AUSA trial ability is HIGHLY OVERRATED
| Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Unholy box office | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Unholy box office | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | Poppy School Regret | 02/24/17 | | Very tactful drunken lodge cumskin | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Learning disabled headpube queen of the night | 02/24/17 | | unhinged glassy knife foreskin | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Poppy School Regret | 02/24/17 | | Unholy box office | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Learning disabled headpube queen of the night | 02/24/17 | | floppy milky clown | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | unhinged glassy knife foreskin | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | unhinged glassy knife foreskin | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Poppy School Regret | 02/24/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/24/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/24/17 | | sooty senate | 02/24/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | unhinged glassy knife foreskin | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/23/17 | | floppy milky clown | 02/23/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/23/17 | | floppy milky clown | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/24/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | Lavender jap | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | Talking comical stock car | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/23/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/23/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/23/17 | | sooty senate | 02/23/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/24/17 | | shimmering thriller home | 02/24/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/24/17 | | sooty senate | 02/24/17 | | swollen space deer antler | 02/24/17 | | Cream outnumbered striped hyena | 03/08/17 | | Topaz flirting hunting ground | 02/24/17 | | territorial brindle roast beef library | 02/24/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: February 23rd, 2017 11:07 PM Author: sooty senate
several comments:
1) lol @ mock trial, moot court, and debate equating raw talent. most people who have lots of experience doing that shit are unlikeable douchebags who would be terrible trial lawyers.
2) biglaw associates who do have raw talent for trial skills often will get weeded out of biglaw before they ever have a chance to shine as a trial lawyer. they'll either hate biglaw, or not be good at it. it's rare that someone is a natural trial lawyer, and a great comma checker.
3) experience matters tremendously in trials, where just pretending like you know what you're doing is half the battle
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32688581) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2017 11:10 PM Author: sooty senate
not credited at all.
ALL jury trials are full of proles.
ive done several patent jury trials, and im sure this is the case with any other biglaw lit case. juries dont understand and of this bullshit. it's all which lawyer they like more.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32688604) |
Date: February 23rd, 2017 11:14 PM Author: floppy milky clown
Cases with overwhelming evidence settle. If not, then defense counsel sucked, or the defendant was irrational, or both.
AUSA's are successful because judges refuse to hold them to heightened ethical standards governing prosecutorial conduct. Even when they commit egregious Brady violations, most cuck judges refuse to even directly name the government attorneys in their opinions.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32688624)
|
Date: February 23rd, 2017 11:16 PM Author: Lavender jap
AUSA trial experience isn't overrated because it's not very highly valued. Biglaw firms only hire AUSAs from SDNY/EDNY/NDIL/NDCA/CDCA and a few others. Obviously the "trial experience" in those districts is no more legit than anywhere else, where biglaw firms don't hire from.
They hire from those districts because those AUSAs have connections with how those offices do their investigations, the judges in those districts, and other AUSAs still at the office, and biglaw can sell this to clients as crucially relevant insider experience.
Their experience is being used to flame clients to get business.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32688635) |
|
Date: February 23rd, 2017 11:52 PM Author: floppy milky clown
(guy in that worked in flyover country with a huge chip on his shoulder)
Uhhhh, bigger cases get filed in NYC/DC/CHI because that is literally where the targets and/or companies that committed the bad acts are located. Have you worked in both types of jurisdictions to compare?
RMBS didn't happen because the legal theories were SPS, attenuated, and non-existant. Which is why everyone was pumping and dumping them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32688901)
|
|
Date: February 24th, 2017 7:23 AM Author: Lavender jap
Uhhhh no as rakoff has pointed out the SNDY spends the vast majority of its time on insider trading cases because they're easy as fuck:
"While I want to stress again that I have no inside information, as a former chief of that unit I would venture to guess that the cases involving the financial crisis were parceled out to assistant US attorneys who were also responsible for insider-trading cases. Which do you think an assistant would devote most of her attention to: an insider-trading case that was already nearly ready to go to indictment and that might lead to a high-visibility trial, or a financial crisis case that was just getting started, would take years to complete, and had no guarantee of even leading to an indictment? Of course, she would put her energy into the insider-trading case, and if she was lucky, it would go to trial, she would win, and, in some cases, she would then take a job with a large law firm. And in the process, the financial fraud case would get lost in the shuffle."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/01/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3534736&forum_id=2#32689732) |
|
|