The idea that punishment can be therapeutic is not unique to the Rotenberg Center. In fact, this notion is widespread among the hundreds of "emotional growth boarding schools," wilderness camps, and "tough love" antidrug programs that make up the billion-dollar teen residential treatment industry.
This harsh approach to helping troubled teens has a long and disturbing history. No fewer than 50 programs (though not the Rotenberg Center) can trace their treatment philosophy, directly or indirectly, to an antidrug cult called Synanon. Founded in 1958, Synanon sold itself as a cure for hardcore heroin addicts who could help each other by "breaking" new initiates with isolation, humiliation, hard labor, and sleep deprivation.
Today, troubled-teen programs use Synanon-like tactics, advertising themselves to parents as solutions for everything from poor study habits to substance misuse. However, there is little evidence that harsh behavior-modification techniques can solve these problems. Studies found that Synanon's "encounter groups" could produce lasting psychological harm and that only 10 to 15 percent of the addicts who participated in them recovered. And as the classic 1971 Stanford prison experiment demonstrated, creating situations in which the severe treatment of powerless people is rewarded inevitably yields abuse. This is especially true when punishment is viewed as a healing process. Synanon was discredited in the late 1970s and 1980s as its violent record was exposed. (The group is now remembered for an incident in which a member placed a live rattlesnake—rattle removed—in the mailbox of a lawyer who'd successfully sued it.) Yet by the time Synanon shut down in 1991, its model had already been widely copied.
In 1971, the federal government gave a grant to a Florida organization called The Seed, which applied Synanon's methods to teenagers, even those only suspected of trying drugs. In 1974, Congress opened an investigation into such behavior-modification programs, finding that The Seed had used methods "similar to the highly refined brainwashing techniques employed by the North Koreans."
The bad publicity led some supporters of The Seed to create a copycat organization under a different name. Straight Inc. was cofounded by Mel Sembler, a Bush family friend who would become the gop's 2000 finance chair and who heads Lewis "Scooter" Libby's legal defense fund. By the mid-'80s, Straight was operating in seven states. First Lady Nancy Reagan declared it her favorite antidrug program. As with The Seed, abuse was omnipresent—including beatings and kidnapping of adult participants. Facing seven-figure legal judgments, it closed in 1993.
But loopholes in state laws and a lack of federal oversight allowed shuttered programs to simply change their names and reopen, often with the same staff, in the same state—even in the same building. Straight spin-offs like the Pathway Family Center are still in business.
Confrontation and humiliation are also used by religious programs such as Escuela Caribe in the Dominican Republic and myriad "emotional growth boarding schools" affiliated with the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (wwasp), such as Tranquility Bay in Jamaica. wwasp's president told me that the organization "took a little bit of what Synanon [did]." Lobbying by well-connected supporters such as wwasp founder Robert Lichfield (who, like Sembler, is a fundraiser for Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney) has kept state regulators at bay and blocked federal regulation entirely.
By the '90s, tough love had spawned military-style boot camps and wilderness programs that thrust kids into extreme survival scenarios. At least three dozen teens have died in these programs, often because staff see medical complaints as malingering. This May, a 15-year-old boy died from a staph infection at a Colorado wilderness program. His family claims his pleas for help were ignored. In his final letter to his mother, he wrote, "They found my weakness and I want to go home."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/how_a_cult_spawned_the_tough_love_teen_industry.html
Friday, September 7, 2007
Buyer Beware: What You Need To Know About Lawyer Advertising
You need to know a few things about lawyer advertising. For example, if you look through the yellow pages you'll see that the ads placed by attorneys all say essentially the same thing. Very few of them actually give good useful information to make it easier for you to choose a good lawyer for your case. Although the yellow pages are a good place to get names of attorneys, you need to be aware of the following points when it comes to lawyer advertising:
**There is no rule which requires that the lawyer have a minimum amount of experience handling the case which the lawyer wants to advertise.
**Although the bar association has rules that govern lawyer advertising, it usually does not actively investigate, restrict or determine whether each lawyer who advertises is a specialist or has experience with the type of case being advertised. This means a lawyer can advertise that she is a "divorce lawyer" or "personal injury attorney"¨ when that lawyer may have limited experience or knowledge of that area of the law.
