My my, I hadn't realized just how long it'd been. I suppose final exam time in law school will do that. Apologies are due all around.
Anyway, today was the first day of the Spring 2009 semester and it went exceedingly well. The day was marked with two new classes: Constitutional Law and Criminal Law, as well as a few freshly-empty seats. In law school there are evidently the few inevitable casualties. I am proud to say that I am not among them. To the contrary, one semester of law school has made me a stronger, smarter, more steeled and confident individual. I hope that each successive semester will continue to bolster me in these areas. Constitutional Law is an area of particular interest to me. Not only do you have to be a total nerd to really get into it (which I am) but it has practical and astronomically important application in the real-life practice of law. Protecting the rights of individuals from overbearing and paternalistic government is a role that will never decrease in value or necessity, no matter how ancient our nation grows to be. I am going to enjoy this class immensely. I will also enjoy Criminal Law, as the subject matter (and therefore the cases) are very interesting and I will finally get some guidance in statutory construction, the front lines, so to speak, of the profession.
Today was also the deadline for professors to submit first semester grades. They should be posted in their entirety here in the next few days. As for me, I have already learned 4 of my 5 grades and at the moment I am pleased with my performance. Hopefully this fact will not change when I learn how I did in that final class. When I made my prediction in the last blog that it would be "interesting" going back to school when everyone knew their grades, I couldn't have been more wrong. I was very impressed today at how much maturity everyone exhibited. Apparently I sold my classmates a bit short in that department. No one talked of grades at all. No inquiries, no sulking, no bragging, nothing. I'd at least expected those who did really well to slip some subtle hints into casual conversation, but not even that occurred.
I also signed up to play intramural basketball with the Section B Ballerz. Don't worry, that's not our official team name. We have yet to come to a consensus on that as of yet. I love playing basketball, though I could definitely stand for some more athletic prowess. When you're the LeBron James of the law, I guess that also makes you the Lionel Hutz of basketball. Nevertheless, it is sure to be tons of fun and I can't wait for the season to start. Wednesday after class is shoot-around and Friday is practice. Yes, AI, we're talkin' 'bout PRACTICE!
This semester is going to rock. Class is 30 minutes later in the morning and it ends at noon on Fridays. But the reading is going to be much heavier. Everything comes with a trade-off...
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, November 23, 2008
T-Minus 1 Week and Counting...
My very first law school final examination is one week from tomorrow. The class is in a frenzy. Questions in class have gone from substantive issues regarding the material to slighted inquiries as to the format/questions/grading scheme/etc. of the exam. I've heard people ask the professor, "What kind of writing style do you want on the exam?"
Seriously? This isn't writing style school. It's law school. Here, I've been in law school as long as you and I can answer that question: he wants the writing style which shows him that you know the law and that he can sleep at night knowing he gave you his stamp of approval to go out into the world and practice law as a profession. While two exams of equivalent substantive quality might be distinguished by superior formatting, organization, or writing style, that's not a productive area of discussion.
But this is where the men are separated from the boys. It's going to be interesting when the Spring semester starts and everyone has their grades. I predict that the top 20% will volunteer their accomplishment to everyone else, and the bottom 80% will mostly keep their mouths shut, with some intermittent lying sprinkled around here and there. In my opinion, however, there aren't going to be many surprises. The "contenders" as I call them, borrowing a the context of the term from the NBA, are pretty easy to spot. And there are a good number of them. In fact, I surmise that several people who deserve B's or even A's will find themselves with a C+, unfortunate but mandated victims of the curve. It's going to be interesting, to say the least.
Alas, I must return to my furious Property outlining. I am almost done. Just have Leaseholds left to cover. All in all, I loved my first semester of law school. I intend to go into my finals as prepared as I can possibly be. There's no sense fretting over what you can't control, and anything above and beyond your very best is something you can't control. Watch out December 11th at 4:00pm, for there will be some debauchery, depravity, decadence coming from Section B.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. I have much to be thankful for.
