
A: his personality.

The legal profession already has more than its share of rude people. Might I kindly suggest that you find another profession?

Gad, if you want to be a Supreme Court clerk, you’ll have to go one of the three most prestigious law schools in the country. You’ll probably be better off at Yale than at Harvard, because I understand that the environment is not quite as cut-throat, meaning you’ll actually learn something other than how to screw your classmates.

In order to get admitted to Yale in the first place, you’ll need to just about ace your LSAT. The median LSAT score of a Yale law student is about 171, which would put you in the top 2% of all students who take the exam (and people planning to go to law school tend to be plenty smart). Keep in mind also that you’re competing with around 3,000 applicants for 180 spots in the first-year class; your undergraduate transcripts had better be almost spotless, around a 3.85 GPA, preferably higher.

In order to get the clerkship you want, you’ll need to be at or near the top of your Yale class, composed of students who did just as well on the LSAT and in college as you did. That means busting your ass for three solid years in the hardest area of graduate study. Even then, you’ll be competing with the top students from other law schools around the country for the Supreme Court clerkships; each Justice needs around 3 student clerks per year, IIRC.

All I’m saying is, you’re shooting for the top. While that would be nice, don’t be too discouraged if it doesn’t happen. From what I know now, I wouldn’t want to clerk for the Supreme Court anyway; it just doesn’t sound like a job that would hold my interest for long, and I want more out of life than prestige. There are lots of really cool things to do with a law degree, some of which may not have even occurred to you.

So, on to the advice. For the LSAT: get a few books and lots of practice tests. The only way to prep for the LSAT is by taking actual tests, preferably while timing yourself to make the experience as realistic as possible. Take your first LSAT practice test blind, before reading any books, just to get a gauge for your performance. Practice should raise your score 5-10 points over your blind-test score.

Interviews aren’t common except at the most prestigious schools; buy yourself a book or two on graduate admissions essays or law admissions essays. Those books will help you tremendously. I know that my essay would have been very different, and much poorer, had I not read what was expected and what was generally frowned upon.

Finally, read as much as you can about the whole law school experience. I recommend a book called Planet Law School. It gives you a good idea of what to expect in your first year and what outside reading materials will help you understand your subjects. Therein lies the ultimate lesson: read read read, and get used to reading, because you’re gonna do a lot of it when you get there.

Sorry, man…don’t see what was rude about my reply. Or do you think that a random drive-by comment about a .sig quote, one which makes no reference at all to the actual question asked, is eminently appropriate?

I’ve used this .sig several times in several threads, one of which (here) actually deals with a topic relevant to Chesterton’s quote. Rather than addressing it there, Major Feelgud chose to sidetrack what I was hoping would be a serious and useful thread for me. I don’t feel that I responded in a manner that was inappropriate; perhaps you could enlighten me as to what in particular you found nasty and unnecessary?

Hell, I wasn’t even in a bad mood when I replied–nor am I now, though your post is somewhat puzzling to me. How was I being rude?

Major Feelgud is VERY SENSITIVE about not being a real major.

Now we all have to get into the tea chest, and sing “Jerusalem.”

Ok, I’ve been an inmate of the legal profession for six years and I must reply. A few words on my background: N.Y.U. Law '94, Carleton College '90 (magna).

Urgent question for you: What do you know about the profession?

Turnover within law as at an all-time high, and for good reason. Not surprisingly, the work that is best compensated is also the most tedious and detail-oriented. Patent law, for example, is essentially a license to print money, but so godawfully dull that only the bravest survive. Other well-paid practices, like securities law (my own forte) sound much more exciting in theory than they are in practice. The days are spent dealing with the minutiae of agreements, some of which are interesting in a crossword-puzzly sort of way but most of which are not, not even slightly. As a junior lawyer, whether you work as a transaction attorney or as a litigator, you are likely to spend at least a year or two sitting in document rooms, looking for smoking guns that don’t exist.

Well-compensated, yes, but not fun. And often the hourly salary doesn’t work out to much more than what your secretary is making – and he or she gets to go home while it’s still light out.

Plus, much of the corporate side of law can be boiled down to a very simple line a friend of mine used to use when asked what he was doing: “Oh, I’m helping one set of assholes buy a business from another set of assholes.”

