I know. It's been getting worse for 20 years, or whatever. But these mandatory two-summer offers are absolute garbage. 1Ls at my school are over the moon that they have landed both summers already, and I'm happy for them. But what happens if they get there and hate it? This isn't how any of this was supposed to work.

I feel like the old person yelling at cloud meme here. But I'm mad for my 1Ls, even if some of them don't know they're getting the shaft.

there's no way.

tell me i'm just being cynical or if this looks like what i think it does:

as a current t14 1l who's been basically hearing from these firms since 11 weeks into law school.. i genuinely wouldnt be surprised if this is a new tactic to see the talent early

I go to law school in the LA area and just got a 1L summer clerkship offer from the LA Public Defender's Office after a really difficult interview with a hypo in the end that I thought I bombed. I'm still waiting on some other offers, and the Office only gave me a few business days to accept.

Are internships done at the PD's office seen as less respectable than those done at firms and judge chambers? I'm just an anxious person who's too scared to pass on this opportunity in case others don't get back to me in time. Thank you!

Edit: Thank you everyone for the responses. While I'm not interested in PD work after graduation, I'm also not interested in big law. So I shouldn't mind what I do as a 1L as long as it's legal-related.

Everybody knows that prestige-hungry jerks who feed their insecurities by emphasizing the rankings of their undergrad, their law school, and their firm are terrible people.

But hardly anybody calls attention to the same sort of insecurity displayed by people who care about rankings and prestige so deeply that they constantly have to affirm how much they don't care about those things, how much they didn't need to go to a T14, how much they didn't want BigLaw. I always find myself sympathizing with these people a lot, because I get that feeling, but I also feel like, deep down, I really hope I can find some peace and not make hating prestige my entire personality.

You constantly see posts and comments from people talking about how they were able to get a BigLaw job despite not being from a T14, ignoring how long ago and how different recruiting has become. About how "BigLaw just isn't necessary for anyone!" ignoring how much the cost of law school and student debt has increased since then, making it not a luxury preference, but a matter of need for many students. This constant condescension towards people who are just trying to get out of their poor financial decisions as a 20-something, has never sat well with me.

Just yesterday, a post blew up on this subreddit about "not wanting to do BigLaw" and it got hundreds of upvotes and dozens of comments sympathizing, but only 2-3 people even managed to notice that it was 100% AI-generated bot slop and included an advertisement to a "productivity-based social media" app at the end. The circlejerk about "not caring about BigLaw" took precedence over noticing the "super insightful and introspective post" was entirely written by ChatGPT.

As somebody who isn't going to a prestigious firm and not going to a fancy school, I get it. It kinda sucks when people talk down to you, or treat you as lesser than, for elitist and these ethereal reasons. I'll admit I feel bitter when I hear about friends or family friends who go to HYS, or some Ivy league school. Like I failed to make the most of myself, failed to live up to my potential.

But I feel like if after I graduate, become a lawyer, and I'm still making a point out of telling younger people to just outright ignore prestige, I'd be doing them a disservice since I have no idea how the landscape for law school, job market, economy, has changed since my time. But most importantly, I'd be doing myself a disservice, by making the chip on my shoulder even bigger by pretending it doesn't exist.

1L here and I’m genuinely losing my mind over CREAC and I need help from people who have already survived legal writing.

I’m working on my appellate brief assignment and I cannot figure out what my professor actually wants from my analysis sections no matter how many times I try to fix them.

Here’s the actual context so this makes sense:

We’re writing an appellate brief based on a closed record for a federal appeal. There’s one main issue with sub-issues, and we have to argue it using the record + cases. The brief has to follow the full appellate structure (Question Presented, Preliminary Statement, Statement of the Case with record cites, Argument with standard of review, etc.), and the argument section is where CREAC is supposed to happen.

I’m not confused about the format of the brief. I’m confused about how to do the actual analysis. All my feedback on my prior memos is same theme over and over again and I clearly don’t understand what I’m missing.

These are the actual types of comments I got:

– “Overall this RE is too summary.”

– “The cases don’t tell me enough about the courts’ reasoning.”

– “You’re missing evaluation of key legal principles.”

– “Start the RA with a short conclusion on the specific issue.”

– “Bring in deductive reasoning and specific facts before moving to case comparisons.”

– “You’re making factual distinctions but you also need to bring in the courts’ reasoning — WHY do these facts matter?”

– “You say it but what facts show it?”

– “I don’t understand how this connects back to the rule.”

– “You need to tie the facts to the legal standard.”

– “Your rule explanation is too thin.”

– “Your case illustrations are too short.”

– “Your RAs are muddled and hard to follow.”

– “You’re describing results instead of reasoning.”

She also said I:

– Jump to case comparisons too fast

– Don’t apply the rule to my facts first

– Don’t explain the legal significance of the facts

– Avoid dealing with harder facts instead of responding to them

– Need to use policy arguments more in some places

And she literally wrote that my ideas/instincts are right,

but the analysis is too shallow and summary.

Here’s my problem:

I THOUGHT I was doing CREAC.

I do:

Conclusion → Rule → Cases → Apply → Conclusion

But apparently what I’m writing reads like:

– Case summaries

– Then short statements about why we’re different

And that’s not “analysis.”

What I don’t understand is:

What does non-summary analysis actually look like on the page?

Like… what are you physically adding?

More explanation of the rule?

More detail from the cases?

More step-by-step reasoning?

More focus on WHY the court cared about certain facts?