Seriously? This isn't writing style school. It's law school. Here, I've been in law school as long as you and I can answer that question: he wants the writing style which shows him that you know the law and that he can sleep at night knowing he gave you his stamp of approval to go out into the world and practice law as a profession. While two exams of equivalent substantive quality might be distinguished by superior formatting, organization, or writing style, that's not a productive area of discussion.
But this is where the men are separated from the boys. It's going to be interesting when the Spring semester starts and everyone has their grades. I predict that the top 20% will volunteer their accomplishment to everyone else, and the bottom 80% will mostly keep their mouths shut, with some intermittent lying sprinkled around here and there. In my opinion, however, there aren't going to be many surprises. The "contenders" as I call them, borrowing a the context of the term from the NBA, are pretty easy to spot. And there are a good number of them. In fact, I surmise that several people who deserve B's or even A's will find themselves with a C+, unfortunate but mandated victims of the curve. It's going to be interesting, to say the least.
Alas, I must return to my furious Property outlining. I am almost done. Just have Leaseholds left to cover. All in all, I loved my first semester of law school. I intend to go into my finals as prepared as I can possibly be. There's no sense fretting over what you can't control, and anything above and beyond your very best is something you can't control. Watch out December 11th at 4:00pm, for there will be some debauchery, depravity, decadence coming from Section B.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. I have much to be thankful for.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Cougars, Neo, and Collaborative Finals
The tension is like a clothesline getting tauter and tauter with each passing hour; the only question is how intense the vibrations up and down will get and how much they will disturb and disrupt those who let them. There are but 2 and a half more weeks of substantive classes left in the first semester of law school, and final exams are starting to loom over the horizon, casting an onerous shadow over us all. My first final is December 1st at 1:00 in the afternoon; the Monday immediately following Thanksgiving Break. One thing I can be thankful for already is that my first final is Property. As I've said before, Property is my weakest class, and so the extra time over Thanksgiving to prepare will be very beneficial. Though I feel lately like my comprehension of Property is starting to congeal and take shape much more than before. Perhaps Contracts is now my weakest class. Anyway, my point is that the anxiety of upcoming final exams is palpable already. Who knows what it will be like come the last few class sessions. It seems that the universal notion is that "I must beat the curve" kind of attitude. The first semester of grades are (supposedly) particularly influential in determining several things, such as class rank, ability to get on the law review, eligibility for certain programs and internships, etc. etc. The pressure is mounting, and people are trying to cope with it. People are already foregoing social outings in favor of spending 12 or 13 hours at a time in the library on a Saturday.
I, however, am not among them. I feel little to no pressure at all. The tension, the anxiety, the mental burden ... they all avoid me like the plague. In fact, my only concern is that I'm not concerned. Perhaps that's more dangerous than what anyone else is feeling. Perhaps I should be in the library every free minute of every free day, nose in the case (or horn) books. Perhaps I overestimate myself or underestimate law school or a combination of both. Perhaps I will get a rude awakening when I open that Property exam, or worse yet, when I receive my grades. If that's what happens, then so be it. I am confident that I am doing my best, balancing the priorities and tasks and responsibilities and obligations to the best of my ability, and that's all I can ask of myself. As Keith Green taught me, I'm just going to keep doing my best, pray that it's blessed, and let Jesus take care of the rest.
One thing that added a small, unexpected dash of complication into the whole process was the news that our Civil Procedure final will be take-home over the span of 48 hours and collaboration is permitted among students in groups of up to four. This is a little like a wrench being thrown into the system, as the problem of free riders pops up and everyone in the class gets concerned that someone who doesn't deserve to get a better grade than them will end up doing so by attaching themselves to a more well-prepared group (each group turns in only one exam and the Professor doesn't know who worked on the exam or if it was done by an individual or a group). If you elect to work alone, you look like an elitist schmuck. If you don't, you run the risk of the mandatory curve taking away too many A's from group exams to afford them to another full group. It's quite a pickle and some people are really struggling with it. Personally, I'm not worried about it. I've got my plan and I'm going to stick with it.
