DXP, PLEASE FIX MY CAREER

I don't know where to go after law school. Should I try stateside litigation? Will I be accepted there? I have more questions coming. I'm at a loss... @_@

Move to Vegas, always need lawyers around here!

Ignore me. I want almost everyone to move here 😏

Posted by djbuck1
You just graduated from law school?

Good luck.

No, not yet. I'll graduate in 2015. @_@

Guys, I have TOO many questions and I'm getting PARANOID!!!

1. I actually want to live in the UNited States or any first-world country out there. This means, I have to find work in those countries (hopefully as a lawyer).

2. I want to travel...

3. I want to serve the society and work with non-government organizations...

4. I am TOO interested in Urban Planning but I don't know how it will mesh with my legal career!

5. I also want to work for United Nations and the CESCR (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)... but I don't know how I'll be able to get in...

6. I want to run for politics in the local city. I want to fix sooo many things here.

DXP, PLEASE FIX MY CAREER!!!!! @_@ I'm lost. Can anyone shed some light? @_@

Posted by justagirl
Move to Vegas, always need lawyers around here!

Are you serious?! @_@

Posted by firebunny

Posted by justagirl
Move to Vegas, always need lawyers around here!

Are you serious?! @_@

click to expand

Did I sound serious? 🙂

Posted by andsssssss
take the diplomat test but then law school might be a waste coz it's not needed there.

actually it doesn't sound like a bad idea for myself. u wanna take it with me? we'll be ambassadors to oklahoma. 😛

my guess is you'll work for your dad.

LULZ. When are you taking? Yah, I might take the test but I heard it's very difficult. I might take it 2 years after law school. LOL... I think law school will be waste then... but you are making me change my mind. I wanna work with you. LULZ.

Posted by seraph
Determine first whether you're interested in doing *actual legal work* - as in, what a lawyer does - for 8 hours a day, and then, take that and determine whether you'd be interested in doing that for 13 hours a day, including some weekends.

Yah, I want to litigate. 🙂 You're not a lawyer if you have never litigated. But I have so many other considerations, some of which I already listed above. @_@

Posted by justagirl

Posted by firebunny

Posted by justagirl
Move to Vegas, always need lawyers around here!

Are you serious?! @_@

Did I sound serious? 🙂

click to expand

PLEASE TELL ME IF I CAN WORK IN VEGAS. ANYTHING STATESIDE I CRAVE, INCLUDING NEBRASKA!!!!!! @_@

Posted by firebunny

Posted by justagirl

Posted by firebunny

Posted by justagirl
Move to Vegas, always need lawyers around here!

Are you serious?! @_@

Did I sound serious? 🙂

PLEASE TELL ME IF I CAN WORK IN VEGAS. ANYTHING STATESIDE I CRAVE, INCLUDING NEBRASKA!!!!!! @_@

click to expand

of course you can, you can work anywhere you want to. 🙂 The problem is finding the work.. and Nebraska? LOL

Posted by andsssssss

Posted by firebunny

Posted by andsssssss
take the diplomat test but then law school might be a waste coz it's not needed there.

actually it doesn't sound like a bad idea for myself. u wanna take it with me? we'll be ambassadors to oklahoma. 😛

my guess is you'll work for your dad.

LULZ. When are you taking? Yah, I might take the test but I heard it's very difficult. I might take it 2 years after law school. LOL... I think law school will be waste then... but you are making me change my mind. I wanna work with you. LULZ.

lol i just thought of it now. it's a huge pay cut for me though and ima taurus so... 😛

really prefer appointed ambassador but i'm missing a few billions in the bank account haha!

if it's hard i'll probably get a tutor to fail or barely pass. i've always been just an average student slacker that stepped up when bragging rights and awards were involved but u u might pass if ur top of the up law and stuffs ryt? y wudn't u?

click to expand

LULz. What work do you currently have now. I'm sad you're not taking it with me anymore... @_@

I know a couple of lawyers who make a killing serving tables.

Why can't you try and be judge like judge judy—_..she worked in family court for years and now everyones begging her to be president!??_.or maybe you should watch legally blonde that show taught me the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum??_

Heres a test to see if you will be a good lawyer??_.which case out of malum in se or malum prohibitum would you defend?.

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
Why can't you try and be judge like judge judy—_..she worked in family court for years and now everyones begging her to be president!??_.or maybe you should watch legally blonde that show taught me the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum??_

Heres a test to see if you will be a good lawyer??_.which case out of malum in se or malum prohibitum would you defend?.