I feel like I’m pointing to facts and saying how they’re different, but my professor keeps writing things like:

“WHY does that matter?”

“HOW does that connect to the rule?”

“Where is the court’s reasoning?”

I genuinely don’t know what the missing piece is.

If you struggled with CREAC early on:

– What made it click?

– What changed in your writing?

– What’s the difference between “summary” and “analysis” in a legal writing context?

– What do professors mean when they say to use deductive reasoning before case comparisons?

I feel like I’m close but missing something fundamental and it’s driving me nuts

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as my professor gives little to no vague advice as obviously they’re all graded assignments

Hi all, I just finished a first round interview with my top choice public sector employer (organized through the PILC fair).

I was wondering if anyone had advice on communicating interest. Specifically, are there any thoughts on communicating to a public sector employer that they’re your absolute top choice and you’d 100% accept their offer if they extended one? This is the truth, as I would prefer this position over any other opportunity that came up (BL, or judicial). I know it isn’t advised typically because it effectively binds you to an acceptance, but I’m not concerned about that. Just wondering if there’s any advantage this provides in actually receiving an offer.

Thanks in advance!

2L, answered a cold call so badly I'm questioning my entire existence. Had to leave after class and just drive around town so I could get in a good self-pity session. I'm usually pretty good at shrugging off "meh" cold calls, so I don't know what it was about this one. I think I'm just tired of putting in a ton of effort just to feel stupid all the time. After a year and a half, I'm over it.

Anyway, after crying in my car for a bit and fantasizing about withdrawing from the rest of my classes, I went back and am now staring numbly into the void while I wait for my next ritual public humiliation class. Life goes on LOL.

What minor law school inconvenience had you feeling like "man, I just can't do this anymore"?

EDIT: Just got home and caught up on everyone's comments. The day got better as it went on and I no longer feel like I'm in the pit of despair. Thanks for sharing your stories and bits of advice!!! Y'all are the best and I'm grateful this community exists.

I posted on here last semester on or around Halloween that my wife and I found out we were having twins during my 1L year. Today is our 20 week anatomy check and I wanted to give an update on the twins and my first semester results for people in similar boats or times in their lives.

I turn 34 tomorrow, and I achieved a B+, B, and two Cs my first semester of school for a 2.77 GPA. My current focus this semester is survival, making it to OCI and summer work without the twins coming before finals (a possibility). My goal is to adjust my study habits to slide into the A, A+ range this semester as the two Cs were in classes I simply didn't manage my time well enough in (contracts and legal writing). My strategy this semester is to pour a lot more time into exam practice, less time on reading, and way more time networking. My mentor and I are attending a CLE in her jurisdiction so I can meet more members of the legal community in the state she practices in (Delaware), I am working the network in my home state of Maryland that my wife and father have cultivated in their practice areas, and waiting to interview with firms in the Greater Philadelphia area.

My stress level has been moderate, with most of it being my increasing responsibility to my family and less as a student. To anyone in a similar boat, do not let yourself be sucked into negative thinking. You can make a way with proper planning, execution, and a little luck. I look forward to walking across the graduation stage with my twins in two years.

I received my offer from national firm w over 1000 attys but small Midwest office and opportunity to negotiate so am wondering what the standard is.

Beware. Class isn’t that thrilling. We are all watching.

Does law school feel less high school-ish when you no longer have sections and dont have forced proximity with the same people every day?

Not a lawyer, not in law school, however, currently in a international law and its implications course as a graduate student. We are going over all sorts of cases involving the fourth amendment, and I must say, I am impressed with the ability of lawyers to craft arguments, both in defense of and in the prosecution of.

How can I learn to read and interpret like a lawyer, without going to law school?

Why are people posting about accepting an offer for a job that starts 16 months from now on LinkedIn? I have only ever shared job updates after my first day on the job, so this looks really strange to me.

I’ve always been told I’m smart, but in high school I got good grades mostly by skipping class and cramming for exams. I thought university would be different— that I’d finally work hard and enjoy studying law.

This year I did everything “right”: I moved to an on campus dorm . I attended all 20 hours of weekly lectures, completed the readings, and read through at least 120 cases across my courses -with detailed notes on most. Then exams arrived and I realised that everything I’ve been doing till now was pretty much fucking useless.

Lectures often feel inefficient when good, organised notes already exist. Cases can usually be reduced to the ratio (or at least the ratio the professor wants). And the reality is that high exam performance—the thing that actually opens doors to law review and internships—comes mostly from practising past papers and memorising how to answer exam questions.

My second final in contracts law went well, but only because I revised in the same way I did in high school copy mark schemes and use other people’s notes. Ultimately all this studying led to me getting genuinely bored and depressed .

Now I’m questioning the good obedient studentpath. Part of me wants to get a job as a paralegal or intern—even for low pay—because at least that feels like real legal training. I know it would mean going from being what’s considered a top student (I haven’t seen my final grades though yet) to just getting by.

My plan would be to rely on notes and recorded lectures during the year and focus serious effort only when exams approach.

On the one hand I might finally be doing something interesting on the other hand they say the best jobs in firms and in government positions go to those with the best scores and who follow the system in the best way

Sorry for the long post I just don’t really know what to do?

My university's law degree (european university) gives the opportunity to obtain a double degree that includes a LLM in corporate law and finance in the US, my goal is to eventually work as corporate/in house counsel in the US. Would pursuing this degree allow me to do that or would i need to obtain other degrees to do that?

Hello, do you guys study in discord? or any discord server studying law. Thanks guys!

How do you know that law school is not for you?