The law school Halloween Party was everything it purported to be. It was held at a bar called Hemingway's here in San Antonio, which has two stories, a deck/patio, and a DJ area. I went as Neo from the Matrix movies:
It was a total blast. That's me on the right there. /flex. The party lived up to all the hype. Some of the costumes were hilarious. Some of the notables are as follows: one girl went as Bill Belichick, clad in a too-big gray New England Patriots hoodie. It was perfect. One of my buddies went as a JW, complete with short-sleeve white dress shirt, short tie, backpack, and bicycle helmet. It cracked me up every time. Of course, there were lots of Sarah Palins and one of my other buddies went as Joe the Plumber. I went out and tore up the dance floor with a little help from my regal friend, Crown. It was funny when four dudes dressed up as the Village People got out there and the DJ played YMCA. Haha. I love the Holiday season, Christmas espcially, but this is one year that I'm actually sad that Halloween is over.
In closing, if any of you wonder what it's like sitting in a law school class, allow me to part some of the clouds for you. The following video was included in an e-mail sent by my Contracts professor to myself and everyone else in Section B as a follow-up to our in-class discussion:
That's right. We spent a good portion of class on Thursday talking about Cougars.
I love law school.
I, however, am not among them. I feel little to no pressure at all. The tension, the anxiety, the mental burden ... they all avoid me like the plague. In fact, my only concern is that I'm not concerned. Perhaps that's more dangerous than what anyone else is feeling. Perhaps I should be in the library every free minute of every free day, nose in the case (or horn) books. Perhaps I overestimate myself or underestimate law school or a combination of both. Perhaps I will get a rude awakening when I open that Property exam, or worse yet, when I receive my grades. If that's what happens, then so be it. I am confident that I am doing my best, balancing the priorities and tasks and responsibilities and obligations to the best of my ability, and that's all I can ask of myself. As Keith Green taught me, I'm just going to keep doing my best, pray that it's blessed, and let Jesus take care of the rest.
One thing that added a small, unexpected dash of complication into the whole process was the news that our Civil Procedure final will be take-home over the span of 48 hours and collaboration is permitted among students in groups of up to four. This is a little like a wrench being thrown into the system, as the problem of free riders pops up and everyone in the class gets concerned that someone who doesn't deserve to get a better grade than them will end up doing so by attaching themselves to a more well-prepared group (each group turns in only one exam and the Professor doesn't know who worked on the exam or if it was done by an individual or a group). If you elect to work alone, you look like an elitist schmuck. If you don't, you run the risk of the mandatory curve taking away too many A's from group exams to afford them to another full group. It's quite a pickle and some people are really struggling with it. Personally, I'm not worried about it. I've got my plan and I'm going to stick with it.
The law school Halloween Party was everything it purported to be. It was held at a bar called Hemingway's here in San Antonio, which has two stories, a deck/patio, and a DJ area. I went as Neo from the Matrix movies:
It was a total blast. That's me on the right there. /flex. The party lived up to all the hype. Some of the costumes were hilarious. Some of the notables are as follows: one girl went as Bill Belichick, clad in a too-big gray New England Patriots hoodie. It was perfect. One of my buddies went as a JW, complete with short-sleeve white dress shirt, short tie, backpack, and bicycle helmet. It cracked me up every time. Of course, there were lots of Sarah Palins and one of my other buddies went as Joe the Plumber. I went out and tore up the dance floor with a little help from my regal friend, Crown. It was funny when four dudes dressed up as the Village People got out there and the DJ played YMCA. Haha. I love the Holiday season, Christmas espcially, but this is one year that I'm actually sad that Halloween is over.In closing, if any of you wonder what it's like sitting in a law school class, allow me to part some of the clouds for you. The following video was included in an e-mail sent by my Contracts professor to myself and everyone else in Section B as a follow-up to our in-class discussion:
That's right. We spent a good portion of class on Thursday talking about Cougars.
