No offense to small town lawyers, because I think they're very important, but Nick lives in a small town in Minnesota with a population of less than 2,000. The whole county has a population of like 40k.
I always assumed he was basically a traffic ticket, misdemeanor, minor-legal-needs solo practictioner. And I doubt he's practiced in years. Why would he when he has an easier and better paying job?
He went to William Mitchell (today Mitchell Hamline). Again, no offense to practical schools because they're necessary and important, but it's a tier 4 school (admittedly does have one SCOTUS justice alumnus) that is not in the business of training Big Law and major stakes practitioners.
I doubt I've seen more than a cumulative 10 minutes of Nick, but I would take his legal opinions with a heavy grain of salt.
Most of his legal analysis comes in the form of his live play-by-play commentary on ongoing trials. And for that, you really don't need anything much more than an understanding of the rules of evidence and procedure for the relevant jurisdiction. So in that regard, his background is more than adequate and his legal analysis is fine.
He rarely covers other stuff, like major SCOTUS decisions, and for those I would agree with you on taking his analysis on those with a grain of salt.
No offense to small town lawyers, because I think they're very important, but Nick lives in a small town in Minnesota with a population of less than 2,000. The whole county has a population of like 40k.
I always assumed he was basically a traffic ticket, misdemeanor, minor-legal-needs solo practictioner. And I doubt he's practiced in years. Why would he when he has an easier and better paying job?
He went to William Mitchell (today Mitchell Hamline). Again, no offense to practical schools because they're necessary and important, but it's a tier 4 school (admittedly does have one SCOTUS justice alumnus) that is not in the business of training Big Law and major stakes practitioners.
I doubt I've seen more than a cumulative 10 minutes of Nick, but I would take his legal opinions with a heavy grain of salt.
Most of his legal analysis comes in the form of his live play-by-play commentary on ongoing trials. And for that, you really don't need anything much more than an understanding of the rules of evidence and procedure for the relevant jurisdiction. So in that regard, his background is more than adequate and his legal analysis is fine.
He rarely covers other stuff, like major SCOTUS decisions, and for those I would agree with you on taking his analysis on those with a grain of salt.