Self Evaluation Form - Non-Attorney: Fill & Download for Free

A2A. (See, I promised that I’d come back and give a thorough answer!)Some housekeeping:First, I have UN-MERGED this question. Someone had merged it with “what do forensic psychiatrists do?” I have reversed the merge because the questions are not the same. We may do similar things, but hardly the same.Second, as I stated in my comment to the OP above, there are actually quite a few questions along this line already answered on Quora, but the answers vary considerably from useless to thorough. And, there are more that are useless than thorough. I would say that Dr. Brams’ answers on this topic are always spot on, and I see that she has also provided an answer here. So I’ll add my two-cents, along side hers.Third, please consider that my answer will be long winded because I am providing my answer based on my unique training as both lawyer and psychologist.On to my answers…So… your client would be whom?I would agree that the biggest difference between neuro/clinical/counseling psychology and forensic psychology is the client. Rather than a doctor/patient relationship, the relationship obligation is USUALLY to the court. But this isn’t always the case either. Sometimes it’s a correctional facility. Sometimes it actually IS the patient themselves. For example, in a small town you may have been treating a patient for 1+ years, and then be called to court. In that case things get tricky, but your obligation remains to your patient; even though you may be a forensic psychologist, your duty in that unique situation is to your patient. However, usually, the court has referred to you, and the court is expecting that you are making psychological conclusions that will benefit it - the court. As you might expect, this invites some consent issues with patients. The issue of consent is a bit different in forensic cases.So… where would you work?You could be (as is most often the case) in private practice. I would certainly argue that private practice is the most lucrative option. In other words, there is money to be made in private practice. However, rare is the newly minted graduate that hangs out a shingle and starts a practice as a forensic psychologist! To get into private practice you’d need either very specific post-gradate training in the field of forensics, or need to have a working relationship with a seasoned forensic psychologist. However, it isn’t impossible. If you were in a small town (as I am) and the judges know that you are available, and if you have adequate supervision to conduct forensic assessments, you might very well be able to build a practice from the ground up. However, most forensic psychologists have years and years - decades even - of building up time in courtrooms, familiarizing themselves with the system and the concepts. I also know at least a handful of psychologist/attorneys… so that’s certainly another fast-track to understanding the overlap. I discuss the unique legal services a Ph.D./J.D. can offer, way down below.You might also work only in a correctional facility and never see a court room, however most of these folks would consider themselves “correctional psychologists.” Additionally, a forensic psychologist may spend most of their time in a state hospital. For example, Terrell State Psychiatric Hospital in Texas has a forensics wing, where adults are housed who are either waiting to stand trial on competency issues, or who have been found NGRI or some variation thereof (not guilty by reason of temporary insanity). I’ll note, however, that this defense is not very often successful.Lastly, you can technically be a forensic psychologist that works primarily in research and public policy - although this is much less common. This person would spent a lot of time researching and publishing on forensic psych science, or, might be a faculty at a university’s psychology department, be a forensic faculty member at a medical school’s forensics residency program, or possibly on the faculty of a law school.The simple answer: usually time split between office/courtroom/airplane/car.So… what would you actually be doing?Unfortunately, the term “forensic psychology” is such a massive umbrella that if you were to see “Ryan R. Cooper, Ph.D. | Forensic Psychologist,” you’d haven’t a clue what the hell I ACTUALLY did. By far, the most common thing a forensic psychologist “does” is psychological evaluation.Mental State. This would be anything from determining whether a defendant understands the court system and his or her role in it (that they’ve been accused, what the judge does, etc.) and this is usually known as competency to stand trial, or “competency evaluations.” Another type of evaluation is a “capacity evaluation” to determine whether the defendant had the capacity to appreciate his crime… this might be referred to as mental capacity, mental culpability, or mens rea - as opposed to actus reus - or, the act of the crime (for most crimes the state must prove the act and the mindset both… the latter is where a psychologist can help). The mental aspect required in a criminal trail, say for homicide or theft is NOT the same as that for a tortuous action, like assault/battery… and a psychologist can help with all of these areas. Negligence is another realm.Custody. Another type of