I love law school.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Crazy Good
Well, things are starting to heat up as final exams creep closer to the horizon and every 1L starts second-guessing their study habits, use of free time, and overall devotion to the trade. You start to feel guilty for going out on Friday night instead of working on your outlines. You try to remember the black-letter law that was thrown your way during the first couple of weeks and realize that you need to go back and revisit it entirely. You start to look around the room and ask yourself just how many of your friends are going to end up ahead of you in the class rankings. It's a lot to deal with.
But that's okay. Everyone deals with stress differently, and to a large extent that's what separates the good students (and, eventually, lawyers) from the better. I know in my heart that I'm doing my very best here at St. Mary's, and that's all I can possibly ask of myself. I'm just glad that my first exam is Property, so I'll get all of Thanksgiving break to prepare for it (Property is by far my worst class).
Despite all that bubbling mutual apprehension shifting around the student body like the air in a balloon that's just waiting to be popped, law school is still fun as crap. Last Saturday was the Battle of the Rattles, or what I like to call "Law School Field Day." All the 1L sections showed up clad in their Section-defining gear, ready to compete for pride, glory, and dominion. Being Section B, our shirts were yellow with "Killer B" on the front and black, horizontal hashes on the back made to resemble a bee:
It was pretty awesome and props to our SBA Senators for making it happen and making it happen cheap. Section A got the local bar, Fatso's, where all the law students hang out, to sponsor them, but I say nuts to that! Everyone at the Battle of the Rattles knows what Fatso's is and goes there regularly. Terrible business decision. Anyway, the day was divided up into football and soccer tournaments. We destroyed the football bracket, beating Section A in the first game and then going on to dominate Section D 42-6. Then we lost to the 3L's, but that's okay because we're still the undisputed champions of the 1L's. We lost to Section A in the first round of the soccer tournament, but only by one goal (1-2). Section A had a similar story in soccer, winning the 1L bracket but losing to the upperclassmen. The tiebreaker was tug-o-war, where Section B proved that not only do we have the plurality of brains, but brawn as well /flex. All in all, it was so much fun and only in Texas can you get sunburned in mid-October.
But now for something a bit more serious and solemn. I don't know if Mom or Dad remembers this, but one night earlier this year, we were watching 60 Minutes and a segment came on about the Innocence Project of Texas. It chronicled the Texas chapter of the pro-bono organization that sifts through the records of convicted men and women for evidence that they may have been falsely imprisoned. Specifically, it related the emotional story of a man named James Woodard, who was exonerated roughly 6 months ago after spending 27 years in prison for allegedly murdering his then-girlfriend, a crime that he did not commit. If any of you are interested, I highly recommend watching the full segment before continuing:
Just take a minute and imagine that. Put yourself in his shoes. You are arrested and charged with a murder that you did not commit. They offer you a plea bargain if you plead guilty. Knowing that you are innocent, you tell them to screw off and go to trial, where the system fails and you are convicted. You then spend twenty-seven years of your life cut off from society, from freedom, from loved ones, from luxury in all its forms, all the things I take for granted on a daily basis. You are eligible for parole if you just admit guilt, but you adamantly refuse and continue to wallow in your cell until finally, at long last, a faint echo of your cries for deliverance catches a sympathetic ear. After an investigation and subsequent DNA evidence proves your innocence, you re-enter a world that is nothing like you remember, 27 years older. It's crazy to think about.
After watching that segment back home earlier this year, I remember turning to my family and saying, "I wouldn't mind doing something like that with my law degree one day. Even if not professionally, just on the side as some pro-bono work to help those people who have nowhere else to turn." Granted, only something like 3% of the files requested for review by the Innocence Project of Texas have any claim of merit to them (they operate on submissions from the prisoners themselves to review their files), but when one of those 3% actually leads to an exoneration of guilt, that's a special thing.