**There are virtually no restrictions on the different types of law that the lawyer wants to advertise. Therefore, you should be extremely careful about choosing an attorney based solely on that attorney's advertising claim, whether the ad is in the phone book or on television.
**Any attorney can buy a big slick ad in the yellow pages. The phone book company typically does not verify the claims that are being made in the ad. In many cases the phone book company does not even verify that the person is a licensed attorney in good standing! Use caution.
**A lawyer who advertises does not mean that that lawyer will be handling your case. Some lawyers simply run advertisements and then refer outmost or all of the clients to other lawyers to do the work in exchange for a referral fee. Such a lawyer essentially acts like a referral broker. Be especially cautious of ads placed by out of state attorneys. Because of state licensing requirements, these attorneys will usually have to refer the case to a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in Washington.
**A lawyer who purchases full page ads in the yellow pages, or pays for slick T.V. commercials, does not necessarily mean that the lawyer is super successful. Some lawyers who pay for such advertising operate a "volume practice" for the purpose of making just a little money on the numerous cases that are generated from the ad. Many times a "volume practice" attorney tries to settle all or most of the cases to earn the most amount of money in the least amount of time. The only time you may see this lawyer is if his face appears in the ad!
**Some lawyers who run big ads to fill their "volume practices" will rarely even work on a case. These lawyers farm out every aspect of the case to a paralegal or legal assistant. The only time the lawyer may even look at your case is after it has settled and the lawyer wants to collect his fee!
**Be cautious of lawyer ads that create unjustified expectations. For example, if the lawyer advertises that he can obtain "Fast Settlements in 30 Days" he probably never goes to trial and settles cases for far less than what they are actually worth. In most cases, good settlements take time and effort.
**Sometimes the lawyer's advertising can negatively affect your own case. If your case goes to trial and jurors recognize your lawyer from his advertising, it may undermine your lawyer's credibility during trial. Do you want jurors to remember your lawyer as the one who can get BIG MONEY DAMAGES or FAST SETTLEMENTS $$$ for pain and suffering?? Jurors watch television, too, you know.
Lawyer TV Ads: A word to the wise Did you know that there are companies that offer prewritten and pre-shot TV commercials for personal injury attorneys? You've probably seen one. Sometimes a famous actor is used (like Robert Vaughan, William Shatner or Eric Estrada). Other times an attractive man or woman is shown speaking behind a desk or holding a legal book or doing something else to act like a lawyer. The person says something like, ¡§If you've been in an accident, get the money you deserve. Speak to an attorney for free. Call 1-800-XXXXXXX.¡¨ What you need to know is that many times your call is routed to a call center that randomly sends your call to the next attorney ¡§in line.¡¨ The next one "in line" is an attorney who has actually paid a hefty fee to be on the ¡§list.¡¨ Any attorney with enough money can pay to be on the list, including attorneys who have never tried a case in court. Many times the attorney who has paid the fee is not necessarily the most experienced lawyer for your case. Now I'm not saying that all attorneys who use TV advertising are inexperienced. But you should not rely on TV advertising alone when choosing a lawyer. Just a word to the wise.
Case Study: T.V. Personal Injury Lawyer Fails Client
Here's a sad story about a lawyer who advertised on T.V. in Rochester, New York. The attorney, Jim Schapiro, ran aggressive T.V. commercials which promised to obtain large financial settlements for victims, referred to himself as "the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. in town" and claimed to have aggressive courtroom prowess. Schapiro, who called himself "The Hammer" had law offices in the states of New York and Florida.
In 2002, one of Schapiro's clients, Christopher Wagner, sued Schapiro for malpractice. Mr. Wagner had been injured in a car accident and had responded to one of Mr. Schapiro's television ads. Mr. Wagner alleged that he had incurred medical bills of $182,000 but that Schapiro's firm advised him to accept a settlement of only $65,000 from the driver and then promised that he could get more money by filing suit against the state of New York. It turned out that the state had no liability for the accident and Schapiro never pursued Mr. Wagner's case further.
In a video deposition, Jim Schapiro testified that he had never tried a personal injury case in court and that he had been living in Florida for the last seven years. Mr. Wagner's attorney also discovered that Schapiro's Rochester law firm staffed just one lawyer who had only tried four cases. A New York jury found that Schapiro had engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising and that he committed malpractice. Schapiro was ordered to pay $1.5 million to Wagner.