evaluation commonly conducted by forensic psychologists is custody... this might be the MOST common; I’m not sure. These are usually very lengthy and are best described in this way: a hot mess. This is the sh*t that judges are like… “omg… please leave my courtroom and go let someone else hash this mess out, I can’t make heads or tails of anything.” Enter, the awesome forensic psychologist. All states that I’ve looked into have VERY strict laws surrounding the ethics of what must be included in a custody evaluation. For example, psychologist are sanctioned EVERY SINGLE MONTH in Texas for performing inadequate custody evaluations. Usually, it’s because a psychologist (or counselor) didn’t realize they were conducting a custody evaluation. But every time you get the stand and opine as to whether one parent is as fit as another (and sometimes even if you opine as to only one!), then you’re giving testimony related to custody and the ethics of custody evaluation come in. For example, you must evaluate BOTH parents, equally. You should evaluate the children as well. You cannot give an opinion having only seen one parent. Nope. Sounds like common sense, but you’d be surprised. Custody evaluations are very lengthy, require a lot of paperwork, and a lot of mental energy. For this reason, they are very EXPENSIVE. One anonymous psychologists’ “custody evaluation” I once reviewed consisted of a single MMPI-2 given to mom, and to dad, and 30 minutes of an “intake” with each. The cost was $500 to mom, $500 to dad. This is an example of how NOT to perform a custody evaluation. At the forensics firm I’m associated with, our custody evaluations are VERY extensive and consists of often 10–20 tests. I would say it is more common to see a custody evaluation cost 1000–2000 for evaluating mom, the same for dad, and about the same or slightly less per child. So a good thorough evaluation will cost more like $5,000+ for the family.Lie Detection. Though not really always in the tool belt of forensic psychologists, many do offer this service. I’ve considered getting training in this area, but don’t have the time. I am fascinated by it, but the key to being a good forensic psychologist is knowing more than how to read out results… but understanding what the hell they DO and DON’T mean. E.g., just because a lie detector says someone is lying, doesn’t mean they are; it means that their heart rate went up, and they started sweating, etc. Funny: A woman walks into the room wearing a purple dress, and leans against the wall. The Judge says to two psychologists: “what is the color of the woman’s dress?” The clinical psychologist says “purple.” The forensic psychologist says “well, all I can tell you for certain is that the front half is purple, because that’s all I can see.” That story beautifully illustrates the savvy a forensic psychologist needs to understand and explain how testing actually works!Sex Offender Evals. Exactly what it sounds like. Psychologists are often called upon to help predict - to the limited extent possible - the chances of recidivism for sex offenders. We can also help courts understand what is possible and what isn’t… for example, there is no real “cure” for pedophilia, and a psychologist can get on the stand, or meet in chambers to help explain the reality of pedophilia, or sex addiction, and such explanation can help the judge do their job better. One form of testing in this realm that remains in use (not by me fyi lol) is the penile plethysmograph. Often used to determine whether a sex offender can control their arousal, it’s most certainly a way to test the truth of a defendant saying: “I’m cured, I’m now disgusted by rape” or “ I’m cured, I’ll not longer attracted to children.” The test will absolutely verify the truth of such a statement. However a good forensic psychologist will be able to explain these limitations. For example, does getting an erection MEAN that the defendant will act on the arousal? No. Could people NOT so inclined be aroused by suggestive stimuli? Yes. So there are a lot differing opinion in the evaluation of sex offenders, and the forensic psychologist must be very familiar with all perspectives… and check their own biases at the door. Also pencil/paper tests for sexual deviancy are not that great, either, psychometrically.Police Evaluation. This is, again, not done by all forensic psychologists, and sometimes a non-forensic private practice psychologist will do this. This could entail evaluating a new police officer to determine whether they are a good candidate to serve on the force (L3 Eval in Texas). It could also entail re-evaluating a police officer to determine whether they are fit for duty after xyz event, or just after xyz number of years. The American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) actually offers a board certification in Police and Public Service Psychology (as well as board certification in, obviously, Forensic Psychology).Neuropsychology. This is a highly specialized area, and I only know of one psychologist that is extremely - I mean EXTREMELY - familiar with both forensics and neuropsych… and I’m lucky to count him among my list of mentors and friends. To offer neuropsych testimony, a psychologist needs to have not only the same understanding of the legal system that a forensic psychologist