The LACBA Student Lounge Blog

Loyola Law School's Early Admittance Program

Especially ambitious pre-law college students can skip their Sr. year in college and begin a J.D. program at Loyola Law School.

According to a Maroon article:

It is called the Early Admittance Program and it is offered to undergraduate students that have completed three-fourths of their degree requirements and are studious enough to get a better grade point average and score on the LSAT than most other Loyola Law applicants.

The American Bar Association allows law schools to admit undergraduates with at least three-fourths of their degree requirements so long as they are “from an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education.” The ABA three-fourths ruling is an often overlooked ‘shortcut’ that appeals to ambitious students.

These over achieving college students must have at least a 155 on the LSAT to qualify and a GPA of 3.4. The LSAC reported that in 2007, less than 2% of applicants were under the age of 21, so although you could be sitting next to a teenager in Civ Pro, it's not likely.

CA State Court Sides with Governor Schwarzenegger

Earlier today, a California state court sided with Governor Schwarzenegger on a controversial order by the governor to force state employees to take two additional days off per month without pay.

From a Los Angeles Times article:

The decision by Sacramento Superior Court Patrick Marlette clears the way for 238,000 state employees to be furloughed on the first and third Fridays of each month starting Feb. 6. Marlette said in his ruling that the governor has the authority to implement such cuts during an emergency.

Upon initially receiving the order from the governor, State Controller John Chiang refused to honor the order without the action of a court. With the state in a dire economic crisis, the court ruled that the furlough was "reasonable and necessary under the circumstances." The furlough amounts to about a 9% pay cut for state employees.

July 2009 CA Bar Exam: Dates, Deadlines and Fee Structure

Exam Dates: July 28-30
Deadlines: April 1 (on time), April 2-30 (late - higher fee), May 1 - June 16 (very late - highest fee)

A lot more details at the California State Bar Admissions website.

Got Mentors? LACBA Announces First Annual Mentoring Event

Looking for a mentor? The greatest resource in your future career will be other attorneys. The First Annual LACBA Roundtable Mentoring event, taking place on February 24, 2009 and hosted by the LACBA Senior Lawyers Division and LACBA Barristers, is an opportunity for law students to get face to face mentoring on virtually ever aspect of advancing any future practice and career.

Law students are encouraged to register for the this event, which will include interactive and informative roundtable mentoring sessions. Attendees can select from area topics and interact with Judges and experienced Senior Lawyers who will be showing the ropes, explaining how to get started, how to plan for the type of career your considering and providing expert face to face advice. Each area will have a Judge or Senior Lawyer as the moderator who will briefly introduce the topic and lead a discussion. Networking opportunities will be abundant.

Roundtable Topics
RainmakingManaging a Practice
Work/Life Balance
Round Table TopicsClient Relations: what they don't teach in law school
Developing and Maintaining your Reputation
Lawyer Etiquette 101: How to dress for success
Dealing with Opposing Counsel
Leveraging Your LACBA Membership

Call the LACBA Member Services Department to register: (213) 896-6560.

Bogus Craigslist New Associate Job Posting Rakes in Responses: $30K/Year

A somewhat disgruntled NY contract attorney recently posted a bogus ad on Craigslist. The ad resulted in over 100 responses. The offer was a call to fill an associate position at a law firm where the successful candidate would work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day and have three vacation days, among other requirements. The pay: $30,000 a year. As the resumes began pouring in, two responses were from recruiters.

According the full article at Above the Law (you can read the full Craigslist post there as well):

The contract attorney who posted this expressed sadness about the response. "Applicants need to have faith in themselves. Anyone who went to law school is better than this [fictitious] job."

Obama Signs Orders to Close Guantanamo

The ABA reports that today, President Barack Obama signed executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay within a year and end harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. The order will also close any remaining secret prisons run by the CIA. This comes a day after Obama sought 120-day delays 120-day delays in all cases before Guantanamo military tribunals.

"We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms," Obama said as he signed the orders.

According to the SCOTUSblog interpretation of the orders, the process will occur in three steps. First, the detainee cases will be reviewed. Second, the prisoners will be relocated. Third, some of the detainees will be prosecuted but not necessarily in regular civilian court. Currently, it is unclear how federal courts hearing habeas cases filed by the Guantanamo detainees will react.

Lil Wayne's Tour Rider: An Entertainment Contract

Thinking about a glitzy entertainment law career after graduation? You just might end up drafting, negotiating or suing someone based on a tour rider. A tour rider, of course, is an agreement, usually between an event promoter and the talent. These agreements are known for outlandish and very detailed requests. A copy of Lil Wayne's 2008-2009 tour rider is here.

Details on this at The Smoking Gun.

The Price Is Right

As the economy continues to falter, lawyers continue to adjust to the market. As do their clients. In fact, clients may begin to look for cheaper counsel to get the job done. One place to find that is at a small firm. An article by the ABA points out how big firm talent is headed towards small firm practice. That makes sense too. As people continue to restrict their spending, they are going to find ways to cut down on their big ticket items. However, if that trend continues to grow, then today's boutique shop may just be tomorrow's legal giant. Only time will tell. 

Much Ado About Presidential Oath Slip-up

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President Elect take the following oath before execution of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

According to an Associated Press (AP) account, Obama paused as he repeated the oath administered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The AP continued that “Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track.”

However, NBC News and ABC’s Diane Sawyer reported that Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, erred in his recitation of the oath.

When the Chief Justice read the second clause of the statement, he omitted the word “faithfully” from its rightful place, and stuck it at the end of the clause. Grammatically, Roberts’s construction made better sense than the Framers’, but this switch seemed to have tripped up Obama.

It was also suggested that Obama may have contributed to the confusion by jumping in too soon, starting to repeat the oath before Roberts completed the first phrase.

Whatever the confusion and its causes, every news carrier and legal blog jumped at the chance to comment on the awkward oath recitation.

See The Oath For Yourself on YouTube.

See Wall Street Journal Legal Blog or ABA Journal News Story.

Exclusion of Police Negligence

The 4th Amendment of our Constitution protects the people from "unreasonable searches and seizures." To the Supreme Court, that does not include mere negligence. That is, searches or seizures made by mistake, or clerical error. In Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an arrest made because of negligent bookkeeping, and evidence obtained therefrom, does not warrant enforcement of the exclusionary rule. Instead, that rule is enforceable only when the police recklessly disregard Constitutional requirements. To be honest, that is a ruling with which I cannot agree.

As the dissent points out, the very axiom of tort law is that holding people responsible for their mistakes gives them an incentive to reduce mistakes in the future. In a case like this, it is near impossible for one to recover civil damages under tort law. However, enforcement of the exclusionary rule would have the same effect. It would prevent the police from making mistaken arrests and provide them an incentive to clean up their system. But that's just me. Read the case and let me know what you think.