Consequently, in 2004 Schapiro was suspended for practicing law for one year by the State of New York. In 2005, Schapiro was then suspended from practicing law in Florida for one year. In 2004, four additional clients sued Schapiro alleging that he had engaged in misleading advertising and had committed malpractice. Thereafter Schapiro stopped practicing law and instead now writes books for injury victims.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Buyer-Beware--What-You-Need-To-Know-About-Lawyer-Advertising/283902
**There is no rule which requires that the lawyer have a minimum amount of experience handling the case which the lawyer wants to advertise.
**Although the bar association has rules that govern lawyer advertising, it usually does not actively investigate, restrict or determine whether each lawyer who advertises is a specialist or has experience with the type of case being advertised. This means a lawyer can advertise that she is a "divorce lawyer" or "personal injury attorney"¨ when that lawyer may have limited experience or knowledge of that area of the law.
**There are virtually no restrictions on the different types of law that the lawyer wants to advertise. Therefore, you should be extremely careful about choosing an attorney based solely on that attorney's advertising claim, whether the ad is in the phone book or on television.
**Any attorney can buy a big slick ad in the yellow pages. The phone book company typically does not verify the claims that are being made in the ad. In many cases the phone book company does not even verify that the person is a licensed attorney in good standing! Use caution.
**A lawyer who advertises does not mean that that lawyer will be handling your case. Some lawyers simply run advertisements and then refer outmost or all of the clients to other lawyers to do the work in exchange for a referral fee. Such a lawyer essentially acts like a referral broker. Be especially cautious of ads placed by out of state attorneys. Because of state licensing requirements, these attorneys will usually have to refer the case to a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in Washington.
**A lawyer who purchases full page ads in the yellow pages, or pays for slick T.V. commercials, does not necessarily mean that the lawyer is super successful. Some lawyers who pay for such advertising operate a "volume practice" for the purpose of making just a little money on the numerous cases that are generated from the ad. Many times a "volume practice" attorney tries to settle all or most of the cases to earn the most amount of money in the least amount of time. The only time you may see this lawyer is if his face appears in the ad!
**Some lawyers who run big ads to fill their "volume practices" will rarely even work on a case. These lawyers farm out every aspect of the case to a paralegal or legal assistant. The only time the lawyer may even look at your case is after it has settled and the lawyer wants to collect his fee!
**Be cautious of lawyer ads that create unjustified expectations. For example, if the lawyer advertises that he can obtain "Fast Settlements in 30 Days" he probably never goes to trial and settles cases for far less than what they are actually worth. In most cases, good settlements take time and effort.
**Sometimes the lawyer's advertising can negatively affect your own case. If your case goes to trial and jurors recognize your lawyer from his advertising, it may undermine your lawyer's credibility during trial. Do you want jurors to remember your lawyer as the one who can get BIG MONEY DAMAGES or FAST SETTLEMENTS $$$ for pain and suffering?? Jurors watch television, too, you know.
Lawyer TV Ads: A word to the wise Did you know that there are companies that offer prewritten and pre-shot TV commercials for personal injury attorneys? You've probably seen one. Sometimes a famous actor is used (like Robert Vaughan, William Shatner or Eric Estrada). Other times an attractive man or woman is shown speaking behind a desk or holding a legal book or doing something else to act like a lawyer. The person says something like, ¡§If you've been in an accident, get the money you deserve. Speak to an attorney for free. Call 1-800-XXXXXXX.¡¨ What you need to know is that many times your call is routed to a call center that randomly sends your call to the next attorney ¡§in line.¡¨ The next one "in line" is an attorney who has actually paid a hefty fee to be on the ¡§list.¡¨ Any attorney with enough money can pay to be on the list, including attorneys who have never tried a case in court. Many times the attorney who has paid the fee is not necessarily the most experienced lawyer for your case. Now I'm not saying that all attorneys who use TV advertising are inexperienced. But you should not rely on TV advertising alone when choosing a lawyer. Just a word to the wise.
