We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption Update / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
If the ethics professor shot some one she believed was Satan, I would arge that this is a clear indication that she is suffering from a mental illness as her actions are demonstrably opposed to the character and actions she has displayed in the past.
yes Mr. Counselor, short is sweet. the defense attorrney isn't gonna come from behind and pull the upset over the prosecutor to exonerate his client by rambling on philiadelphia lawyer stuff to the judge.
This is a very helpful "Tidbit". As an Emergency Medicine Physician & now a 1L, I'm struck by the contrast between learning Clinical Medicine & The Law-two different worlds! Finding advice like this on the web is a "Godsend"! Keep 'em coming Professor-BRAVO!
To answer mmmetham's question, I'm studying law in Australia and the method for criminal law is exactly the same as what Professor Steinberg outlined here. The acronym we're given for it is IRAC (Issue, Rule, Apply, Conclusion):
State the issue,
State the legal rule,
Apply the rule to the facts,
Offer a conclusion/advice.
Great video, I wish my law lecturer had set out what was expected of us in law exams as clearly as this in my first semester of law school in Australia.
Thank you for that Professor Steinberg. One potential problem though. I study law in New Zealand so I am under the common law system like Britain. Does this mean that I should modify any of the advice that you gave? Anyone? I'm only a first year law student so forgive me for not having extensive knowledge on the difference between the American legal system and the British system.
I am often confused whether I should apply a straight conclusion or present arguments that each side will raise and suggest which outcome is likely? Is the law black and white or grey? For example:
Should you say as an ethics professor, she cannot raise insanity, or should you say that as an ethics professor she will likely not succeed with that defense?
His approach works for the Bar too, except that in the Bar you want to discuss issues that are close but not on point and explain why they are not on point. His last point is well taken though I find it too kind. The job in law school is not only to learn to be a lawyer but an employed lawyer. Grades and journal participation are important then, most of the times anyway.
This has been flagged as spam show
We will not find justice at the hands of corrupt judges. (See YouTube videos) Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption Update / Evil Triangle of Court Corruption / Richard fine / Dr Shirley Moore slush funds /SBX 211. To end this title wave of corruption in our country must start with the corrupt judges. We can not bring evidence of corruption to corrupt judges. Los Angeles Superior Court judges are illegally and unconstitutionally taking 50,000.00 each for a total of 23 million per year.
danielcooper1000 1 year ago
Great video :)
compache1 1 year ago
Thank u for dis advicee!!! much appreciated..keep em cumin lol
naijagal205 1 year ago
If the ethics professor shot some one she believed was Satan, I would arge that this is a clear indication that she is suffering from a mental illness as her actions are demonstrably opposed to the character and actions she has displayed in the past.
Darkhorse21x 2 years ago
Great stuff!
Rafem 2 years ago
thanks for the amazing advice!! Continue to post videos, very helpful
dreedears 2 years ago
Is it not possible to get into law School if I did not make the grades in highschool?
TangoDown89 2 years ago
Thank u Professor S. David. Many people try to study Law and fail twice. Do you think they should give up on their dream course?
Bulangenddd 2 years ago
so is denise guilty of murder?
35thave 2 years ago
What about Chewbaca defense?
1Amiel1 2 years ago
An ethics professor could be temporarily insane, no?
LSUcHamp606 2 years ago
Comment removed
LSUcHamp606 2 years ago
Excellent! Focused and direct!
Professor John Delaneu
ProfessorJohnDelaney 2 years ago 2
do you recommend headings?
DianeRules 2 years ago
yes Mr. Counselor, short is sweet. the defense attorrney isn't gonna come from behind and pull the upset over the prosecutor to exonerate his client by rambling on philiadelphia lawyer stuff to the judge.
NPAAallamerican 2 years ago
I am a law student in Spain and this advice even applies here!
I wrote down all the basic ideas from your videos and everytime I get lost in my studies I will have a look at it!
Great help, thank you!
capaseto 2 years ago
Steinberg preaches REAL TALK!
LortheBlair 3 years ago 2
Congratulations! We are thrilled that you are coming to TJSL!
ThomasJeffersonLaw 3 years ago
I just got accepted to TJSL! I'm excited about attending and proud of their humanistic approach to law and learning. Thanks Professor Steinberg!!
nb3772 3 years ago 3
great job, but where do I go for content? I want to see some cheap streaming videos of my first year courses.
kfundu 3 years ago
This is a very helpful "Tidbit". As an Emergency Medicine Physician & now a 1L, I'm struck by the contrast between learning Clinical Medicine & The Law-two different worlds! Finding advice like this on the web is a "Godsend"! Keep 'em coming Professor-BRAVO!
tadpolesdad 3 years ago
To answer mmmetham's question, I'm studying law in Australia and the method for criminal law is exactly the same as what Professor Steinberg outlined here. The acronym we're given for it is IRAC (Issue, Rule, Apply, Conclusion):
State the issue,
State the legal rule,
Apply the rule to the facts,
Offer a conclusion/advice.
Great video, I wish my law lecturer had set out what was expected of us in law exams as clearly as this in my first semester of law school in Australia.
MelliMella01 3 years ago
Thank you for that Professor Steinberg. One potential problem though. I study law in New Zealand so I am under the common law system like Britain. Does this mean that I should modify any of the advice that you gave? Anyone? I'm only a first year law student so forgive me for not having extensive knowledge on the difference between the American legal system and the British system.
mmmetham 3 years ago
No it can be applied directly as melli states above, I study in Auckland, good luck bud.
cpearson123 2 years ago
I am often confused whether I should apply a straight conclusion or present arguments that each side will raise and suggest which outcome is likely? Is the law black and white or grey? For example:
Should you say as an ethics professor, she cannot raise insanity, or should you say that as an ethics professor she will likely not succeed with that defense?
TheDentist27 3 years ago
His approach works for the Bar too, except that in the Bar you want to discuss issues that are close but not on point and explain why they are not on point. His last point is well taken though I find it too kind. The job in law school is not only to learn to be a lawyer but an employed lawyer. Grades and journal participation are important then, most of the times anyway.
MrCounsel1 3 years ago
STEINBERG YOU ROCK!
queenie0106 3 years ago 8
wached this about 4 times. Great job. thank you.
coldshot357 3 years ago
Thank you for this insightful video
wrsx 3 years ago
this guy is excellent
lukeseitz 3 years ago
WoW...that was amazing...thank you...even in my 3rd year of undergrad, it helps to hear this :)
realcitybandits 3 years ago