A question for the lawyers

[kendoiwan]

Is it nothing like "Boston Legal"? *Please be like BL* Is it even like "The Practice"? *at least?* How about "Law and Order"? I read many negative comments made by intp lawyers (except Jazztulip) I'm starting to seriously worry...

[YardGnome]

Is it nothing like "Boston Legal"? *Please be like BL* Is it even like "The Practice"? *at least?* How about "Law and Order"? I read many negative comments made by intp lawyers (except Jazztulip) I'm starting to seriously worry...

It's just like My Cousin Vinny.

[MacGuffin]

LOL

It is a lot of reading and writing. And paper pushing.

Ok, maybe you will get to argue in front of a jury/judge. But you better not try any of those dramatic stunts you see on TV. I did not want any part of that side of it.

[Rajah]

Is it like Boston Legal? No.
Is it like The Practice? No.
Heck, is it like Ally McBeal? No.

Then what is it?

I do lots of research. I come up with an answer. I feel satisfied, but am forced to document all of it in a well-organized memo. This makes my P blood boil. Inevitably, I turn the memo in and someone complains that she needs some other piece of freakin' data (usually irrelevant) to fully understand the problem. The words "woefully inadequate" have actually appeared on the edits, I kid you not. I edit the memo. There are more complaints about other pieces of data, which make my N blood boil. Back and forth and back and forth ad infinitum. Sometimes I get to write briefs, which are thoroughly picked apart and usually changed for cosmetics (although these changes usually involve bad writing) or to add some other piece of data.

If I'm lucky, I get to calm down clients or deal with opposing counsel. The holy grail of my field? A trial! In front of real, live jurors! There goes the I blood...

And all of this for 80 or 90 hours per week! If it's a slow week, I'm billing 50 hours.

Why anyone says it's fit for an INTP is beyond me. Liars.

[coffeezombie]

When I had decided to be a lawyer and was working at a law firm over the summer, I discovered being an attorney was basically about knowing when to file what particular legal form. It was way to S for me, so I gave it up. Most of the time you are not working on groundbreaking cases like you do on those lawyer shows, and instead are having to deal with nutcase clients on a daily basis.

[INTrPosr]

I dealt with Attorneys all of the time in my recent position. I would receive responses that were wordy, overkill and irrelevant to the issues. I would usually contact the Attorney and give them an opportunity to narrow a ten page response to two pages, by reminding them that they would have to corroborate each defense. I am not sure whether some of this is taught in law school, since I also had a colleague who perfected extensive and wordy charges.

[Dempsey]

I imagine being a barrister would be different to something more lower class. Likewise being a defence lawyer would be different to prosecution.

A question though. How often are precedents created? If they're something extremely rare I would imagine law to be pretty boring.

[INTrPosr]

A question though. How often are precedents created? If they're something extremely rare I would imagine law to be pretty boring.I am not an Attorney, but I would think that precedents, at an upper court level would be rare. However, I think that arguing particular instances of the law seems quite common.

[Rajah]

What do you mean precedents? I can basically use any case, sometimes even ones that specifically say they "cannot be cited as precedent" as a precedent. All that is would me me saying, "hey X court did it this way, so you should do it this way."

If you're talking about big, constitutional law precedents -- like a case boldly treading new ground or going against some legal rule that's been established for 100 years, then I'd say it's pretty darn rare. Judges like solid rules they can rely on, and even if they "bend" the rules, they still claim it's within the framework of the old rules.

[kendoiwan]

Devils Advocate maybe?

[Rajah]

Devils Advocate maybe?


Closer, but usually minus the whole sleeping with a sibling thing.

[kendoiwan]

Closer, but usually minus the whole sleeping with a sibling thing.


Demonic hot chicks who serve your every whim?

[MacGuffin]

Demonic hot chicks who serve your every whim?You only get those after you make partner.

[kendoiwan]

Do I get to negotiate? I love negotiation... Please tell me I get to negotiate...

[Rajah]

Dude, I'm in litigation. You research and write. A lot.