Case Study: T.V. Personal Injury Lawyer Fails Client
Here's a sad story about a lawyer who advertised on T.V. in Rochester, New York. The attorney, Jim Schapiro, ran aggressive T.V. commercials which promised to obtain large financial settlements for victims, referred to himself as "the meanest, nastiest S.O.B. in town" and claimed to have aggressive courtroom prowess. Schapiro, who called himself "The Hammer" had law offices in the states of New York and Florida.
In 2002, one of Schapiro's clients, Christopher Wagner, sued Schapiro for malpractice. Mr. Wagner had been injured in a car accident and had responded to one of Mr. Schapiro's television ads. Mr. Wagner alleged that he had incurred medical bills of $182,000 but that Schapiro's firm advised him to accept a settlement of only $65,000 from the driver and then promised that he could get more money by filing suit against the state of New York. It turned out that the state had no liability for the accident and Schapiro never pursued Mr. Wagner's case further.
In a video deposition, Jim Schapiro testified that he had never tried a personal injury case in court and that he had been living in Florida for the last seven years. Mr. Wagner's attorney also discovered that Schapiro's Rochester law firm staffed just one lawyer who had only tried four cases. A New York jury found that Schapiro had engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising and that he committed malpractice. Schapiro was ordered to pay $1.5 million to Wagner.
Consequently, in 2004 Schapiro was suspended for practicing law for one year by the State of New York. In 2005, Schapiro was then suspended from practicing law in Florida for one year. In 2004, four additional clients sued Schapiro alleging that he had engaged in misleading advertising and had committed malpractice. Thereafter Schapiro stopped practicing law and instead now writes books for injury victims.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Buyer-Beware--What-You-Need-To-Know-About-Lawyer-Advertising/283902
Libby Defense Lawyer: Scooter Scapegoated, Culprit is Karl
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, a dreary beige building in view of the Capitol, has seen its share of Washington scandals. The Watergate conspirators were tried here during the '70s, as was Oliver North, among other Iran-Contra figures, during the '80s. The late '90s brought the Lewinsky scandal and with it a press frenzy unlike any this court had ever seen. The plaza in front of the courthouse, then home to a huge media encampment, is still referred to as "Monica beach." This morning, with opening arguments set to begin in Scooter Libby's high-profile perjury and obstruction of justice case, Monica beach was a faint echo of its former self, with only a handful of reporters milling around a stand of TV cameras that were positioned to face the front of the courthouse. The real action was inside, where reporters, who had been confined to a makeshift press room during the 4-day jury selection process, massed in the hallway outside Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom awaiting the start of the trial.
Anticipating the media horde expected to attend, court officials have taken pains to bring some order to the inevitable mayhem, requiring journalists to apply for credentials to cover the trial and setting up an overflow room, where members of the public and the press can view the proceedings on a closed circuit feed. The proceedings are also viewable from the downstairs press gallery, where I've set up shop. Seated next to me is David Corn of The Nation, who is, somewhat ironically, the reporter who first spotlighted the leak of Valerie Plame's covert status in a July 16, 2003 article, raising the question of whether the leak had flouted the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But, as Judge Walton stressed this morning, this case has nothing to do with whether the disclosure of Plame’s identity broke the law. "What her actual status was and whether any damage would result from the disclosure of that status are totally irrelevant," he cautioned jurors. Rather, the case turns on the very narrow question of whether Libby lied to FBI investigators and a federal grand jury about his role in the leak.
In an opening statement that went on for more than an hour, Fitzgerald laid out his case against Libby, reconstructing the events leading up to and following the leak — events that first began to unfold, he told jurors, on January 28, 2003, long before Robert Novak's July 14 column outing Plame. That was the day when President Bush delivered his State of the Union address and made the case for war with Iraq, including the infamous 16 words alleging that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Everything that transpired afterward, he said, flowed from that claim.
Fitzgerald zeroed in on conversations, centering on Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson, that took place between Libby and five administration officials in June 2003. These discussions seriously undercut Libby's claim to investigators that he believed he first heard about Plame and her role at the CIA from reporters, in particular NBC's Tim Russert. At one point, Fitzgerald played the audio from Libby's grand jury testimony, in which he says, with apparent confidence, that Russert told him on July 10 "that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA. And I was a little taken aback by that.... And I said 'no, I don't know that'... because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known." (Russert, for his part, has said that this conversation, as Libby recalls it, never took place.) As Fitzgerald put it, "You can't learn something startling on Thursday that you were giving out on Monday and Tuesday."
