Debra, I wonder whether you can comment on something. I remember about 10 years ago when women were dropping like flies out of law firms. They were discovering that private practice was a bit of a dog's life, with long hours and frequent weekends working. The work certainly wasn't conducive to having a normal family life. Also, they were expected to be rainmakers (bringing in clients).
I might mention that to make, and remain a, partner you should be able to show an ability, or at least the potential, to be rainmaker.
Lots of women (and men) have dropped out of the practice of law. This is not the same as women (and men) going to Law School. Rather, it goes to the question (which doesn't appear to be the question that was actually answered) of whether the number of women in the law is increasing, decreasing or holding steady.
Jespah, I agree that the thing about women in practice is not exactly on point. However, it would likely be of interest to a woman in deciding on whether to go into law.
I once spoke to a woman who was seeking to build up a practice counseling woman who were fed up with private practice.
Completing law school and entering practice has often not been an end in itself. Frequently, people who have done well in a wide variety of professions were law school graduates, and had often entered practice before turning their hands to other occupations. One of the values of law school and swotting in a firm as a very, very small cog is that one learns habits of mind, and the ability to do mind-numbing work endlessly in order to acheive a particular goal. That can stand people in good stead in any profession.
Even if one does show that women drop out of law firms in large numbers, that does not alter that their employment prospects are significant in any of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other areas.
Hear, hear! An education is law is very valuable and, I think, interesting. However, a prospective law student should be aware of the pitfalls in private practice, which are many.
True, that. Hey, I ended up in IT -- but I still remember how to write and organize my work.
I'd to be a judge. Convicting people to jail sentences between dinner and bedtime sure beats the hell out of watching reality TV. There's just one problem: I'm too lazy to go to law school. Fortunately though, two New York Times articles a couple of weeks ago inform me I can be a judge without going to law school first. Indeed, I wouldn't even have had to finish high school. To be a judge on the lower rungs of the New York State court hierarchy, all I need is six days of classes, and I'm good to go. (I will also have to take a 12-hour refresher course once a year.)
[url=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0C11FF34550C768EDDA00894DE404482][i]In Tiny Courts of New York, Abuses of Law and Power[/i][/url]. New York Times, September 25, 2006
[url=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0D14FB34550C758EDDA00894DE404482][i] Delivering Small-Town Justice, With a Mix of Trial and Error[/i][/url]. New York Times, September 26, 2006
Is this kind of position fun to work in? Do other states in the US have them besides New York? And, if you can get one of those jobs as a high school drop-out, is the trouble of going to law school still worth it?
Thomas wrote:Is this kind of position fun to work in? Do other states in the US have them besides New York? And, if you can get one of those jobs as a high school drop-out, is the trouble of going to law school still worth it?
Most states have eliminated JP courts (or their equivalents), largely for the reasons mentioned in your links (I can't access them, but I remember reading the NYT coverage of this topic online).
I see. And what does the "JP" in "JP court" stand for again?
I think, JPs very similar to the German legal institution 'Schiedsmann'.
[The institution of the Schiedsmann has a very long tradition (up to 200 years) in various German states (Länder).]
You'll just have to come to Toronto, Thomas. J.P.'s are still used here routinely for bail court, 1st appearances, remands, warrants, etc. If we can't cop you a spot at Old City Hall, maybe we'll slide ya into the Immigration and Refugee Board - you can be an Immigration Member - qualifications are slightly more stringent, but a law degree isn't necessary.
Quote:Who is qualified to be a Justice of the Peace?
Justices of the Peace appointments require a responsible individual with integrity and the ability to understand and interpret relevant legislation and bylaws, knowledge and understanding of Ontario's judicial system and process, excellent oral and written communication skills, sound interpersonal skills, good administrative skills and superior analytical ability combined with sound judgment.