[kendoiwan]

Dude, I'm in litigation. You research and write. A lot.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[Dumpy]

You can be a practicing attorney and do lots of different things. I'm not a litigator; I work for a federal government agency. That has its good points (no client contact; no billable hours; family-friendly atmosphere) and its low points (not much autonomy; many levels of review; things happen slowly; lower pay). On the other hand, I get to work on some pretty cutting-edge issues. At the same agency, I used to resolve disputes between different companies, kind of like a court dealing solely with the specific issues governed by my agency. I got a chance to mediate a lot in that role.

You can also be an attorney working directly for a business, which is still another experience. Never done that; but that will probably be my next job.

[Rajah]

You can also be an attorney working directly for a business, which is still another experience. Never done that; but that will probably be my next job.

True. Although you usually have to go through a more "traditional" legal job -- law firm or the like -- beforehand, b/c lots of the good in-house positions require at least 5 or so years of experience. Many times significantly more. It's all about dues-paying, my friend.

[kendoiwan]

So let me get this straight, no dramatic courtroom stunts, lucky to ever see a courtroom, no negoiation, studying *shudders as he has never studied a day in his life* tedious paperwork, no sleeping with siblings, no demonic hot chicks for years to come, paying dues...

Do I at least get to say my own name at the being and ending of every sentence possible ala Denny Krane?

*Please give a man some hope as I've already started down the path and can't turn back now*

[Rajah]

So let me get this straight, no dramatic courtroom stunts,
Check.


lucky to ever see a courtroom,
Check.


no negoiation,
Check.


studying *shudders as he has never studied a day in his life*
Check.


tedious paperwork,
Check.


no sleeping with siblings,
Actually, might be possible. Are you planning on a deep-south firm?


no demonic hot chicks for years to come,
Nah, there are some very hot, demonic female lawyers.


paying dues...
Check.


Do I at least get to say my own name at the being and ending of every sentence possible ala Denny Krane?
Sure.


*Please give a man some hope as I've already started down the path and can't turn back now*
I have over $150K in law school debt. It's never too late to turn back.

[kendoiwan]

Nah, there are some very hot, demonic female lawyers.



I have over $150K in law school debt. It's never too late to turn back.

Kendoiwan... Hot demonic female lawyers?! *Eyes sparkle*

My job has 100% reinburment which is why I'm going to any sort of school after digging my hole for a BS in Poli Sci...

Kendoiwan

[Dumpy]

I met my wife when she was about to enter law school. I implored her not to do it; she angrily replied that just because *I* didn't enjoy law school (I was finishing up at that point), there's no reason *she* wouldn't.

It's now 13 years later. She's studying to become a marine biologist.

-----------

Seriously, if you have a very specific desire--in your case, it seems like you want to litigate--you can find the right situation if you try hard enough. For example, if you work for DOJ (such as at the U.S. Attorney's office), you can have a lot of litigation experience, and a lot of autonomy--much more so than if you were working at a large firm. Of course, there's a lot of competition for those jobs.

Or you can be a solo practitioner or do somehting like family law--you'd be in court all the time, but maybe not for complex issues.

[kendoiwan]

I met my wife when she was about to enter law school. I implored her not to do it; she angrily replied that just because *I* didn't enjoy law school (I was finishing up at that point), there's no reason *she* wouldn't.

It's now 13 years later. She's studying to become a marine biologist.

-----------

Seriously, if you have a very specific desire--in your case, it seems like you want to litigate--you can find the right situation if you try hard enough. For example, if you work for DOJ (such as at the U.S. Attorney's office), you can have a lot of litigation experience, and a lot of autonomy--much more so than if you were working at a large firm. Of course, there's a lot of competition for those jobs.