There are, of course, intrinsically interesting, fulfilling positions to be found. But most of them don’t pay nearly as well, and that’s a major issue to confront when you’ve got $100 grand or more in law school debts. (Some schools, such as N.Y.U., do have tuition-reimbursement programs for people who want to practice public interest law. Check them out if this is what you want.)

You love constitutional law, which is great, but bear in mind that outside the ACLU and a few think-tanky public law firms (see compensation caveat above), almost no one in the profession actually practices “constitutional law.” Constitutional issues arise much more often in criminal law, but that requires a very particular mindset regardless of which side you’re litigating on. I have enormous respect for people who practice in this area – it’s enormously important, enormously difficult, and only well-paid if you’re Johnny Cochran.

So that’s a bunch of the nasty part of the profession. What’s good? It is, usually, intellectually demanding, which is a plus. Lawyers are often interesting people, although like any profession that attracts smart types it’s filled with more than its share of the socially inept. It’s also a degree with enormous flexibility, and the intellectual skills you develop will serve you well in any future career. That, in the end, is the main attraction for me, which is why I plan to leave law within the next couple of years.

Oh, and at the top end, it’s well paid, although do bear in mind that you won’t be graduating until 2004, and who knows what the economy will be like then. I graduated into one of the toughest legal job markets ever, and only got a job because I had N.Y.U. on my transcript.

Really, do consider exactly what it is you want to be doing every day, and then make the decision. For me and many of my peers, law school was a way for someone with a liberal arts degree (Poli Sci in my case as well) to be sure of a job that paid. That alone isn’t a good enough reason to enter a profession that, anecdotally at least, seems to be losing people almost as quickly as it gains them (AFAIK there are no reliable statistics on this; bar memberships are very approximate because many people keep theirs up just for flexibility).

After that, it’s just a question of doing well on the LSAT, which counts far more than any other factor no matter what law schools try to represent otherwise. When 7000+ applications have to be sorted for 400 positions, you don’t have the luxury of worrying about much else. To increase your odds of getting in, pick a school that’s outside your immediate geographic area. From Minnesota, N.Y.U. was a piece of cake. I’m not sure with the same grades I would’ve been admitted had I been applying from Columbia. And do think about state schools; the cheaper the school (especially if you have a good one in-state) the more flexibility you’ll have in the job market later.

Good luck. Don’t do this lightly. In fact, the best option for you would be to intern at a place you’d like to work, or take a job as a paralegal.

Thanks, Max. That’s exactly what I was looking for.

And yeah, I do understand how difficult it is to get a clerkship. I’ll work as hard as I can to put myself in that position, but I won’t be crushed if it doesn’t happen.

In your experience, to what degree are the various components of admission weighted? In other words, does the LSAT count significantly more than undergraduate transcripts, or are essays the main thing, or what? Like I said, I’m shaky on the transcript my first few years, but I’m pretty confident I can ace the test and essays. :slight_smile: Nothing to it, right?

And thanks for the book recommendation; I appreciate it.

Okay, let’s review. Gadarene posts a legitimate question directed specifically to people who might have the ability to help him. Major Feelgud posts a response that it totally non-responsive to the question posed, and instead focuses on Gadarene’s sig. Gadarene notes that the response is not, in fact, responsive, and suggests that if Major has a problem with the sig, he take it up somewhere else. Morgan weighs in that Gadarene’s response was “uncalled for,” which it wasn’t, and “rude,” which it wasn’t. He also posts a “lawyer” joke, insulting everyone in that profession. In so doing, he (or she) pretty much loses the right to accuse anyone else of rudeness. If I had to choose between having Gadarene or Morgan join my profession, based solely on the posts in this thread, I’d have to pick Gadarene.

Anyhoo . . . Gadarene, the two major things the law schools look at are grades and the LSAT. If your grades are not great, try to stick the LSAT (heck, try to do that anyway). I wouldn’t worry too much about your early weak academic performance if you graduated summa in the end. A larger question might be the reputation of the school you attended. The law schools you name are the big guns, and they can be very selective about where they take students from. I don’t encourage you to lower your sights, but if I were you I might consider applying to some second-tier schools as well. If you’re accepted at more than one school, hurray for you. :slight_smile: The only problem with this advice is that it can be expensive to apply to multiple schools. But at the top-tier schools that you mention, there is extreme competition for spots and they can be and are highly selective. Not to mention expensive.

