Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

She does other things too. Whatever you think of her, she’s actually a successful businesswoman, model, and TV personality with four young kids. And as someone who took the LSAT and went to law school myself, studying/applying to law school and getting through 1L is a full-time job. I respect her.

Please. She doesn't work. She's never had a real job. And there's a huge team of help taking care of her house(s) and kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

I wouldn’t hire a lawyer that didn’t go to law school.

She's only going to be doing pro bono cases and extend her entertainment empire to have shows like Klaw and Order

So maybe in the future she’ll be able to better read the requirements of the contracts she signs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

I wouldn’t hire a lawyer that didn’t go to law school.

She's only going to be doing pro bono cases and extend her entertainment empire to have shows like Klaw and Order

Anonymous wrote:If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

She does other things too. Whatever you think of her, she’s actually a successful businesswoman, model, and TV personality with four young kids. And as someone who took the LSAT and went to law school myself, studying/applying to law school and getting through 1L is a full-time job. I respect her.

Anonymous wrote:If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

I wouldn’t hire a lawyer that didn’t go to law school.

If you saw a resume and it had May 2019 - Oct. 2022 accomplishments: baby bar exam

...you'd rightfully assume the person is a lazy idiot.

May 2019 - Oct. 2022 was enough time to earn a BA, take the LSAT, and be a current 1L at an accredited law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are civil not criminal charges so don’t involve prison sentences. It’s a disclosure violation and not the sort of violation that would generally lead to a criminal indictment.

It's the end up lawyer Kim though.

Did she ever take the bar exam? If she was actually trying to get admitted to a state bar this would probably DQ her for many years.

My understanding is she's still several years and several steps away from even being eligible to sit for the state bar exam. It would have been easier for her to just go complete her BA and apply to a real JD program. With access to tutors and online courses, you can easily finish a BA in less than 2 years. But of course she's far too lazy to actually do this and likely never had any intention to follow through on sitting for the actual bar exam. She first launched this bar exam crusade in May 2019. She still has nothing to show for it.

She did pass the baby bar after doing her first year of apprenticeship. She now has several more years to go of the apprenticeship before she can sit for the CA bar exam.

I agree with you tho that just going to college would have been easier for her. I’d love to know how she’s meeting the apprenticeship requirements given her vacation schedule, kids, and the magazine pics she shoots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$1.2M is nothing to her. it's like a $1200 fine for us regular folks.

They're not nearly as rich as you think. A genuine billionaire isn't risking their livelihood and reputation for a $250,000 scam. The family is low-life trash.

How rich do YOU think I think they are exactly? Are you inside my head? Also, even if they're not as wealthy as some people assume they are $1.2M is still really nothing to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are civil not criminal charges so don’t involve prison sentences. It’s a disclosure violation and not the sort of violation that would generally lead to a criminal indictment.

It's the end up lawyer Kim though.

Did she ever take the bar exam? If she was actually trying to get admitted to a state bar this would probably DQ her for many years.

My understanding is she's still several years and several steps away from even being eligible to sit for the state bar exam. It would have been easier for her to just go complete her BA and apply to a real JD program. With access to tutors and online courses, you can easily finish a BA in less than 2 years. But of course she's far too lazy to actually do this and likely never had any intention to follow through on sitting for the actual bar exam. She first launched this bar exam crusade in May 2019. She still has nothing to show for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are civil not criminal charges so don’t involve prison sentences. It’s a disclosure violation and not the sort of violation that would generally lead to a criminal indictment.

It's the end up lawyer Kim though.

Did she ever take the bar exam? If she was actually trying to get admitted to a state bar this would probably DQ her for many years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are civil not criminal charges so don’t involve prison sentences. It’s a disclosure violation and not the sort of violation that would generally lead to a criminal indictment.

It's the end up lawyer Kim though.

Not necessarily. From what I've read she's neither affirming nor denying, and just settling the investigation with a fine. State bars are OK with some things on your "record" as long as you disclose it. She'd be hard pressed not to disclose since she's so well known, but she'll disclose it and that will be fine. I knew a guy who spent time in jail for assaulting a police officer who passed the background check. He disclosed it. That's it. Been a practicing, licensed attorney for 22 years now.

She'd have to disclose and explain and state bars are not ok with neither affirming nor denying. This goes more to integrity than an assault too. I think she's done. That being said, it would be a slap on the wrist if she already had a bar card

Anonymous wrote:$1.2M is nothing to her. it's like a $1200 fine for us regular folks.

They're not nearly as rich as you think. A genuine billionaire isn't risking their livelihood and reputation for a $250,000 scam. The family is low-life trash.

There’s a $12M judgment against the rapper The Game for essentially the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are civil not criminal charges so don’t involve prison sentences. It’s a disclosure violation and not the sort of violation that would generally lead to a criminal indictment.

It's the end up lawyer Kim though.

Not necessarily. From what I've read she's neither affirming nor denying, and just settling the investigation with a fine. State bars are OK with some things on your "record" as long as you disclose it. She'd be hard pressed not to disclose since she's so well known, but she'll disclose it and that will be fine. I knew a guy who spent time in jail for assaulting a police officer who passed the background check. He disclosed it. That's it. Been a practicing, licensed attorney for 22 years now.

Anonymous wrote:Not true if we need a spin off but that whole SEC YouTube channel is so terrible!

hmm I really liked Gary's message and the video. Seemed more up to date and current. The stuff government generally puts out is so... dry normally. At least this was vaguely interesting and didn't delve into financial or legal language.