Or you can be a solo practitioner or do somehting like family law--you'd be in court all the time, but maybe not for complex issues.


kendoiwan:
I'm not really sure (my Pness) but I'm leaning toward entertainment law for the obvious reason that I'm a songwriter/emcee... I want to negoiate deals and tell people how to manage their money (they seem to suck at it and I'm great at it)... But still much find a way to couch it in terms that reflect my "career path" to my employers who are afterall paying for all this:devil:

Hot demonic female lawyers *eyes sparkle*

kendoiwan

[MacGuffin]

kendoiwan:
I'm not really sure (my Pness) but I'm leaning toward entertainment law for the obvious reason that I'm a songwriter/emcee... I want to negoiate deals and tell people how to manage their money (they seem to suck at it and I'm great at it)... But still much find a way to couch it in terms that reflect my "career path" to my employers who are afterall paying for all this:devil:

Hot demonic female lawyers *eyes sparkle*

kendoiwanQuite frankly, one can do that at a small level. Like if you have your own small practice. But you probably will not make the money you think a lawyer should make. And you will always be hustling as your clients are small-time.

Too much for this introvert.

[Rajah]

I'm just letting you know that entertainment law is probably one of the toughest areas to break into. And there is a huge lure to go into a big firm. The pay is great and the hours suck. Which really means that the pay is great, but we're really making 43 cents an hour.

Sounds like there's a real possibility you'll be working in corporate law for a while before breaking into entertainment law. In that field, you'll start off with, say, due diligence. Then line-editing contracts. Negotiating later.

I hope you break into entertainment law and love it passionately. I'm just saying you'll have to suck up a lot of stuff on the way.

[kendoiwan]

I'm just letting you know that entertainment law is probably one of the toughest areas to break into. And there is a huge lure to go into a big firm. The pay is great and the hours suck. Which really means that the pay is great, but we're really making 43 cents an hour.

Sounds like there's a real possibility you'll be working in corporate law for a while before breaking into entertainment law. In that field, you'll start off with, say, due diligence. Then line-editing contracts. Negotiating later.

I hope you break into entertainment law and love it passionately. I'm just saying you'll have to suck up a lot of stuff on the way.


Kendoiwan: Hot demonic female lawyers :devil: eyes sparkle... kendoiwan

[Rajah]

Hey, did I mention you have to start thinking of your whole life in terms of 6-minute increments?

[kendoiwan]

Hey, did I mention you have to start thinking of your whole life in terms of 6-minute increments?


???? :blink: I'm afraid to ask... but... please explain...

[Rajah]

???? :blink: I'm afraid to ask... but... please explain...You have to bill your time in 6-minute increments. So, if I spend 1 to 6 minutes working on a document, I bill 0.1 hours as "Researching and drafting X document regarding Y issue." It's stressful in two ways: 1) you actually have to sit down and write out everything you did in every case for every day, and 2) you have to write all of this stuff out 6-minute increments.

It's even worse for backruptcy attorneys. Let's say they work an hour for Client A. They have to break this hour down by individual task and how long it took to complete each task, in order to receive their fees.

[kendoiwan]

You have to bill your time in 6-minute increments. So, if I spend 1 to 6 minutes working on a document, I bill 0.1 hours as "Researching and drafting X document regarding Y issue." It's stressful in two ways: 1) you actually have to sit down and write out everything you did in every case for every day, and 2) you have to write all of this stuff out 6-minute increments.

It's even worse for backruptcy attorneys. Let's say they work an hour for Client A. They have to break this hour down by individual task and how long it took to complete each task, in order to receive their fees.

:shock: :shock:

[MacGuffin]

Ha ha ha! Billing is great!

And don't forget to return all your client's phone calls!

[kendoiwan]

Ha ha ha! Billing is great!

And don't forget to return all your client's phone calls!


*cringes* Billing is great? :blink: Is that your point of view or a sarcastic rendering?

And again I'm afraid to ask...but... Why shouldn't I forget to return all of my clients phones calls?

[Rajah]

*cringes* Billing is great? :blink: Is that your point of view or a sarcastic rendering?

And again I'm afraid to ask...but... Why shouldn't I forget to return all of my clients phones calls?Definitely sarcastic. Billing is the worst.