Even though it seems pretty clear that Libby's statements to the grand jury are at odds with evidence that Fitzgerald has compiled, his lawyers will try to cast doubt on whether Libby lied, or, rather, failed to correctly recollect the details of conversations he'd had months before. "Scooter Libby is innocent," defense lawyer Ted Wells said in his opening statement. "He is totally innocent. He did not commit perjury. He did not commit obstruction of justice. He did not give any false statements to the FBI. He is an innocent man and he has been falsely accused." Wells also sought to call the strength of Fitzgerald's case into question, saying, "This is a weak, paper-thin, superficial case about he-said she-said. No witnesses. No documents. No scientific evidence." More than a few times, Wells invoked a line that is clearly the mantra of Libby's defense: "This about words. This is about recollection. This about memory: Three calls. Three reporters. Three months later."
Wells did not dispute that Libby may have made false statements to investigators, nor did he contest the fact that there had been a White House campaign to discredit Joe Wilson, saying that "some people at the White House... pushed reporters to write stories about Ms. Wilson." He added, "but Scooter Libby did not push any reporters to write a story about Ms. Wilson." Rather, Wells portrayed Libby as a scapegoat for another White House official (the man truly responsible for the leak, according to Wells), none other than "the architect" himself, Karl Rove. To this end, Wells produced a note allegedly penned by the vice president after a meeting with Libby held during the height of the Plame controversy in July 2003: "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others," the note read. "That one staffer was Karl Rove," Wells said. (The "meat grinder," by the way, appears to be Wells' euphemism for the press -- and the fact that Libby was forced to run damage control over the veracity of the Niger claim.) Before this trial is over, we're expected to hear directly from the vice president, who will testify in Libby's defense. Will he, too, blame Karl Rove?
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/01/libby_one.html
Anticipating the media horde expected to attend, court officials have taken pains to bring some order to the inevitable mayhem, requiring journalists to apply for credentials to cover the trial and setting up an overflow room, where members of the public and the press can view the proceedings on a closed circuit feed. The proceedings are also viewable from the downstairs press gallery, where I've set up shop. Seated next to me is David Corn of The Nation, who is, somewhat ironically, the reporter who first spotlighted the leak of Valerie Plame's covert status in a July 16, 2003 article, raising the question of whether the leak had flouted the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But, as Judge Walton stressed this morning, this case has nothing to do with whether the disclosure of Plame’s identity broke the law. "What her actual status was and whether any damage would result from the disclosure of that status are totally irrelevant," he cautioned jurors. Rather, the case turns on the very narrow question of whether Libby lied to FBI investigators and a federal grand jury about his role in the leak.
In an opening statement that went on for more than an hour, Fitzgerald laid out his case against Libby, reconstructing the events leading up to and following the leak — events that first began to unfold, he told jurors, on January 28, 2003, long before Robert Novak's July 14 column outing Plame. That was the day when President Bush delivered his State of the Union address and made the case for war with Iraq, including the infamous 16 words alleging that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. Everything that transpired afterward, he said, flowed from that claim.
Fitzgerald zeroed in on conversations, centering on Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson, that took place between Libby and five administration officials in June 2003. These discussions seriously undercut Libby's claim to investigators that he believed he first heard about Plame and her role at the CIA from reporters, in particular NBC's Tim Russert. At one point, Fitzgerald played the audio from Libby's grand jury testimony, in which he says, with apparent confidence, that Russert told him on July 10 "that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA. And I was a little taken aback by that.... And I said 'no, I don't know that'... because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known." (Russert, for his part, has said that this conversation, as Libby recalls it, never took place.) As Fitzgerald put it, "You can't learn something startling on Thursday that you were giving out on Monday and Tuesday."