has, but also a savvy understanding (well beyond grad school) of the human brain and how it affects certain behaviors (and the ability to discuss it in layman’s terms!). While some non-neuropsychologists may be able to hold their own in an advanced discussion of Autism or ADHD, diagnosing a brain disorder is a big deal, and very few psychologist will make such a diagnosis without extensive neuropsych training. A neuropsychologist will be prepared to talk about Broca’s area and how it is indicated in test results… or a severe visuospatial deficit and how it affects daily living… or Theta/Beta Ratio and how it can help explain a dx of ADHD, more so than rating scales, like the Conner’s can (not very diagnostically useful, IMO).Trial Sciences. This area is not reserved to psychologists by any means. The National Association of Trial Consultants, for example, is open to LOTS of types of professionals. However, I’d say over half are probably psychologists. Trial sciences is probably more of what I’d consider the true PSYCHOLOGIZING of LAW… rather than merely offering psychological service, in a legal context. Trial sciences applies psychological principles to the legal system itself, rather than just the defendant or the players in that system. What is this judge like… what result can we predict from her or him based on their rulings, their personal life, their demeanor? What about jury members? Do you want blue collar? White collar? Do you want parents on the jury, or bachelors? … some of this is dramatized in the HBO series Bull. I find the show to be rather boring and unbelievable. However, it has moments of truth. In fact, it’s a dramatization of Dr. Phil’s early days as a trial consultant (which is how he met Oprah, btw). While the show is BS in a lot of ways, it’s underpinnings are spot on. GOOD trial consultants will apply psychological principles to the “players” in the court. I once published an article on applying psychodynamic principles to the process of voir dire.Therapy. I’m throwing this in here, because I’ve personally had attorneys reach out to me, expecting that I can offer some magical therapy to them, since I’m familiar with “their world” in a way that a non-me therapist wouldn’t be. But the reality is this: REAL therapy requires no such familiarity. In fact, such a pre-existing schema might actually hamper therapy. I’m not sure. Would depend on the therapist’s own level of self-awareness I suppose. Now, on the other hand, a “forensic psychologist” may very well offer true individual therapy, or even group therapy, in the state facility to inmates. For example, most of the pre-doc internships in “forensic psychology” at the US Department of Corrections will have interns doing both assessment/evaluation as well as individual and group therapy in the institution.Teaching/Research. This applies to all psychologists, but forensic psychologist (in my personal opinion) are in a uniquely higher demand because they have the same training as the clinical psychology professor (they can teach personality theory, history and systems, psychometrics, etc.) but they also have this rare perspective to add on to their instruction and mentorship (particularly suited to teach courses in legal psychology, professional ethics, comprehensive assessment, etc.).You didn’t ask this, but I’ll answer it for any Quoran’s who may stumble upon this discussion:We’ve explored how psychology can spill over into law……………HOW DOES THE LAW SPILL OVER INTO PSYCHOLOGY?A psychologist who also holds a J.D. and a license to practice law can be VERY helpful to the field of psychology.First, they will make great forensic psychologists, as I’ve discussed above.Second, they MAY also be uniquely qualified to represent patients and practitioners in malpractice claims. If you were suing a psychologist (or you were a psychologist being sued) wouldn’t it make you feel better to know that your attorney was also a psychologist and understood all of the ethical principles, training models, personality theories, therapy interventions that you use in everyday practice? Hell yes!Third, they will be very helpful in dealing with insurance companies (think, whether the contract between Dr. X and Insurance X is ambiguous or clear? Did a renewed contract have adequate consideration?) and licensing boards (if a psychologist is sanctioned or in jeopardy of having their license suspended).Fourth, they will be helpful at advising on small legal matters that other attorneys would be just fine at, but psychologist/attorneys will be more empathic to. For example, should you set up your practice as a LLC? Corporation? And if so, S-Corp or C-Corp? What about your business name? Must it be registered? Should you trademark anything? If you are a research psychologist developing psychometrically sound assessment of malingering on ADHD scales, how and when do you copyright it, and should you get a patent on your process? What if it’s all online? Is that intellectual property? What if you die? Correction… lol… since you WILL die… what happens then? Have you told your patients? (Hint: all my patients know exactly what happens to their charts if I’m struck by lightening today!) If you are subpoenaed by a court to turn over your chart must you? What about your raw testing data (like raw IQ subtest scores)? What about your personal working notes? What about copyrighted test material that Pearson or PAR or MHS, the publishers, have copyrighted? If you do turn it over, can Pearson then sue you? Can you do therapy on Skype? (Hint: NO). If you find a HIPAA-compliant service (Hint: Telehealth 365 is free), can you then see people for therapy in other states using it? These are just SOME questions of a legal nature that will come up in practice.