Technically, if you forget to return phone calls, it's grounds for malpractice. Plus, some clients really, really, really like to keep apprised of every single thing going on in a case -- even the teeny details. Lots of them are more hands-off, though, especially in bigger companies that are used to litigation. For smaller companies, litigation is usually a huge hassle, and they are definitely invested in the case b/c they stand to lose a lot more.

[crule81]

The law is filled with overachieving types that do not mesh well with Intp's. When I would attempt to talk about a point of law with my boss, he would respond with "I don't have time for philosophical debates" and would get visibly angry if my interpretations of the law were not in tune with his. My stepfather, who is also a litigation attorney, also dislikes these kind of discussions. That is why I like to do appeals. Appellate Court judges and appellate attorneys appreciate "philosophical" questions more than those who do more fact-driven trial court litigation.

[MacGuffin]

Yes, appellate work is probably best for INTPs. A lot of it is pure theory about the law.

[Claverhouse]

Is it like nothing like OZ ? *please be nothing like OZ*


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[joecancer]

I'm a recent law school grad, and I have to agree with all the comments posted so far by the lawyers here (based on my brief experience). I've been working for a workers comp. firm for a month now, and am already looking for a way out. I used to clerk for a litigation firm. In general litigation, at least there is diversity in the types of cases you handle (unless you specialize). Workers comp. is more of a specialty, so I see the same types of cases day in and day out. Billing is the worst. Dealing with clients is almost as annoying.

Someone made a comment that they couldn't imagine having an Introvert as a lawyer. Actually, my experience in law school was that most students were Introverts. Maybe something like 60-40%. I think the part where I was different was being a P. Most law students (at least at my school) were Js, and I bet most were also Ss. So, that being said, I agree that appellate work is probably the most appealing to us. Within that, I agree that gov't work would be good for an INTP because we need out free time, and don't really need the big bucks. That's why my goal now is to be a clerk for an appellate court judge, probably at the state level (since federal cts. are really tough to get into). I have no idea how realistic this is, though. The problem with appellate work is that it seems like you have to work at a big firm if you want to specialize in it. There aren't small firms that I know of that do solely appellate work. I neither have the grades nor the time to work at a big firm. So I guess my second choice, after being an appellate court clerk, would be to work in the govt in some other capacity. I really can't do the type of work I'm doing now for much longer.

[Dumpy]

being a lawyer for the government has its good points and bad points. No clients; no billable hours. On the other hand, you have to deal with a ridiculous bureaucracy, and have pretty much no autonomy--that is, you can't make any decisions for yourself. Decisions are made for solely political reasons even though they are just stupid.

[Nighthawk]

being a lawyer for the government has its good points and bad points. No clients; no billable hours. On the other hand, you have to deal with a ridiculous bureaucracy, and have pretty much no autonomy--that is, you can't make any decisions for yourself. Decisions are made for solely political reasons even though they are just stupid.That sounds just like being a software engineer at the bank where I work.

[Dumpy]

except that when I say political decisions, I really mean political decisions--that is, decisions by political appointees by the president.

also, priorities change at moment's notice. You could be working frantically on something, then see it sit around for months after you're finished.

You could draft a document, and watch it go through 35 sets of edits from 12 diferent people--in the end, there won't be a single word left that you wrote. I once drafted a document that went through 30-something drafts, and in the end it was just two pages long.

On the other hand, unless you want to take on a lot of responsiility, you can work a normal 8.5 hour day. And there is absolutely no financial incentive to become a manager, which is both good and bad, depending on your point of view. Unless you screw up, you get paid baiscally just according to your length of service.

[joecancer]

Yeah, I thought about gov't work for that reason. It definitely beats private practice in many ways. I just think I'd get frustrated by incompetent people. I don't mind if people change my work, but it really bothers me when they make it worse or completely destroy it. My goal now is to find a job doing appellate work, preferably for a judge, but for a gov't agency or private practice if necessary. Failing that, I think my preferred place of work is anywhere in gov't, including working for a trial court judge.

Does anyone know how to go about getting into appellate work, or how tough it is to get a state judicial clerkship after you've already finished school?