The Access to Justice Act, 2005, which received first reading on October 27, 2005, if passed, would amend the Justices of the Peace Act to establish minimum qualifications for an appointment as a justice of the peace in Ontario: a university degree or community college diploma, or an equivalency, including life experience, and at least 10 years paid or volunteer work experience.
What a way to run a railroad
Why set your sights so low, Thomas? After all, you also don't have to be a lawyer to be a member of the US Supreme Court.
joefromchicago wrote:Why set your sights so low, Thomas? After all, you also don't have to be a lawyer to be a member of the US Supreme Court.
Yes, but you need to have at least the Democrats or the Republicans vote for you. I don't think I'd be popular with either. Incompetence alone just isn't enough, as Harriet Myers found out so painfully.
Being a lawyer doesn't automatically vest a person with knowledge, wisdom, compassion, competence, etc. Every practicing lawyer has memories of bad experiences with judges.
New York also has Magistrates, which decide on things like whether a bench warrant should be issued. You may have to wear a bulletproof vest if you issue warrants against the mob. Happy Magistering!
My grandfather was a justice of the peace in the 1920s, at a time when most small towns had one, usually for no more reason than to place someone in custody for the convenience of the police, or to levy small fines such as those which arose due to violation of civic ordinances. He never told me much about it, but i did once overhear him telling a friend (with a laugh) that in the 20s (during Prohibition), when he made a little whiskey in his print shop, it was convenient that he was the man to whom police would usually come for a search warrant. Looking back now, i don't think that would have granted him any immunity--but at the time, when i questioned him about what he was talking about, he clammed up and asked if i didn't have things i ought to be doing.
He was also the Democratic Precinct Committeeman--he was quite interesting for a variety of reasons, but died at about the time i was getting old enough to ask pertinent questions, and understand the answers. He not only was not a lawyer, he had never completed high school. As a veteran of the Great War, and a "pillar of the community," i doubt that this was ever a consideration--the more so when such a lack of formal education was more common than not. The lack of a university education did not hinder him, and in my (admittedly prejudiced) recollection, did not leave him at any intellectual disadvantage.
I just saw some of a great murder case on CourtTV, which would be valuable for would-be lawyers to view. It was the Serano case in FL, in which he was convicted of murdering a former business partner and three others who had the bad luck to be present at the scene. The lawyers on both sides were terrific, and the police work was superb. The defendant had set up a phony alibi that almost worked for him.
The only clinker was the judge, who gloried in asserting her authority. For instance, she threatened a mistrial if any witnesses, included the spouses of the deceased, showed any emotion. (Wouldn't the jury expect a spouse to show some emotion?) She also stifled valid arguments by the attorneys, especially the prosecution pair.
Interesting re the emotion thing (I didn't see the case you described, though it sounds fascinating). It's a fine line, you know, between the reality of the situation, that people will miss their loved ones and will act out accordingly (and sometimes beyond what some of us would consider accordingly -- one must take cultural differences into account. Mourning is different wherever you go), and giving the defense an opportunity at a fair trial. You can see where an overly emotional family could sway a jury to believe that someone was guilty, even if they weren't.
The defense is entitled to be able to face their accuser(s) and it is a big deal if the defense is removed from that, generally due to either threats to the accuser(s) or grandstanding. Both of these things happened, for example, during the Manson Family murder cases. But what about the victim's family? Where are their rights in all of that, if anywhere?
Actually, if you'd like to open up a new topic on that, I'd be happy to contribute as my schedule permits.
I brought up this case as an example of a judge who, I thought, was unreasonable. I imagine that the jury thought it strange that these witnesses, who were close relatives, showed almost no emotion. I don't know how they managed this, but they did. I don't think that a reasonable display would have tainted the jury.
Further, the sentencing phase of the case is coming up soon and the judge has already decreed that there may be no emotion in testimony by the victims' relatives. I feel this is highly artificial, and possibly misleading to the jury.
Thus, those thinking about a career in the law need to know that they should expect to face at least a few unreasonable and dictatorial judges.