I don't answer easy questions. #arrogancelol! 😛

Just kidding... As a lawyer, I would defend both cases... It is ethically mandated that a lawyer should not choose which case to defend or to protect unless there is some justifiable reason.

However, if you insist that I should choose... I would be choosing malum in se because, in such case, "malice" is an important element. Should the prosecution be unable to prove malice, case is closed. I need not present further evidence and would go on to file a demurrer to evidence.

Malum prohibitum is slightly more difficult to defend since presence/absence of "malice" is irrelevant. Which means, if you committed an act that is punishable by imprisonment, you can be found guilty even though you have no such "intention" or "malice" to commit the act. For example, you have an unlicensed firearm. Just because you have it is already punishable. There are limited defenses available. You cannot plead that you don't know you have an unlicensed firearm because the "mere possession" of one is already punishable. Same thing goes with issuing checks that bounced. You cannot say that you didn't know or you've not expected that the check will bounce for the mere fact that the check bounced is already punishable.

The big difference between the two is the relevance of "intent" or "malice." In malum in se, "intent" is a relevant fact that needs to be proved. In the latter, meanwhile, "intent" is irrelevant.

Posted by firebunny

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
Why can't you try and be judge like judge judy—_..she worked in family court for years and now everyones begging her to be president!??_.or maybe you should watch legally blonde that show taught me the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum??_

Heres a test to see if you will be a good lawyer??_.which case out of malum in se or malum prohibitum would you defend?.

I don't answer easy questions. #arrogancelol! 😛

Just kidding... As a lawyer, I would defend both cases... It is ethically mandated that a lawyer should not choose which case to defend or to protect unless there is some justifiable reason.

However, if you insist that I should choose... I would be choosing malum in se because, in such case, "malice" is an important element. Should the prosecution be unable to prove malice, case is closed. I need not present further evidence and would go on to file a demurrer to evidence.

Malum prohibitum is slightly more difficult to defend since presence/absence of "malice" is irrelevant. Which means, if you committed an act that is punishable by imprisonment, you can be found guilty even though you have no such "intention" or "malice" to commit the act. For example, you have an unlicensed firearm. Just because you have it is already punishable. There are limited defenses available. You cannot plead that you don't know you have an unlicensed firearm because the "mere possession" of one is already punishable. Same thing goes with issuing checks that bounced. You cannot say that you didn't know or you've not expected that the check will bounce for the mere fact that the check bounced is already punishable.

The big difference between the two is the relevance of "intent" or "malice." In malum in se, "intent" is a relevant fact that needs to be proved. In the latter, meanwhile, "intent" is irrelevant.

click to expand

Would you rather have a client who committed a crime malum in se or malum prohibitum?

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11

Posted by firebunny

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
Why can't you try and be judge like judge judy—_..she worked in family court for years and now everyones begging her to be president!??_.or maybe you should watch legally blonde that show taught me the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum??_

Heres a test to see if you will be a good lawyer??_.which case out of malum in se or malum prohibitum would you defend?.

I don't answer easy questions. #arrogancelol! 😛

Just kidding... As a lawyer, I would defend both cases... It is ethically mandated that a lawyer should not choose which case to defend or to protect unless there is some justifiable reason.

However, if you insist that I should choose... I would be choosing malum in se because, in such case, "malice" is an important element. Should the prosecution be unable to prove malice, case is closed. I need not present further evidence and would go on to file a demurrer to evidence.

Malum prohibitum is slightly more difficult to defend since presence/absence of "malice" is irrelevant. Which means, if you committed an act that is punishable by imprisonment, you can be found guilty even though you have no such "intention" or "malice" to commit the act. For example, you have an unlicensed firearm. Just because you have it is already punishable. There are limited defenses available. You cannot plead that you don't know you have an unlicensed firearm because the "mere possession" of one is already punishable. Same thing goes with issuing checks that bounced. You cannot say that you didn't know or you've not expected that the check will bounce for the mere fact that the check bounced is already punishable.

The big difference between the two is the relevance of "intent" or "malice." In malum in se, "intent" is a relevant fact that needs to be proved. In the latter, meanwhile, "intent" is irrelevant.

Would you rather have a client who committed a crime malum in se or malum prohibitum?

click to expand

Malum in se, for the reasons I've mentioned above...