Even though it seems pretty clear that Libby's statements to the grand jury are at odds with evidence that Fitzgerald has compiled, his lawyers will try to cast doubt on whether Libby lied, or, rather, failed to correctly recollect the details of conversations he'd had months before. "Scooter Libby is innocent," defense lawyer Ted Wells said in his opening statement. "He is totally innocent. He did not commit perjury. He did not commit obstruction of justice. He did not give any false statements to the FBI. He is an innocent man and he has been falsely accused." Wells also sought to call the strength of Fitzgerald's case into question, saying, "This is a weak, paper-thin, superficial case about he-said she-said. No witnesses. No documents. No scientific evidence." More than a few times, Wells invoked a line that is clearly the mantra of Libby's defense: "This about words. This is about recollection. This about memory: Three calls. Three reporters. Three months later."
Wells did not dispute that Libby may have made false statements to investigators, nor did he contest the fact that there had been a White House campaign to discredit Joe Wilson, saying that "some people at the White House... pushed reporters to write stories about Ms. Wilson." He added, "but Scooter Libby did not push any reporters to write a story about Ms. Wilson." Rather, Wells portrayed Libby as a scapegoat for another White House official (the man truly responsible for the leak, according to Wells), none other than "the architect" himself, Karl Rove. To this end, Wells produced a note allegedly penned by the vice president after a meeting with Libby held during the height of the Plame controversy in July 2003: "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others," the note read. "That one staffer was Karl Rove," Wells said. (The "meat grinder," by the way, appears to be Wells' euphemism for the press -- and the fact that Libby was forced to run damage control over the veracity of the Niger claim.) Before this trial is over, we're expected to hear directly from the vice president, who will testify in Libby's defense. Will he, too, blame Karl Rove?
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/01/libby_one.html
What Does It Take To Be A Lawyer?
When you see all these handsome Lawyers in TV series like LA Law, sitting in their fancy offices, driving these flashy cars, have you ever realized what they have been through in terms of time, years of education, money, Certifications etc’.
Let me Describe to you the Lawyers course of training. Formal educational requirements for lawyers include a 4-year college degree, 3 years in law school, and the passing of a written bar examination.
Competition for admission to most law schools is intense. prospective lawyers should develop proficiency in writing and speaking, reading, researching, analyzing, and thinking logically—skills needed to succeed both in law school and in the profession.
Regardless of major, a multidisciplinary background is recommended. Courses in English, foreign languages, public speaking, government, philosophy, history, economics, mathematics, and computer science, among others, are useful. Students interested in a particular aspect of law may find related courses helpful. For example, prospective patent lawyers need a strong background in engineering or science, and future tax lawyers must have extensive knowledge of accounting.
Acceptance by most law schools depends on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate an aptitude for the study of law, usually through good undergraduate grades, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), the quality of the applicant’s undergraduate school, any prior work experience, and, sometimes, a personal interview.
During the first year or year and a half of law school, students usually study core courses, such as constitutional law, contracts, property law, torts, civil procedure, and legal writing. In the remaining time, they may elect specialized courses in fields such as tax, labor, or corporate law. Law students often acquire practical experience by participating in school-sponsored legal clinic activities; in the school’s moot court competitions, in which students conduct appellate arguments; in practice trials under the supervision of experienced lawyers and judges; and through research and writing on legal issues for the school’s law journal.
Law school graduates receive the degree of juris doctor (J.D.) as the first professional degree. Advanced law degrees may be desirable for those planning to specialize, research, or teach. Some law students pursue joint degree programs, which usually require an additional semester or year of study. Joint degree programs are offered in a number of areas, including law and business administration or public administration.
After graduation, lawyers must keep informed about legal and nonlegal developments that affect their practice. Currently, 40 States and jurisdictions mandate continuing legal education (CLE). Many law schools and State and local bar associations provide continuing education courses that help lawyers stay abreast of recent developments.
The practice of law involves a great deal of responsibility. Individuals planning careers in law should like to work with people and be able to win the respect and confidence of their clients, associates, and the public. Perseverance, creativity, and reasoning ability also are essential to lawyers, who often analyze complex cases and handle new and unique legal problems.
Lawyers held about 695,000 jobs in 2002. About 3 out of 4 lawyers practiced privately, either in law firms or in solo practices. Most of the remaining lawyers held positions in government and with corporations and nonprofit organizations.
(Source: www.bls.gov).
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/What-does-it-take-to-be-a-Lawyer-/5593
Let me Describe to you the Lawyers course of training. Formal educational requirements for lawyers include a 4-year college degree, 3 years in law school, and the passing of a written bar examination.