Well, it was like I was predicting my own future in my house that day. This past Tuesday, St. Mary's hosted an inaugural meeting of what hopefully will soon be the St. Mary's Chapter of the Innocence Project of Texas. Among those who attended and spoke to us were Mr. Blackburn, one of the lead lawyers for the Project (featured in the 60 Minutes segment above) as well as Mr. James Woodard himself. It was humbling to listen to him tell his story in person, from what prison was like to the culture shock of re-entering society after 27 years as a cell dweller. After he spoke, I had the opportunity to shake his hand and watch the joy in his eyes that came with the knowledge that he is fostering enthusiasm among more and more students and lawyers-in-training to help out others like himself who remain victims of an imperfect system. I am proud to announce that I joined up on the spot and am now a tentative (self-proclaimed) founding member of the St. Mary's Chapter of the Innocence Project of Texas. Even if the official, formal establishment of the school-sanctioned organization is indefinitely delayed or defeated, I will still soon be analyzing files like (as well as many unlike) Mr. Woodard's for any fingerprint of injustice. It's pretty incredible, to say the least, how you can lead yourself to where you want to be just by setting foot to gravel and taking it stride-by-stride.
This Friday is the St. Mary's Law Halloween Party, which is supposed to be epic and legendary. The hype surrounding this event is bigger than anything else I've heard about or been apart of (socially) since being here. It's going to be, as I've so often heard, "off da chain!" But now I must retire, for Property at 8am with the guru of the subject is a harsh and exacting mistress. Good night.
But that's okay. Everyone deals with stress differently, and to a large extent that's what separates the good students (and, eventually, lawyers) from the better. I know in my heart that I'm doing my very best here at St. Mary's, and that's all I can possibly ask of myself. I'm just glad that my first exam is Property, so I'll get all of Thanksgiving break to prepare for it (Property is by far my worst class).
Despite all that bubbling mutual apprehension shifting around the student body like the air in a balloon that's just waiting to be popped, law school is still fun as crap. Last Saturday was the Battle of the Rattles, or what I like to call "Law School Field Day." All the 1L sections showed up clad in their Section-defining gear, ready to compete for pride, glory, and dominion. Being Section B, our shirts were yellow with "Killer B" on the front and black, horizontal hashes on the back made to resemble a bee:
It was pretty awesome and props to our SBA Senators for making it happen and making it happen cheap. Section A got the local bar, Fatso's, where all the law students hang out, to sponsor them, but I say nuts to that! Everyone at the Battle of the Rattles knows what Fatso's is and goes there regularly. Terrible business decision. Anyway, the day was divided up into football and soccer tournaments. We destroyed the football bracket, beating Section A in the first game and then going on to dominate Section D 42-6. Then we lost to the 3L's, but that's okay because we're still the undisputed champions of the 1L's. We lost to Section A in the first round of the soccer tournament, but only by one goal (1-2). Section A had a similar story in soccer, winning the 1L bracket but losing to the upperclassmen. The tiebreaker was tug-o-war, where Section B proved that not only do we have the plurality of brains, but brawn as well /flex. All in all, it was so much fun and only in Texas can you get sunburned in mid-October.
But now for something a bit more serious and solemn. I don't know if Mom or Dad remembers this, but one night earlier this year, we were watching 60 Minutes and a segment came on about the Innocence Project of Texas. It chronicled the Texas chapter of the pro-bono organization that sifts through the records of convicted men and women for evidence that they may have been falsely imprisoned. Specifically, it related the emotional story of a man named James Woodard, who was exonerated roughly 6 months ago after spending 27 years in prison for allegedly murdering his then-girlfriend, a crime that he did not commit. If any of you are interested, I highly recommend watching the full segment before continuing:
Just take a minute and imagine that. Put yourself in his shoes. You are arrested and charged with a murder that you did not commit. They offer you a plea bargain if you plead guilty. Knowing that you are innocent, you tell them to screw off and go to trial, where the system fails and you are convicted. You then spend twenty-seven years of your life cut off from society, from freedom, from loved ones, from luxury in all its forms, all the things I take for granted on a daily basis. You are eligible for parole if you just admit guilt, but you adamantly refuse and continue to wallow in your cell until finally, at long last, a faint echo of your cries for deliverance catches a sympathetic ear. After an investigation and subsequent DNA evidence proves your innocence, you re-enter a world that is nothing like you remember, 27 years older. It's crazy to think about.