Posted by andsssssss


i'm a banker. it looked like fun until i read you have to organize summits. fuck that it sounds boring. i thought i'd be sent to war zone and could possibly die. my astrologer's parent was a diplomat so they were educated in britain. i get my readings with a brit accent. 😛 PLUS I THINK U HAVE TO GIVE UP ALL FOREIGN PASSPORTS AND BE SOLELY A FILIPINO CITIZEN.

Wow. You're soooo cool, bro. When I was a teen, I wanted to become a banker. How did you become a banker? Is it hard?

Posted by andsssssss
the same way i get all my jobs... nepotism and family connections!

meh i swear u can become bank vp with cupcakes. no joke cupcakes. schmoozing goes a long way.

my ideal was c.e.o. at least that's what i was groomed to be since i took a major where most ceo's come from but i'm not of that mold. i might actually be a better entrepreneur or criminal lol!

now there's a reason you have to treat me. 🙂 you filthy rich kid. LULZ.

Posted by andsssssss
me? hell naw i'm a pawn in the scheme of things. i'll send you a cupcake on your birthday lol!

Yay! Thanks bro! I'll PM you my address! 🙂

But, hey, we should hang out sometime! I'll be in Manila in April! 🙂

Posted by andsssssss

Posted by firebunny

Posted by andsssssss
me? hell naw i'm a pawn in the scheme of things. i'll send you a cupcake on your birthday lol!

Yay! Thanks bro! I'll PM you my address! 🙂

lol u rly want that cupcake huh?

click to expand

Yah! Any birthday present will do! LULZ.

Posted by andsssssss

Posted by firebunny
But, hey, we should hang out sometime! I'll be in Manila in April! 🙂

what pray tell would we do? i don't really like coffee shops. u don't drink. actually i don't so much too. have u ever been to a strip club? LMAO!

click to expand

I do drink sometimes. A strip club will do. And haven't you told me you do wall-climbing? I wanna try that one too! 😛

Posted by firebunny

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11

Posted by firebunny

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
Why can't you try and be judge like judge judy—_..she worked in family court for years and now everyones begging her to be president!??_.or maybe you should watch legally blonde that show taught me the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum??_

Heres a test to see if you will be a good lawyer??_.which case out of malum in se or malum prohibitum would you defend?.

I don't answer easy questions. #arrogancelol! 😛

Just kidding... As a lawyer, I would defend both cases... It is ethically mandated that a lawyer should not choose which case to defend or to protect unless there is some justifiable reason.

However, if you insist that I should choose... I would be choosing malum in se because, in such case, "malice" is an important element. Should the prosecution be unable to prove malice, case is closed. I need not present further evidence and would go on to file a demurrer to evidence.

Malum prohibitum is slightly more difficult to defend since presence/absence of "malice" is irrelevant. Which means, if you committed an act that is punishable by imprisonment, you can be found guilty even though you have no such "intention" or "malice" to commit the act. For example, you have an unlicensed firearm. Just because you have it is already punishable. There are limited defenses available. You cannot plead that you don't know you have an unlicensed firearm because the "mere possession" of one is already punishable. Same thing goes with issuing checks that bounced. You cannot say that you didn't know or you've not expected that the check will bounce for the mere fact that the check bounced is already punishable.

The big difference between the two is the relevance of "intent" or "malice." In malum in se, "intent" is a relevant fact that needs to be proved. In the latter, meanwhile, "intent" is irrelevant.

Would you rather have a client who committed a crime malum in se or malum prohibitum?

Malum in se, for the reasons I've mentioned above...

click to expand

When Elle Woods was asked this question she said "neither, I want

a client who is innocent"

Just kidding... As a lawyer, I would defend both cases... It is ethically mandated that a lawyer should not choose which case to defend or to protect unless there is some justifiable reason.

like them being guilty right?

ELLE WOODS: On our very first day at Harvard, a very wise Professor quoted Aristotle: —The law is reason free from passion.?? Well, no offense to Aristotle, but in my three years at Harvard I have come to find that passion is a key ingredient to the study and practice of law - and of life. It is with passion, courage of conviction, and strong sense of self that we take our next steps into the world, remembering that first impressions are not always correct. You must always have faith in people. And most importantly, you must always have faith in yourself??_.

It was at that point in legally blonde I cried ^^??_??_if your morals are make you a good lawyer then having passion and being guided by it makes you a great lawyer! :') waaaaaa!!!