[joecancer]

so anyone know how to get into appellate work?

[Rajah]

so anyone know how to get into appellate work?And if you do, tell me.

[crule81]

so anyone know how to get into appellate work?

I've done a bit of looking into this. Those to whom I have spoken (appellate attorneys) have stated that the best way is to get a clerkship with an appellate court. I have applied to my state appellate court, but they are not currently hiring.

Basically, there are very few who do appellate work full-time. Mostly, the attorneys who take the case to trial will also handle the appeal. This is how I've gotten most of my appellate experience. But firms who are looking to hire strictly appellate attorneys look for significant experience in handling appeals or a clerkship with an appellate court.

If you are interested in criminal law (which I am not), you might look into your state or federal public appellate defender. They basically are like appointed counsel for indigent criminal defendants at the appellate level.

If you are more interested in my quest to do appellate work, please PM me.

[Rajah]

I read a really interesting article by Stephen Feldman, a former lawyer and law professor who is now a clinical psychologist, which details his struggles with practicing law. The article is really interesting, and can be found in Deborah Arron's What Can You Do With a Law Degree? Some of Dr. Feldman's problems with the practice of law are:

(1) Law is a unique profession in that there is a lawyer on the other side whose sole job is to prove you wrong. Plus, the other lawyer is usually an idiot.

(2) Any error you make is part of the permanent record, long after you've retired and cancelled your malpractice insurance. This sucks b/c of the "attention to detail" law requires.

(3) Lawyers have to deal with deadlines all the time. Every single event has a deadline attached.

(4) Every day, somebody will be ultra-critical of your work. Senior associates, partners, or even clients, will bitch and whine about something you've done.

(5) Lawyers basically "absorb" their clients' stresses. The client uses the opportunity to unload his problems and make them yours.

(6) Every single aspect of your life is infected by law. Dr. Feldman tells of reading a steamy story that triggered panic about missing a filing deadline. From personal experience, you can never watch law-related shows with your family again. Either you will piss them off because you point out every inaccuracy in the program, or they keep asking you questions about the law.

(7) Lawyers have to deal with the huge responsibility of peoples' money, property, family, or even lives.

(8) Lawyers constantly deal with confrontation or even hate. The general public hates lawyers. Hell, even I hate lawyers, and I have a law degree. As a matter of principle, if you're a litigator, clients hate you -- they're pissed off they're involved in litigation, and they don't understand why they have to pay you to get them out of it.

(9) Clients want a "yes" or "no" answer, and get pissed off when you don't have one.

(10) Lawyers never know what crisis will be next when the phone rings.

[Nighthawk]

Wow ... I would thoroughly hate a job like that. You have my condolences.

[Dumpy]

Long time, no visit.

You're describing firm work--as a lawyer you can work in other environments, too. I've already described government work (BTW, as to the concern about working for incompetent and/or stupid people, there are a lot of highly intelligent, hard working attorneys employed by the government. Yes, there are stupid people, but probably fewer than in other environments. The only drawback is that, as a super-large, entrenched organization, it is hard to find an audience for those wild and wacky INTP ideas. On the other hand, one can act as nonconformist as one wants without any repurcussions.). There's also working at corporations, which will probably be my next job. Anyway, I did clerk for a trial-level federal judge, kind of walked into it. It was an interesting experience, but has the drawback of being at the whim of one individual, and federal judges are usually workaholic, micromanaging nutcases, and my judge was the queen of insanity. Still, it opens doors--she helped me get my current job. Anyway, the best shot at judicial clerkships is to target recently-appointed judges. Usually, there is less competition for those spots; you have to stay on your toes and apply quickly.

