<p>Your LSAT scores don't expire, so to speak. You can actually have LSAC send a report to a law school with LSAT scores that are ten or more years old. When LSAC sends a report to the law schools you request, it reflects any and all LSAT scores for you for the period currently being provided by LSAC (currently all exams since 2001, which I suppose may be an attempt by LSAC to reflect the policies of law schools) since your LSAT scores don't expire. Law schools simply seem to want to look at more recent scores.</p>
<p>Sally, you sound hot. Are you single?</p>
<p>So, if a person took the LSAT, and then went another career route for more than five years, and later decided to go to law school, he would have to retake it to provide a more current score?</p>
<p>To answer the first question.... being a lawyer is sooo much better than being a doctor. :)</p>
<p>To lkf725, yes, in most cases.</p>
<p>...I don't mean to hijack this thread, but while there are lawyers and lawyer-want-to-bes here, I wanna ask a question. Now, please excuse my ignorance, but this has always bothered me...how does a lawyer feel defending someone he knows is guilty? I don't want to turn this into lawyer bashing, but (i'm sure you lawyers can argue this ;) ) from my observations, every professesion helps others in one way or another...doctors obviously help...janitors clean and keep things sanitary...factory workers are making/producing things that will eventually end up in the hands of consumers either directly or indirectly. Lawyers, however, often are simply destroying lives...putting people in jail, breaking families, etc. Do innocent men go to jail on a regular basis? Once again, please excuse my ignorant questions, but these have been bothering me for quite a while now...</p>
<p>"Lawyers, however, often are simply destroying lives...putting people in jail, breaking families, etc."</p>
<p>I'm not a criminal lawyer, but defending those accused of criminal activity where their freedom is in jeopardy is part of upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rights and privileges that it grants to every citizen. On the other hand, trying those accused of criminal activity is an incredibly important part of our society as well. Do you really believe that most of the people in our prisons are not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted? I'll leave it to the criminal lawyers who visit this board to discuss this further, but I used to do pro bono work at Rikers Island in NYC (working with mothers in prison to make sure their children were being cared for on the outside), and every person at Rikers that I ever met told me they were innocent or had a really good excuse for what they did. It is a horrible tragedy when someone who is not guilty ends up in prison, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. It is not so easy to get a conviction.</p>
<p>I think that you should start a new thread to discuss this issue, if you choose.</p>
<p>Criminal attorneys defending someone who is presumably "guilty" are preserving a legal system that we hold so near & dear to our hearts.</p>
<p>What percentage of lawyers are criminal defense attornies, anyway? Is it even 1/10?</p>
<p>Well, as a possible prospective law student, here's my take. I don't think I could ever defend someone I knew was "guilty," and criminal defense is not really the type of law that I want to go into. But I have a scenario for you - the Duke lacrosse case. I don't want to open this up into a discussion about this (believe me, I've had enough of that on the Duke board), but think about it. I personally don't believe that there is enough evidence against the lacrosse team to justify their arrests or find them guilty - I really don't. It's an interesting experience for me, as I've spent so much of my life involved in anti-sexual-assault activism and promoting awareness of the dangers of sexual violence on my campus. Never, ever, ever in my LIFE did I ever think I'd defend suspected rapists - ever. But in this case, even though those are the charges on which they've been indicted, I truly don't think that it's warranted. Between the DNA testing, the unreliability of the alleged victim's selection of the accused from the lineup, the provided alibis, things the alleged victim has claimed - it just doesn't add up, at all. Whether or not you agree with Johnnie Cochran, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit." This is a case in which you may be defending someone accused of rape, kidnapping, and assault. It sounds like a job from hell - but in a situation like this, with so much evidence pointing towards their innocence, and the fact that it is still going to trial, I think it would be an interesting and worthy case to defend.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents. Sorry for the OT remarks, but I'm just trying to prove the point that not everything is as cut-and-dry as it may seem.</p>