Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

A Tampa Attorney – The Admissions Process to Area Law Schools

The Tampa Bay area is home to several law schools including Stetson University and the Florida Metropolitan University (several other options are available for pre-law studies including Eckerd College and the University of South Florida); however, the process of admissions for these graduate programs are very similar to other law schools, therefore becoming a Tampa attorney is largely dependent on certain criteria. This criterion includes a high grade point average throughout you undergraduate program, a strong score on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), convincing and impressive written recommendations, and usually the successful completion of a series of interviews with the admissions department.

The LSAT is a lengthy examination that all law schools across the United States has developed in order to clearly define the abilities of diverse and unequally educated individuals from all over the world. By having all applicants take the same test and answer the same questions, each school can competently and confidently classify those individuals seeking admission. While there is not magic number that automatically denies an applicant admission, there is a score that all accepted individuals averaged. Last year that score was one hundred sixty-six, or in the seventy-fifth percentile. This means that, on average, to be considered for acceptance you have to score better than seventy-five percent of those who took the test. To put it another way – only twenty-five percent of those who take the LSAT proceed to law school.

The next most important thing that most schools consider is your undergraduate transcript and grade point average. While the American BAR Association does not delineate any particular undergraduate major, it is recommended that you chose a major that enhances certain occupational skills including analytical thinking, problem solving, excellence in written and oral communication, and attention to linguistic detail. However, it is usually suggested that you chose a major you have a strong interest in. Individuals usually find it easier to maintain a high grade point average if they enjoy the topics they are studying.

Like the LSAT scores, there is no hard and clear number that automatically guarantees success or promises failure when law schools consider the GPA of a future Tampa attorney. Again, however, there is an average of those who have been accepted into a law program and that average is 3.85 on a four point scale. This is better than an A- average throughout your undergraduate career. It is, therefore, very important to do well in all of your classes – even one slip up and mean the difference between acceptance and denial.

All things being equal between two similar applicants, most law schools turn to written recommendations and ultimately admission interviews. Recommendations should be concise (rarely longer than one page typed) and should be written by the most academically impressive individual you can find. A college professor who is well known or well written, a dean of a university, or any other relevant persons is a strong choice. Remember the emphasis should be placed on the quality of the recommendation and not the quantity. Shoot for two or three strong individuals instead of dozens of recommendations from all of your professors.

Some schools impose an interview process before admission is granted. This may only involve the admissions office, but more likely would involve the president of the school and other board members. It is designed to see how an individual reacts under pressure and also how well spoken they are.

Law Schools are not easy to get into. Therefore they use a tough method to chose those individuals who are most likely to succeed.

(Tampa divorce attorney) Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder

More info…
(U.S. 4th Cir., Civil Procedure, Immigration Law) Petition to review decision denying petitioner asylum and withholding of removal to El Salvador is denied where: 1) the Government erred in its contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to refer a case to a three-member panel; 2) the BIA’s subsequent precedential decision eliminated the need for such three-judge review; 3) the BIA’s decision accorded with its subsequent precedential decision; and 4) the record lent adequate support for the finding of the Immigration Judge and the BIA that neither religion nor political opinion initiated, escalated, perpetuated, or otherwise constituted a central reason for the persecution against petitioner.

Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc.

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law) In a class action suit against defendant-parcel delivery company for improper classification of employees as independent contractors, judgment in favor of defendant-company is affirmed over claims of error that the trial court: 1) abused its discretion by failing to amend the class definition in light of developments subsequent to class certification; 2) erred in instructing the jury as to both the burden of proof and with respect to the pertinent classification factors that distinguished employees from independent contractors; 3) applied incorrect legal standards in adjudicating plaintiffs’ unfair and unlawful business practices causes of action; 4) abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of irrelevant and “inflammatory” evidence as to the relative benefits of independent contractor status; and 5) erroneously permitted defendant to recover costs for the production of exhibits that were not used at trial.

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Box

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Transportation) In a suit over a state requirement that rail switching yards built or substantially renovated after February 2005 must include walkways parallel to each track for employees, judgment for defendant-state is affirmed where federal law does not supersede the state requirement.

Florida Attorney

(Lawyer in tampa) Walton v. US

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Copyright, Government Law, Intellectual Property) 28 U.S.C. section 1498(b), which governs copyright infringement suits against the federal government, does not authorize this suit by a federal prisoner seeking to recover for the government’s use of desk-blotter calendars he created as part of his assigned duties in prison. Plaintiff was “in the service of the United States” when he developed and produced the calendar at a government facility, using government-furnished computers, under the supervision of government employees, in exchange for modest compensation.

tampa lawyer