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
a client who is innocent"

Oh... LULZ. My basic consideration is that I'm just gonna be the "voice" of my client and it is basically unethical to refuse providing legal services to a client.

For me, the conclusion as to the guilt of the accused can only be proven through the judicial machinery. It is not up to me to conclude on my own the guilt of my own client. It's the judge's decision that should be determinative of the client's guilt.

I should emphasize my role as "the voice." It means that I won't be saying anything that is adverse to my client's rights, no matter how true it may be. And everything he tells me will be strictly confidential, yes, including admissions of guilt. And I'm going to defend based on the evidence and based on what my client wants.

However, if the evidence of guilt is strong, there are other remedies like plea-bargaining, parole and probation. I won't defend my client to the point of acquittal if the evidence of guilt is strong because that would be tantamount to failure of justice on the part of the offended party.

The reason why I still want to defend my client even if I know he is guilty of the crime he has committed is that I believe in mercy and SECOND CHANCES. Sure, you deserve some punishment... but even God knows how to forgive and is merciful even to the most perverse sinners on earth. My decision to defend my client even though I know he has committed the crime is not tantamount to injustice but is merely my own way of extending mercy to someone who has committed an error, no matter how grave it may be.

However, it will be a different case altogether if the criminal case involves PUBLIC INTEREST. For this particular scenario, I haven't come up with a template plan. I think that it will be best to consider this on a case-to-case basis.

Posted by andsssssss
LMFAO firebunny in a strip club SMH! 😛

yeah in fort bonifacio. there's a 3 story sports store there. about P 500 for as many tries. haven't gone wall climbing since may. it's boring as hell. i only do it for the back strengthening.

I need that for my back! I have scolio! @_@

I guess theres more to consider when your being a voice for other instead of giving others a voice...

but are you comparing yourself to god? lol??_.I believe in separation of church from the state but if your religious then I don't have a problem with that??_.is it true they used 12 jurors (except scotland) to represent the 12 apostles—_.the whole thing is so churchy!

I like to call punishment "thinking time" with cute bunny ears and who are we to deny the state and its crooks their thinking time??_thinking time that is tantamount of course.

all the best to you I'm sure you know what your doing??_.I still think you need a touch up on those legally blonde roots 😉??_you go girl!

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
I guess theres more to consider when your being a voice for other instead of giving others a voice...

but are you comparing yourself to god? lol??_.I believe in separation of church from the state but if your religious then I don't have a problem with that??_.is it true they used 12 jurors (except scotland) to represent the 12 apostles—_.the whole thing is so churchy!

I like to call punishment "thinking time" with cute bunny ears and who are we to deny the state and its crooks their thinking time??_thinking time that is tantamount of course.

all the best to you I'm sure you know what your doing??_.I still think you need a touch up on those legally blonde roots 😉??_you go girl!

I did compare myself to God but not to the extent that I am claiming to be Messiahnic or whatever. What I only mean by that is that I would extend mercy to others just as God extends mercy to me. I'm sorry if I'm becoming a little bit religious here but please do respect my religious/spiritual beliefs. I do think there's a rationale behind the concept of Mercy because, after all, what matters most is not Justice but Love.

The context from which the separation between church and the state should be understood, eleventh. In the case of me extending mercy to my client because of my religious beliefs do not in any way further the evils sought to be prevented by the public policy of "separation of the Church and the State." I will be elaborating further on that if you're interested to know what that context was. We read American cases in Constitutional Law and I presume that you come from the US.

No I'm from Australia but I think i know more about american law than australian because I watch a lot of movies and judge judy and your whole legal system is overall more exciting I think.

I believe love is the most important thing but in a courtroom what matters more to me is justice ??_.and mercy is something you show someone if your about to kill them. sending someone to jail isn't going to kill them unless they are on death row..

No you don't have to explain the context of you showing mercy and me bringing up something different??_I was having a blonde moment lol

but yeh I think its nice what you do

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
No I'm from Australia but I think i know more about american law than australian because I watch a lot of movies and judge judy and your whole legal system is overall more exciting I think.

I believe love is the most important thing but in a courtroom what matters more to me is justice ??_.and mercy is something you show someone if your about to kill them. sending someone to jail isn't going to kill them unless they are on death row..

To each his own.

No you don't have to explain the context of you showing mercy and me bringing up something different??_I was having a blonde moment lol

click to expand

The context I'm talking about is the context of the separation of the church and the state.

Posted by The_eleventh_sign_11
but yeh I think its nice what you do

thanks 🙂