But if your dream is to clerk for the U.S. Supremes, Job One is to secure admission to one of those top-tier schools. A second-tier school will probably disqualify you from consideration – not formally, of course, but that’s the way it works. Once you’re in school, you will need to be one of the top students in your class (top five) and have law review experience. You can apply for your school’s law review at the end of your first year. It’s a shit-load of work, but is hands-down the most impressive credential you can have on your resume coming out of school, regardless of what school you attend. If you can hack your way to the top of your class and handle law review and still have some free time (ha!), look into doing moot court (also pretty prestigious, if your school fields a team) and/or an internship in whatever field your interested in during your second and third years.

A clerkship, even with the U.S. Supremes, is only a stepping stone. It’s an excellent way to learn more about the law in application, as opposed to theory, to pick up invaluable pointers on appellate practice, and perfect your legal research and writing skills – which, by the way, had better be stellar coming out of school or you probably won’t be considered. I clerked for two years with a state supreme court and I learned a ton. But your “real” career will start after that, so you should be doing a continual “gut check” in law school for the areas of law the intrigue or challenge you (where you might want to specialize), as opposed to the ones that bore you to death (which you might want to avoid). It’s never too early to “specialize,” even in law school by taking every available class in family law, for example, or criminal law, or whatever may be your cup of tea. But first you have to decide what your cup of tea is. The bottom line is that you shouldn’t focus on a clerkship as your ultimate “goal” as it will only be a one or two year additional experince, after which you’ll have to get a “real” job.

General advice: For the LSAT – order some back tests and study; it’s worth it. It’s hard to over-estimate how important the LSAT will be, especially in your case, where you’re setting your sites on the really competitive schools. A strong LSAT score can help you immensely if your undergraduate school is not a “name” school. Applications should be filled out completely and honestly, and should be free of errors – just like every other type of application. Interview as if you’re already a lawyer – dress professionally, speak clearly and respectfully, try to demonstrate your commitment to do the necessary work. Above all, prepare to work your ass off for three years, doing some work that’s interesting and a lot of work that’s boring. If you like to read, you’re at a distinct advantage because a lot of what you’ll be doing is reading – cases, regulations, articles. Hone your organizational skills; it’s impossible to be too organized for law school. And remember to give yourself a break – or, rather, a reasonable number of breaks. In all the time I was in law school, there was never a time that I did not have homework to do or some point of law I shouldn’t be reviewing again or some outline I shouldn’t be working on. Sometimes you just have to pile your books in a corner and go have a life. It sounds facile, but it’s easy to forget to do that, and that’s when law school really sucks. Good luck; if you have any more questions, you can e-mail me. As you can see, I’m full of advice (or something). :slight_smile:

Well, xtnjohnson, although many find patent law both difficult and dry, one good thing about the profession is that most of us are neither bitter nor humorless. Thankfully, many fellow patent attorneys would see the connection between Major Feelgud’s crack about the legal system and a question about law school, unlike Jodi and the future attorney Gadarene. Furthermore, many of us are not hypersensitive about lawyer jokes and can appreciate them for what they are–jokes.

Don’t patent attorneys have to have an undergraduate degree in the sciences in order to be certified by the PTO? I think that’s one of the drawbacks for people entering that line of work.

I’ve worked in a Patent Depository Library and I can say that patent lawyers were almost always very friendly people. They also have to spend a lot of time telling people that their great ideas aren’t so great or unique.

I’m glad Jodi provided a more optimistic reply; mine tended towards the downright bilious. Please don’t get the idea that we’re all miserable and thus miserable to everyone around us; I focus on the problems only because the commitment of time and money is so substantial.

Jodi’s right, clerking can be a terrific experience. It’s not one I had, mainly because it’s more relevant to litigators than for us transactional types. However, a close friend from childhood did go on to clerk for Justice O’Connor; his background is fairly typical.

Dates are approximate

Ca. 1984 Graduated near top of MIT class with degree in chemical engineering, admitted to Stanford Law
1985 Admitted to Stanford Law Review
1986 Elected Editor, Stanford Law Review
1987 Graduates from Stanford. Commences clerkship for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (I don’t know of anyone who clerked for the U.S. Supremes without first clerking for a prestigious federal appellate bench or state supreme court; the DC circuit is the most prestigious, and Judge Mikva was considered its leading light)
1989 Completes clerkship; wins Fulbright Scholarship for year’s study at Oxford. Selected to clerk for Justice O’Connor; defers clerkship one year while completing scholarship.
1990 Begins clerkship for Justice O’Connor.