… wouldn’t it be nice if there was a psychologist out there that understood all of this, AND was a lawyer? The good news… there’s a small population of PhD/JD or PsyD/JD folks in the United States… but it’s certainly a small population.Wait… why did you un-merge the question from psychiatry?In brief, I do not believe that forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology are at all alike. The ONLY way a forensic psychiatrist gets training in the MMPI-2, MMPI-A, PAI, PAI-A, PAI-RF, all the wack rating scales that they (and we) use, and the hundred or so other tests that I keep in my office… is if they do a residency that includes psychometric training. Psychologists use a lot of measures because it’s the best we have… but we KNOW the limitations (or should). There’s a great book on this: Correcting Fallacies in Educational and Psychological Testing. A psychiatrist is not usually going to be able to explain anything other than “he had a full scale I.Q. of 97, and that’s average.” If you said, “wait, wait, what does that MEAN?” … they probably won’t know. Because they are physicians… not academic researchers trained in test construction.The way in which a psychologist makes an assessment of a person is extremely complex… we don’t spend ten years in school designing ink blots (ok, I did when I got bored once in History & Systems). And differential diagnosis is the BREAD AND BUTTER of a psychologist. It’s what we do. We live and breath “taking complex cases” and “making sense of them.” … and then “explaining the intricacies of doing so in easy-to-understand terms.” While I’m sure some psychiatrists have been trained to do this, I have never met one. Then again, I’m young and my time in the field is fairly short so far. However, I’ve networked a lot… and have not met a forensic psychiatrist who can explain the processes and psychological workings of the human mind the way a psychologist can.Probably because they study the human brain, primarily… not the psychological, sociological, philosophical, and spiritual essence of mind that better explains that brain.So… (1) I told you my answers were long-winded, but usually very informative and well-thought out. (2) This answer only scratches at the surface.I also didn’t go into the kind of money that you can earn as a forensic psychologist because I have contracts that prevent me from talking about that specifically. But is is an important aspect of deciding whether you want to go into the field of forensics.If you have any other specific questions, please let me know… I really love helping people understand our profession(s).All my best on your journey to determining where your interests lie my friend!Reach out anytime,-R.

Depends on the jurisdiction to which you’re seeking admission. Each state in the US has a self governing bar, ultimately overseen by the supreme court of the state. Admission is generally going to be permitted under the relevant state rules and statutes. I believe all states concurrently require applicants to submit an application, which requires among other things, the revelation of any and all concoctions. Depending on how your misdemeanor conviction is interpreted by your state bar will determine if you will be admitted. Misdemeanors which reflect negatively on your moral character may have a negative impact for sure. However if the conviction is old and you’ve completed probation on the underlying offense and have subsequently led a legally blameless life it will have significantly less impact. If the jurisdiction in which you suffered the conviction allows for some form of expungment you’d be well advised to secure that or equivalent relief. (You’d be surprised a the number of bar applicants who have felony and other convictions in their backgrounds who are currently practicing law.) Ultimately the decision insofar as criminal convictions are concerned, is whether one’s current conduct or morality demonstrates fitness for admission.Depending upon the agency or firm you seek to join, they are likely have their own internal criteria, so long as they do not base such criteria upon factors deemed legally impermissible they are free to evaluate your past as they see fit. as some writers have noted some prosecutorial offices won’t endure a former misdemeanor in their ranks. For other governmental offices or departments it may be a non-factor-that’s largely up to them within the confines of their practice.If you have any situations or convictions in your past that might cause concern you should consult an attorney in that jurisdiction for a candid evaluation of how much of a hurdle you face and what ameliorative action can be taken. Representing and defending fallen attorneys or applicants is a specialized practice and shouldn’t be left to anecdotal advice. You’ve expended too much capital, sweat and tears in your quest. Good luck and welcome to the club.