[joecancer]

Here are a couple interesting articles I found dealing with MBTI and lawyers.
The interesting thing is that both were written by former lawyers with perceiving preferences. The lack of J is definitely what sets us apart from typical lawyers, since I,N and T are the most popular for lawyers. The second article is good for anyone considering law school, and might have been written by an INTP.

http://www.altmanweil.com/about/articles/article.cfm?APA_SSID=17&PAID=2&ArticleID=157&PracticeArea=Law%20Firm%20Management&APASub=Organizational%20Psychology

http://lawschoolbound.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/takebook/thetext.htm

[aether]

Since most of you lawyers appear to be dissapointed, is it better to be a paralegal/ legal secretary, instead?

[joecancer]

No, in fact it would be much worse, in my opinion. That would be pure drudgery and would definitely require a J mindset.
If you're considering law school, though, that might be a good idea to show you what the practice of law is like.

[Dumpy]

But, again, these articles just discuss employment at law firms, and you don't have to go that route (although it is probably the most common first job out of school). If I could do it again, would I go to law school? I have no idea. What else would I do?

[joecancer]

true

[Rajah]

But, again, these articles just discuss employment at law firms, and you don't have to go that route (although it is probably the most common first job out of school). If I could do it again, would I go to law school? I have no idea. What else would I do?It's much easier to go the firm route, and surprisingly hard to exit that track too.

Awesome, awesome website. Highly recommended for anyone looking at law careers:

http://opinionistas.blogspot.com/

[kendoiwan]

It's much easier to go the firm route, and surprisingly hard to exit that track too.

Awesome, awesome website. Highly recommended for anyone looking at law careers:

http://opinionistas.blogspot.com/
interesting read...

[PsiKik]

Here are a couple interesting articles I found dealing with MBTI and lawyers.
The interesting thing is that both were written by former lawyers with perceiving preferences. The lack of J is definitely what sets us apart from typical lawyers, since I,N and T are the most popular for lawyers. The second article is good for anyone considering law school, and might have been written by an INTP.

http://www.altmanweil.com/about/articles/article.cfm?APA_SSID=17&PAID=2&ArticleID=157&PracticeArea=Law%20Firm%20Management&APASub=Organizational%20Psychology

http://lawschoolbound.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/takebook/thetext.htm
The lawschoolbound article had my attention - read most of it. Very interesting, has confirmed some of my suspicions. I am so glad I am not a lawyer - I would not be able to take that kind of stress and deadlines. Also the money/status orientation of the wall street culture described makes me sick.

[afton]

The holy grail of my field? A trial! In front of real, live jurors! There goes the I blood...


Hmm, that is surprising, I though introverts don't like to debate.

[Rajah]

Hmm, that is surprising, I though introverts don't like to debate.They/I don't. That's why I maintain there's no good goal for an INTP in my field. Not only is the chance of going to a trial not a motivator, it's a huge negative.

[joecancer]

They/I don't. That's why I maintain there's no good goal for an INTP in my field. Not only is the chance of going to a trial not a motivator, it's a huge negative.
Yeah, litigation is bad for INTPs. If I stay in law, I need to get into gov't work doing policy or appellate work. Dumpy seems to enjoy his job. If I only I went to a top-tier school, it would probably be much easier.

My conclusion on this whole topic is that an INTP should only go to law school if he or she is totally motivated to succeed there in order to become a govt lawyer, or if he or she got into a top-tier school. We need contemplative, creative jobs. For lawyers, those seem to go to the people from top schools or people from tier-2 schools with awesome grades. I went to a tier-2 school with decent grades, and now I'm stuck with the drones.

[kendoiwan]

They/I don't. That's why I maintain there's no good goal for an INTP in my field. Not only is the chance of going to a trial not a motivator, it's a huge negative.

Objection, overly broad statement... I love a good debate. Live for the good debate...

[Rajah]

Objection, overly board statement... I love a good debate. Live for the good debate...I like to debate in certain small-scale situations -- with my friends, here online, etc. And in law school, I was very active in moot court. That said, I don't feel that for the majority of I's, a trial is something they would look forward to. For example, even though I did well in moot court, I dreaded it. For me, it was never an invigorating thing. I was just trying to overcome my fear of public speaking.

In summary: I's would generally not be motivated by the idea of going to a trial, and the trial is the pinnacle of a litigator's career.