After watching that segment back home earlier this year, I remember turning to my family and saying, "I wouldn't mind doing something like that with my law degree one day. Even if not professionally, just on the side as some pro-bono work to help those people who have nowhere else to turn." Granted, only something like 3% of the files requested for review by the Innocence Project of Texas have any claim of merit to them (they operate on submissions from the prisoners themselves to review their files), but when one of those 3% actually leads to an exoneration of guilt, that's a special thing.
Well, it was like I was predicting my own future in my house that day. This past Tuesday, St. Mary's hosted an inaugural meeting of what hopefully will soon be the St. Mary's Chapter of the Innocence Project of Texas. Among those who attended and spoke to us were Mr. Blackburn, one of the lead lawyers for the Project (featured in the 60 Minutes segment above) as well as Mr. James Woodard himself. It was humbling to listen to him tell his story in person, from what prison was like to the culture shock of re-entering society after 27 years as a cell dweller. After he spoke, I had the opportunity to shake his hand and watch the joy in his eyes that came with the knowledge that he is fostering enthusiasm among more and more students and lawyers-in-training to help out others like himself who remain victims of an imperfect system. I am proud to announce that I joined up on the spot and am now a tentative (self-proclaimed) founding member of the St. Mary's Chapter of the Innocence Project of Texas. Even if the official, formal establishment of the school-sanctioned organization is indefinitely delayed or defeated, I will still soon be analyzing files like (as well as many unlike) Mr. Woodard's for any fingerprint of injustice. It's pretty incredible, to say the least, how you can lead yourself to where you want to be just by setting foot to gravel and taking it stride-by-stride.
This Friday is the St. Mary's Law Halloween Party, which is supposed to be epic and legendary. The hype surrounding this event is bigger than anything else I've heard about or been apart of (socially) since being here. It's going to be, as I've so often heard, "off da chain!" But now I must retire, for Property at 8am with the guru of the subject is a harsh and exacting mistress. Good night.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tubal-Cain
Heh.
Where to begin. Perhaps with the fact that I'm sitting here updating this on a Friday evening? Fear not; my crew and I just tend to roll out fairly late.
Anyway, it was great going home for Fall Break this past weekend and seeing the family and friends. It almost made me forget for a few days how much things have changed since I started law school. But it also reminded me that some things never change.
Last Thursday, something unprecedented happened, and it was pretty damn cool. I was called on in Contracts, and after responding to the barrage of questions hurled my way by the professor, something happened that I'd never witnessed before in law school. People applauded. Now, when we have guest speakers, the class applauds when they are finished speaking. Even some days when the professor does a particularly compelling job teaching the class he will be met with applause at its conclusion. But never had I seen the class applaud the routine response of another classmate that had been called on. Honestly, I don't know why they applauded. I felt it was pretty common sensical what I was being asked and anyone else could have done equally well or better than I did. I think it was more in the presentation than the actual substance; I was nailing the questions immediately after he was done asking them. Nevertheless, it made me feel pretty good.