Competition for admission to most law schools is intense. prospective lawyers should develop proficiency in writing and speaking, reading, researching, analyzing, and thinking logically—skills needed to succeed both in law school and in the profession.
Regardless of major, a multidisciplinary background is recommended. Courses in English, foreign languages, public speaking, government, philosophy, history, economics, mathematics, and computer science, among others, are useful. Students interested in a particular aspect of law may find related courses helpful. For example, prospective patent lawyers need a strong background in engineering or science, and future tax lawyers must have extensive knowledge of accounting.
Acceptance by most law schools depends on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate an aptitude for the study of law, usually through good undergraduate grades, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), the quality of the applicant’s undergraduate school, any prior work experience, and, sometimes, a personal interview.
During the first year or year and a half of law school, students usually study core courses, such as constitutional law, contracts, property law, torts, civil procedure, and legal writing. In the remaining time, they may elect specialized courses in fields such as tax, labor, or corporate law. Law students often acquire practical experience by participating in school-sponsored legal clinic activities; in the school’s moot court competitions, in which students conduct appellate arguments; in practice trials under the supervision of experienced lawyers and judges; and through research and writing on legal issues for the school’s law journal.
Law school graduates receive the degree of juris doctor (J.D.) as the first professional degree. Advanced law degrees may be desirable for those planning to specialize, research, or teach. Some law students pursue joint degree programs, which usually require an additional semester or year of study. Joint degree programs are offered in a number of areas, including law and business administration or public administration.
After graduation, lawyers must keep informed about legal and nonlegal developments that affect their practice. Currently, 40 States and jurisdictions mandate continuing legal education (CLE). Many law schools and State and local bar associations provide continuing education courses that help lawyers stay abreast of recent developments.
The practice of law involves a great deal of responsibility. Individuals planning careers in law should like to work with people and be able to win the respect and confidence of their clients, associates, and the public. Perseverance, creativity, and reasoning ability also are essential to lawyers, who often analyze complex cases and handle new and unique legal problems.
Lawyers held about 695,000 jobs in 2002. About 3 out of 4 lawyers practiced privately, either in law firms or in solo practices. Most of the remaining lawyers held positions in government and with corporations and nonprofit organizations.
(Source: www.bls.gov).
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/What-does-it-take-to-be-a-Lawyer-/5593
Mesothelioma: Do You Need A Lawyer?
MESOTHELIOMA: DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?
If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the last five years, you may wish to meet with an attorney to discuss your legal rights. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consider this option. If you have a loved one who is deceased because of mesothelioma, their spouse or an executor of the estate should also consider legal representation. There are different avenues to consider regarding representation and the possibilities of obtaining compensation. We believe it is important that you choose representation by a firm that is exclusively devoted to mesothelioma claims. We believe you should choose a firm that has years of experience and a proven track record with mesothelioma claims. Some people do not want to file a lawsuit. For such people, they may want to know that a number of companies have filed for bankruptcy protection and have established bankruptcy trusts that pay smaller amounts to mesothelioma victims. Sometimes, if it is too late to file a lawsuit or if the mesothelioma victim is strongly opposed to filing a lawsuit, we can recover some compensation by filing claims with bankruptcy trusts. This is a decision that should not be made quickly and should only be made after consultation with an experienced legal representative.
STATUTES OF LIMITATION
All states have statutes of limitation that provide that a claim is barred if it is not timely filed. Some states require that a claim must be filed within one year of the date of diagnosis, while other states provide that the individual has as long as five years from the date of diagnosis. This not only varies from state to state, but sometimes varies depending upon the state of exposure or where the lawsuit is filed. It may be necessary, if some period of time has expired after the date of diagnosis, to file the claim in a different jurisdiction to avoid the running of the state of limitations. As a general rule, it is always better to get the process moving as quickly as possible to avoid any potential issues with a statute of limitations.
WHERE WILL THE LAWSUIT BE FILED?
A lawsuit will not necessarily be filed in the state where you live. Some jurisdictions are more liberal in awarding substantial jury awards. If you or your loved one live in a state where juries tend to be more conservative, it might make sense to discuss bringing the case in an alternative jurisdiction. Oftentimes cases can be brought in another state where there was exposure or where a defendant may be located or incorporated. If there is a potential problem with the statute of limitations in the state where you live, the problem can sometimes be avoided by filing in another state. This should only be decided after meeting with your legal representative.