[joecancer]

Yeah, I wouldn't be invigorated by the idea of going to trial. But more depressing to me is having to deal with clients and opposing counsel. That's the stuff you have to do every day, and it is draining. Trials only happen very rarely in my experience.

[Rajah]

Yeah, I wouldn't be invigorated by the idea of going to trial. But more depressing to me is having to deal with clients and opposing counsel. That's the stuff you have to do every day, and it is draining. Trials only happen very rarely in my experience.That's the funny part. People who would be motivated by going to trial are generally going to be disappointed (obviously, I'm limiting this to commercial litigation). Hate to break it to ya, but I know several 7th-year lawyers who've never gone to trial. Because everything settles.

[kendoiwan]

I like to debate in certain small-scale situations -- with my friends, here online, etc. And in law school, I was very active in moot court. That said, I don't feel that for the majority of I's, a trial is something they would look forward to. For example, even though I did well in moot court, I dreaded it. For me, it was never an invigorating thing. I was just trying to overcome my fear of public speaking.

In summary: I's would generally not be motivated by the idea of going to a trial, and the trial is the pinnacle of a litigator's career.


I don't dread public speaking although I'm selective in when i choose to speak. But debating always brings me out of my reserve. Either side of the arguement too. The challenge of wits just does it for me...That's why I have such a thing for Condi Rice, you can tell she doesn't even buy what she's selling, but she's being the anti-T.O.

[kendoiwan]

Did pretty fucking good on my lsat btw... now if only i had studied. :whistle:

[Rajah]

I don't dread public speaking although I'm selective in when i choose to speak. But debating always brings me out of my reserve. Either side of the arguement too. The challenge of wits just does it for me...That's why I have such a thing for Condi Rice, you can tell she doesn't even buy what she's selling, but she's being the anti-T.O.Maybe you'll like moot court.

I did well on my LSAT too. I took it on a whim. I was in a Ph.D. program and I figured if I sucked on the LSAT, I'd just keep going with the Ph.D. I was utterly relaxed about it -- which was odd b/c some people around me who'd dreamed of being lawyers since they were 3 were about to pass out. I saw some people crying during the test.

[kendoiwan]

Maybe you'll like moot court.

I did well on my LSAT too. I took it on a whim. I was in a Ph.D. program and I figured if I sucked on the LSAT, I'd just keep going with the Ph.D. I was utterly relaxed about it -- which was odd b/c some people around me who'd dreamed of being lawyers since they were 3 were about to pass out. I saw some people crying during the test.


I have recently come to grips with the reality that abstract thinking just isn't in everyones bag of tricks... I walked in knowing how it would go and it went the way i anticipated it would... now if only i had studied. Or to be more precise if only i had studied in the 4 months before i had taken it...

[Rajah]

I have recently come to grips with the reality that abstract thinking just isn't in everyones bag of tricks... I walked in knowing how it would go and it went the way i anticipated it would... now if only i had studied. Or to be more precise if only i had studied in the 4 months before i had taken it...I'm a bit of an odd bird (duh). I like standardized tests, and even find them sorta fun. It's also how I scored a full ride to college.

They're silly things. I did like the puzzle section of the LSAT... It was like working on a Games magazine.

[joecancer]

I didn't study at all for the lsat. got a 157. not great, but decent. I wish I had studied, because I probably would have gotten into a better school.
I didn't study very much my first 1.5 years of law school, and got a 3.0
my last 1.5 years, I studied a good amount, and got around a 3.7. I got As in every class I studied very hard for.
Law school is not hard. Everyone freaks out first year because they're not sure if they're too dumb to be there in the first place.
As an INTP, you know that if you do the work, you will get excellent grades. The only trouble is dong the work.

[kendoiwan]

157 without study is awesome only 23 points off the top score... i know people who studied and won't speak of their grades. I pulled a 158 btw

[kendoiwan]

I'm a bit of an odd bird (duh). I like standardized tests, and even find them sorta fun. It's also how I scored a full ride to college.