The “legal” advice you’ve received so far has been very good. I would concur. My background, for credibility purposes, is I graduated from Law School in 1989 (John Marshall, Chicago, (summa); Bachelor of Music, Illinois Wesleyan U., 1981); have been a practicing attorney for 11 years.

LSAT and under grad grades are paramount. Take an LSAT review course, and study, study, and practice practice. How well you do (or don’t do) on the LSAT is critical.

Also, how much English or writing classes did you take in college? An attorney’s most important asset is the ability to read, analyze, and write clearly. I’m often asked what undergraduate major best prepares someone for law school. I’d have to say an English degree, or at least a pre-law curriculum that emphasizes writing. If this is not a strong suit for you, I’d consider re-evaluting my career goals.

Once you’re in school, follow Jodi’s advice. Devote yourself wholeheartedly to study. How you perform those first two semesters sets you up for your entire legal career. This is true even if you DON’T attend a top-tier law school. Perhaps especially if you don’t. I went to a second tier school, but I graduated sixth in my class and was the editor of the Law Review. That opened a lot of doors for me after graduation.

The fact that you’re a little older and have experienced some adversity in your undergrad years could be a plus. Realistic expectations and a proper view of what the profession will bring you will help as well. I went to law school after working as a teacher for 6 years. My undergrad degree was in music, with a minor in English Lit. (I thought I’d teach English too!). I think my life experience was a source of strength and helped me be realistic in my approach to studies.

And don’t sell the clerkship route short. There are many opportunities to clerk for state and federal judges in your own state which are invaluable experience. After I graduated, I clerked for my state Supreme Court for two years. I wouldn’t trade that opportunity for anything. I learned more in two years from the judge than I did in school, and probably in the 10 years since. But you can’t get a clerkship of any calibre unless you are a STELLAR law student who writes well.

I agree with xtn and Jodi: your devotion to constitutional law will not find fulfillment in the general practice of law (unless you’re a law professor, a public defender, state’s attorney, or represent activist groups). Find general areas you enjoy to immerse yourself in, but stay grounded in the basics. Most of what you REALLY have to learn to practice law you will learn once you really start to practice law.

Finally, if you do your best, and succeed in school, whether you go to a top tier school or not, there are ways to use a law degree and find fulfilling, well-compensated work. But don’t think the course of your career can continue to change.

Sounds like you originally had your sights set on a fine-arts career. Me too. I opted for teaching, thinking I’d find fulfillment there. With educational budgets tight in Illinois and music programs being axed in small schools, I found my prospects for long term job security slim. So I went to law school. I did well, clerked for the Supremes in Illinois for two years, and entered a heavy duty litigation practice in a big Chicago law firm.

To but it bluntly, it was a disaster. I did not have the intestinal fortitude for a hig-powered corporate-level litigation practice. So after about 16 months, I went back to my home town and entered a small general practice. I didn’t make much money, but I was happy, fulfilled, and “back home.” Through building up my business, I eventually caught the eye of a local not-for-profit foundation that offered me a position as its full time general counsel. The freedom and fulfillment of being a lawyer without having to bill time or go to court has been astounding. I also work for a great cause (long term care and senior housing), which also helps me to look at myself in the mirror everyday.

So let me encourage you. If you’re sharp, and can do well in law school, a magnificent jouney awaits you. I wish you all the best.

Gad’s, I should use the preview feature. Typos!

Of course, I meant to say that, “But don’t think the course of your career can’t continue to change.”

I didn’t say this, but I agree with Sax; constitutional law is not really a particular specialty.

I do a lot of it myself (and I really enjoy it), but I’m also on this short list of practitioners (“state’s attorney”). And, by the way, I got my job with the state attorney general’s office based upon my clerkship and my prior litigation skills; they didn’t give a rat’s ass whether I knew much about the constitution or not.

