LSAT – An Evolving Test That Creates a High Threshold for Law Students

Based in New York, Brian Stryker Weinstein delivers knowledgeable counsel in wide-ranging litigation cases. One of Brian Stryker Weinstein’s interests is the history of the LSAT, which has been one of the key admissions tests for law school since 1948.

Administered by the Law School Admission Council, the LSAT tests for a variety of different skills that could be relevant to assessing a student’s potential to excel in legal reasoning. It focuses on the actual thought process rather than on any substantive legal knowledge, given that the test taker will not yet have attended law school. Of the five sections, two are unscored, while the other three are scored.

The test has changed dramatically since its inception, with the original test requiring an entire day to complete. It was made up of 10 sections, all focused on passive verbal skills. The logical reasoning section was introduced in 1975, and the test was expanded to include an analytical reasoning section in 1982. Reading comprehension has been a constant throughout the years, with the exception of the period between 1975 and 1982.

While LSAT content has remained virtually unchanged since 1991, the format has kept up with the times. The LSAT as a digital assessment was introduced in 2019, and students now complete the writing sample remotely, separate from the rest of the test. The test continues to create a high threshold for studying and practicing law. Out of 10,000 test takers, an average of only three will attain a perfect score.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/5oJul3A
via IFTTT

Drafting a Concise, Impactful Litigation Pleading

Brian Stryker Weinstein is a partner and litigator with Davis Polk in New York who has taken on many benchmark cases in state and federal court. Among Brian Stryker Weinstein’s areas of interest are the qualities that set successful trial attorneys apart at every stage of complex proceedings.

One critical element of any litigation is the pleading, which controls aspects such as what the issues are, who is involved, and what defenses will be raised. It also defines the level of discovery permissible and available remedies.

Trial judges are often inundated with documents to look over and sign, so the key to a well-drafted pleading is brevity and accuracy. Instead of burying the critical issue, bring it to the fore and strip away unnecessary legalese. Focus on imparting information in a way that will make the court inclined to rule in one’s favor while giving it reasons to make such a decision.

As a general rule, it is best to provide a comprehensive summary of the pleading’s substance within two pages. Present the issue at hand clearly and provide the court with insight into how counsel believes the matter can be best resolved. The rest of the document should frame the relevant legal issue within the context of background facts.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/n28Lmsc
via IFTTT

How Marbury v. Madison Made the Supreme Court an “Equal Partner”

Brian Stryker Weinstein is a New York attorney who delivers counsel in a variety of litigation cases. Experienced in diverse aspects of litigation, Brian Stryker Weinstein has a personal interest in landmark cases that have helped define the US Supreme Court’s role.

One such case, Marbury v. Madison (1803), reflected the tumultuous politics of the time. Before Thomas Jefferson came into office, the outgoing Federalist “lame-duck” Congress of John Adams created an additional 16 circuit judgeships, as well as other new judgeships of unspecified number. This was part of an effort to block Jefferson’s Republican Party from enacting its own legislative agenda.

A total of 42 justices were authorized by Adams in the weeks leading up Jefferson’s inauguration. However, William Marbury, one of the outgoing president’s last appointed justices, did not have his formal appointment delivered in time. His judgeship was subsequently withheld by new Secretary of State James Madison. This set up a lawsuit by Marbury against Madison for failing to deliver his commission, as the documents had already been signed and sealed.

Chief Justice John Marshall ultimately decided that Marbury did possess the right to the commission, as a political decision had been made by the outgoing president before his term expired. He further characterized Madison’s refusal to deliver that commission (under Jefferson’s orders) as a “plain violation of that right.” In presenting a solution, Marshall greatly expanded the Supreme Court’s powers, as he gave it the right to overturn Congressional acts. He placed the Supreme Court central in a system of checks and balances and gave it power to declare acts by other branches of government unconstitutional. It was at this moment that the Supreme Court emerged as an equal partner within the executive and legislative branches.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/u6yaEXK
via IFTTT

The Supreme Court’s Tradition of a “Judicial Handshake”

 Based in New York, Brian Stryker Weinstein maintains a law practice focused on high-profile litigation cases. An area of personal knowledge for Brian Stryker Weinstein is the US Supreme Court and its history and traditions.

Dating back to the late 19th century and Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, one persistent tradition in the courtroom is the “judicial handshake.” This involves shaking hands with each of the other eight justices when assembling to sit on the bench each day and when about to start private conferences at which decisions are discussed. This practice was instituted as a daily reminder of “harmony of purpose,” even in cases where the justices’ individual interpretations of the law differed.

Allowing for differences of opinion is a central part of a well-functioning democracy and enshrined in the actual practices of the Supreme Court. For practical reasons, as the need to minimize social interactions took hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, justices temporarily paused this tradition in March 2020. However, the tradition has since been reinstated and continues to this day.