DO I HAVE TO GO TO COURT?
Typically, we can do all of the work on your case in or near your home. If your deposition is taken, this can also be done in your home or in a conference room near your home. Only if the case is not settled, might you have to be present in court for any period of time. Even if your case goes before a jury, you generally only need be present for a small portion of the trial.In the overwhelming percentage of these cases, however, settlements will be reached prior to the trial date. Because of this, it is always best to hire experienced counsel with a track record of success. Experienced counsel who have obtained substantial awards in the past may be more likely to obtain significant settlement offers from the defendants prior to going to trial.
WHAT IS YOUR NEXT STEP?
Because mesothelioma cases have become more lucrative, the number of law firms that are seeking mesothelioma cases are on the increase. You may encounter lawyers that you know who now claim to be interested in taking your case. It is important to have experienced legal representation from lawyers who have experience negotiating settlements in mesothelioma cases.If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the last five years, talk to an experienced mesothelioma lawyer to discuss your legal rights today.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Mesothelioma--Do-you-need-a-lawyer-/223521
If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the last five years, you may wish to meet with an attorney to discuss your legal rights. Anyone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma should consider this option. If you have a loved one who is deceased because of mesothelioma, their spouse or an executor of the estate should also consider legal representation. There are different avenues to consider regarding representation and the possibilities of obtaining compensation. We believe it is important that you choose representation by a firm that is exclusively devoted to mesothelioma claims. We believe you should choose a firm that has years of experience and a proven track record with mesothelioma claims. Some people do not want to file a lawsuit. For such people, they may want to know that a number of companies have filed for bankruptcy protection and have established bankruptcy trusts that pay smaller amounts to mesothelioma victims. Sometimes, if it is too late to file a lawsuit or if the mesothelioma victim is strongly opposed to filing a lawsuit, we can recover some compensation by filing claims with bankruptcy trusts. This is a decision that should not be made quickly and should only be made after consultation with an experienced legal representative.
STATUTES OF LIMITATION
All states have statutes of limitation that provide that a claim is barred if it is not timely filed. Some states require that a claim must be filed within one year of the date of diagnosis, while other states provide that the individual has as long as five years from the date of diagnosis. This not only varies from state to state, but sometimes varies depending upon the state of exposure or where the lawsuit is filed. It may be necessary, if some period of time has expired after the date of diagnosis, to file the claim in a different jurisdiction to avoid the running of the state of limitations. As a general rule, it is always better to get the process moving as quickly as possible to avoid any potential issues with a statute of limitations.
WHERE WILL THE LAWSUIT BE FILED?
A lawsuit will not necessarily be filed in the state where you live. Some jurisdictions are more liberal in awarding substantial jury awards. If you or your loved one live in a state where juries tend to be more conservative, it might make sense to discuss bringing the case in an alternative jurisdiction. Oftentimes cases can be brought in another state where there was exposure or where a defendant may be located or incorporated. If there is a potential problem with the statute of limitations in the state where you live, the problem can sometimes be avoided by filing in another state. This should only be decided after meeting with your legal representative.
DO I HAVE TO GO TO COURT?
Typically, we can do all of the work on your case in or near your home. If your deposition is taken, this can also be done in your home or in a conference room near your home. Only if the case is not settled, might you have to be present in court for any period of time. Even if your case goes before a jury, you generally only need be present for a small portion of the trial.In the overwhelming percentage of these cases, however, settlements will be reached prior to the trial date. Because of this, it is always best to hire experienced counsel with a track record of success. Experienced counsel who have obtained substantial awards in the past may be more likely to obtain significant settlement offers from the defendants prior to going to trial.
WHAT IS YOUR NEXT STEP?
Because mesothelioma cases have become more lucrative, the number of law firms that are seeking mesothelioma cases are on the increase. You may encounter lawyers that you know who now claim to be interested in taking your case. It is important to have experienced legal representation from lawyers who have experience negotiating settlements in mesothelioma cases.If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma in the last five years, talk to an experienced mesothelioma lawyer to discuss your legal rights today.
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Mesothelioma--Do-you-need-a-lawyer-/223521
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)