It’s also worth repeating – the big money in the legal field these days is in transactional work. Real estate, mergers and acquisitions, banking, tax, securities . . . and a lot of people find it dull, dull, dull. (Why? Because it’s boring as hell. :wink: ) If these areas interest you, they’re absolutely the way to go. If you’re not interested in those fields, don’t expect to be making major money just because you’re a lawyer. I, like Sax, have a job I love, but I make less than both my sister (undergrad degree, lives in North Carolina) and my brother (no college degree at all, lives in Texas). So don’t automatically assume you’re headed for the big money just because you got your J.D.

Ipse dixit, Morgan <wink>. You’re really being much to harsh on our little lawyerling, I think. Considering we’re all in a profession whose highest aspiration is literal-mindedness, we must pull back just a wee bit.

Jeepers, I really am sounding vicious, and only mean it…partly. <grin>

I’m actually not all that bitter myself. I do know quite a lot of folks who are, however, and fortunately in this economy lawyers are able to get the hell out with greater ease. For me personally, it means lots and lots of job openings for sixth-year attorneys.

Unhappily, it means lots and lots of articles on the subject along the lines of Why Does Law Suck So Badly? Really, it’s a commentary on the current structure of elite private practice, which of course is already an exceedingly narrow view of the world. The danger for young lawyers is that the financial pressures of debt produce a sort of Iron Triangle between top private law schools, Sallie Mae and gilded coal mines of Park Avenue. (Iron? Gold? Coal? Ok, a metaphoric Periodic Table. So sue me.) (Don’t even start with me.)

Specialists are, on the whole, much happier people; I’ve only ever known one nasty tax attorney. Patent lawyers also tend to be pretty mellow. Part of it, I’m sure, is job security; they can exclude themselves from some of the really grubby aspects of drumming up business. It’s kind of like being an actuary, another deathly dull profession with high job-satisfaction scores. (An old roommate was one --hell, he had an MS in * statistics * and could hardly stand it. But it paid well and allowed him the off-time to use his knowledge to better ends – in Vegas.)

BobT, you are correct. A patent attorney is two things: an attorney and a patent agent. In order to become an attorney, you must (usually) go to law school and pass the bar. There are still one or two states that allow people to “read on” the law and skip going to law school if you have a long enough “apprenticeship” with an attorney, but that is definitely not the norm.

In order to become a patent agent, you must pass an exam given by the Patent and Trademark Office. In order to sit for the exam, you must either have a science degree or have been working as an engineer for long enough to qualify as one. Only patent agents are allowed to represent people in front of the PTO. The benefit of being an attorney as well is that you can continue to advise clients after a patent has issued (patent agents who are not attorneys are prohibited from giving legal advice) and, usually, when a patent attorney writes a patents, s/he is more concerned with what a jury will do with the patent in 5 years than just getting a patent approved by the PTO.

I believe it is a kinder and gentler profession for a couple of reasons. First, the majority of the work is not a zero-sum game. In fact, an issued patent means that both your client wins because he gets a 20-year monopoly and society wins because a new invention has been disclosed to the public. In those situations where a patent goes to litigation, it is rarely personal. Litigation is always an emotional situation, but the fight is over rights to intellectual property–hardly the same as whether a doctor’s alleged malpractice was the reason a 10 year old girl became paralyzed from the neck down. In fact, when I was in law school, every single intellectual property professor said that we have to be civil to one another because it is such a small community. No other law school professor ever suggested that we be courteous to other lawyers.

The money is pretty good too.

/hijack

Of course I’ll defer to your expertise since you actually practice in this area <g>, but is it really the case that patent litigation is less emotional? In my corporate-lawyer life I’ve run into summaries of wicked-nasty-straight-out-of-Dickens patent litigations, but perhaps the reason I’ve heard of them is that they’re exceptional. I’ve had a number of transactions in medical devices, where everyone seems litigate for years and then finally cross-licenses everything, with recriminations all around.

/end hijack

xtnjohnson, I did not mean to imply that you were among the bitter and humorless. I apologize if it came off that way.

Litigation is always driven by two clients who really don’t like each other. Attorneys tend to get sucked into the emotional minefield because (1) they want to empathize with their clients and (2) they are competitive people who like to win. The reason I say Patent attorneys tends to take litigation less personally is because, in many cases, not only do they know the opposing attorneys, they probably worked together in other matters. In fact, I have even been involved in one case where the opposing attorney was one of my paid expert witnesses in another active case. Like I said, it is a small community.