They're silly things. I did like the puzzle section of the LSAT... It was like working on a Games magazine.


Ditto on the standardize test(I always say if i could make a living taking test I'd be a wealthy man), execept i didn't care for the puzzle section. Not that I can't do em, but I can't work it all out in the time limit. Waxwing is a whiz at em tho'. Still IC's reigning champ

[joecancer]

I didn't care for the puzzle section either. I remember getting angry during that part.

I shouldn't say I didn't study at all for the lsat. I bought a book, and I'm pretty sure I looked at it a couple of times. I definitely didn't do any practice tests though. I just remember feeling very guilty about not studying. That guilt stayed with me throughout law school, and remains to this day.

when I said I got As in every class I studied very hard for, that was one class- criminal procedure. definitely my favorite substantive class in law school. I wanted to see if I could get an A in a big class if I studied like all the Js for once. So then I knew I could, and went back to slacking. My only other As were in legal writing, and a bunch of philosophy-of-the-law classes that renewed my interest in the law. They were pretty much blowoffs for most, but I actually did the work. It wasn't much work, though.

[MacGuffin]

Like Rajah I do very well on standardized tests.

On the LSAT, I got something like 17...2? Not sure.

Strange thing was is I did some practicing before and could never finish the puzzle sections on time. First time was when I actually took the damn thing.

[Rajah]

On the LSAT, I got something like 17...2? Not sure.I pulled a 165. I'm curious where you went to law school. With a 172, I suspect it could have been anywhere.

[joecancer]

http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/d2blog.html

Here's an interesting article about that Opinionista blogger Rajah was talking about.

[kendoiwan]

Like Rajah I do very well on standardized tests.

On the LSAT, I got something like 17...2? Not sure.

Strange thing was is I did some practicing before and could never finish the puzzle sections on time. First time was when I actually took the damn thing.


How dare you prepare! I'm disappointed in you Mac :shock:

[MacGuffin]

I pulled a 165. I'm curious where you went to law school. With a 172, I suspect it could have been anywhere.Ah yes, but then you haven't seen my I-don't-want-to-be-an-engineer-oh-God-I-have-three-more-years-of-this grades!

[Rajah]

Ah yes, but then you haven't seen my I-don't-want-to-be-an-engineer-oh-God-I-have-three-more-years-of-this grades!You haven't seen my law school grades. Of course, I spent more time playing Super Smash Brothers than attending class...

[afton]

Why anyone says it's fit for an INTP is beyond me. Liars.

I thought so too. An "INTP lawyer" seems to be an oxymoronic term to me,
save for the very small minority who puzzlingly do enjoy being a lawyer.
I was wondering - why did you go to the law school in the first place?
- Did you have a different expectation before?

[Rajah]

I thought so too. An "INTP lawyer" seems to be an oxymoronic term to me,
save for the very small minority who puzzlingly do enjoy being a lawyer.
I was wondering - why did you go to the law school in the first place?
- Did you have a different expectation before?When I decided to check out law schools, I was in a Ph.D. program. I was unhappy in the program, and had no clear idea of what my future would be. So I made a bad choice. On a whim, I took the LSAT and applied to law schools. I figured at worst I'd stay in my Ph.D. program, and if I got in to law school, I'd go.

My theory? I was sick of looking for a path, so law school was a way of forcing me to finally choose a career. Basically, I was tired of indecision. Bad logic. Well, actually, decent logic, but I never factored in whether or not law was something I really wanted to do and whether the subject was a good fit. I'd always been a good employee, did well in school, yada yada, so I figured a career in law would be fine -- I'd do well like I always did. I liked getting into debates, felt passionate about cases I'd heard about... but none of this translated into the actual practice of law. So, yes, I had no clue what law really entailed. It's a very poor fit for me.

[afton]

When I decided to check out law schools, I was in a Ph.D. program. I was unhappy in the program, and had no clear idea of what my future would be.

What Ph.D program?
and btw I'm too atm, not sure about what I want to do with my life,
career-wise.