Günter Wächtershäuser might be the most important amateur scientist of our era. He made his living as a patent attorney. While doing that he got interested in the origin of life and developed an original and widely respected set of hypotheses about how living things came into being.[1]He had been trained in science, earning a Phd. in organic chemistry in 1965 at the University of Marburg, Germany, and was a postdoc there for more than a year. But then he decided to become an attorney, and began taking law classes while working on his dissertation.He maintained an interest in science and in 1972/3 he read a paper by one of his professors about the RNA world theory of the origin of life. Later on,he met, and became friends with, the famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper. Still later, he became friends with Carl Woese, one of the most important scientists studying the early history of life.Wächtershäuser was an expert in developing friendships with famous people in science. Those people, in turn, helped him get his early papers published in prominent journals, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious publication of all.Those early publications in 1988 and 1990 made him famous in his field, earning him several awards and, he was finally made an adjunct professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2008. (Adjunct professors are the lowest level of professors in a university.) As of 2012, he continued to maintain his legal business.His early work was entirely theoretical, describing known chemistry and how that might lead to life. He didn’t have access to chemicals or a laboratory. He did have access to the scientific literature and relied on that heavily. Later on, he had collaborators who performed experiments for him.What did he accomplish?Everything in study of the origin of life is complicated. Here’s a simple account.Back then, the two leading hypotheses about the origin of life were:The primordial soup theory said that organic chemicals in lakes or oceans somehow reacted with each other to generate living things.The RNA World theory said that RNA molecules somehow came into being and somehow developed the ability to replicate, gradually evolving into living things.Wächtershäuser rejected those ideas and, instead, proposed that Iron, Sulphur, and various other minerals reacted with organic substances in the ocean, producing many of the biochemicals that exist in modern organisms. This diagram [2] gives an overview. Keep in mind that the original hypothesis included a great many more reactions.Pyrite, sometimes called fool’s gold, is crucial to this scheme:Iron and sulphur react with each other to form pyite. This reaction provides energy and electrons (e in the diagram) that drives other biochemical reactions.In modern organisms, enzymes push (catalyze) biochemical reactions. It turns out that pyrite can catalyze many of the same reactions. So, the earliest living things could have relied on pyrite to avoid having to create complicated enzymes.All of these reactions can happen on the surfaces of rocks at the bottom of the ocean. That means the earliest living things didn’t have to start with membranes to enclose biochemicals.Eventually, reactions would some develop self-sustaining cycles that would form the basis of something like a living thing.So, is the hypothesis right?Parts of Wächtershäuser’s ideas are now widely accepted and other parts are likely wrong.His ideas about pyrite are now called the Iron–Sulfur World hypothesis. They are still widely cited and regarded as important by many people in that field[3] but some, like Mike Russell, think that they are completely wrong.[4]There is no evidence for self-sustaining cycles, which are absolutely essential for his full hypothesis. Some investigators think this concept can’t ever work.[5]His own evaluation is that:[6]Research into the origin of life is largely an immature science that lacks a pattern of progress, where a present advance is based on a previous advance and gives rise to a next advance, and where advancing empirical evidence becomes progressively integratable. Instead, origin-of-life proposals present frequently a pattern of groping for clues.Most ideas in this field turn out to be either wrong or not testable. Wächtershäuser has produced more interesting and viable ideas than most professionals.Another amateur:Early in the 20th Century, a patent clerk developed several physical theories, including one about the motions of bodies moving near the speed of light.[7] Nobody was paying him to develop these theories or publish them. In that sense, he qualified as an amateur scientist. We don’t usually think of him that way because his early work got him positions at universities.To read more:For great, non-technical overviews, try these. Unfortunately. the second one is behind a paywall.Amateur Shakes Up Ideas on Recipe for LifeBetween a Rock and a Hard PlaceHe speaks for himself in this interview, which provides a good sense of his distinctive personal style:Entrevista Gunter WachtershauserHis scientific publications are extremely challenging, especially the early ones. That’s always a bad sign. Good theorists write clearly; bad theorists write mud. If you are very brave, you can try this one:http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/87/1/200.full.pdfFootnotes[1] Günter Wächtershäuser - Wikipedia[2] N. Bishop. Part II: Replication First (Gene First) or RNA World Hypothesis CLAIM: The first molecule of life was RNA which can both store information. - ppt download[3] Iron–sulfur world hypothesis - Wikipedia[4] Between a Rock and a Hard Place[5] The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth[6] In Praise of Error.[7] Albert Einstein - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com