Yesterday I was pulled over by an officer of the law (and I use the term loosely) while on my way to Torts in the morning. The reason? Failure to display two license plates. That's it. My registration and inspection stickers are good. Nor was I speeding or engaging in any other sort of moving violation. I worked for a Municipal Court for 8 months, so I was vividly aware that it is unlawful in Texas to display only a rear license plate. However, being a first semester law student, I don't exactly have time to go seeking out the nearest Volvo dealership, scheduling an appointment to have a front bracket installed to hold a front plate, taking my car there, dropping it off, waiting for the labor to be performed, and paying the fee with money that I don't have. Well, that's not exactly true. I could do all that. But it would be at the expense of study and preparation for one or more classes, as there is always something that can be done to further clarify what's going on in any given class. So naturally, having driven my vehicle for years in Texas, passing hundreds of police officers, and having never been stopped for displaying only one license plate, I made the choice most consistent with my perceived cost-benefit analysis (that being not getting a front plate installed). I tried to explain this to the officer when he asked why there was no front plate. I didn't lie to him and feign ignorance of the law. That didn't matter. He still gave me a citation. My research puts it at about $180 that could be put toward a myriad of better uses than lining the municipal pockets of the City of Balcones Heights. Now, however, my hand is forced and I will be getting my front plate installed on Monday morning (at which time exactly there will be a town hall meeting on campus with the Dean of the law school that I wanted to attend...). I will then take the proof of swift compliance to the prosecutor and hope for a dismissal. In Coppell, nine times out of ten swift compliance for this specific ticket and others similar yielded a dismissal from the prosecutor, so I am hopeful.
Then Torts itself was rather engaging, once I actually got there. One of the cases in the assigned reading for yesterday was Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining, Co. 76 Me. 100. Barrows, J. authored the opinion and included a reference to Tubal-Cain:
"If the defendants had proved that in every mining establishment that has existed since the days of Tubal-Cain, it has been the practice to cut ladder-holes in their platforms, situated as this was while in daily use for mining operations, without guarding or lighting them, and without notice to contractors or workmen, it would have no tendency to show that the act was consistent with ordinary prudence, or a due regard for the safety of those who were using their premises by their invitation"
The poor soul whom the professor called on for this case did not know who Tubal-Cain was when asked. Our professor got livid. He turned bright red and started screaming at the entire class at the top of his lungs. "IF YOU COME ACROSS A SINGLE WORD THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND YOU LOOK IT UP." Our Torts professor is normally pretty intense, but this level of veracity took us all a little bit by surprise. Personally, I wanted to laugh out loud during the diatribe, but I figured he might be prone to pick on me frequently in the near future if he saw me snickering out of the corner of his eye while he was screaming at the class. Overall, the message itself was a good one, though in my opinion the method of delivery was just a trifle superfluous. 1Ls at St. Mary's are split into four sections, A, B, C, and D (D being the evening program students), each of which have all the same classes and professors. I am in section B. However, our Torts professor teaches both section A and section B and tries to harmonize them as much as possible. Section A had class with him after our class, so needless to say when they walked into Torts today, every one of them knew who Tubal-Cain was. I'm considering attending the law school Halloween party as him.
And this morning in Property was fairly eventful as well. We are studying the law of estates right now, specifically future interests, and even more specifically the Rule Against Perpetuities. The material is so abstract, dense, and foreign that it really is not an exaggeration to say that it's like trying to learn a foreign language. I feel like a disproportionate amount of my time is spent trying to grasp the material in Property, at the expense of my other classes. As my Dad well knows, during Fall Break I devoted Monday entirely to the reading and understanding of Property, specifically a certain case: Stoller v. Doyle, 100 N.E. 959. Out of ALL the cases I have read thus far throughout my legal education, this one is BY FAR the worst. Trying to make sense of it is like trying to swim your way out of quicksand. Trying to confront it head-on is like standing at the bottom of a mountain trying to stop an avalanche. Trying to extract a rule of law from it is like trying to find a working time machine in a junkyard. But enough with the similies; I shall show you what I mean. Take this excerpt from the opinion in the case:
"The trial court did not err in holding propositions of law that by the first deed the children of Frank Doyle acquired a contingent interest in the real estate and that the later deed to him could not affect that interest. The argument for the defendant in error at that time was that the first deed vested in Frank Doyle title in fee simple to the premises, and that the condition restricting alienation and the attempted limitations on the fee were repugnant to the estate granted and therefore void. It was not then and is not now claimed that the restraint upon alienation was valid, but it was contended that there was no repugnancy between the granting clause and the conditional limitations because the statutory form of deed did not include such words as were necessary to transfer an estate of inheritance at common law, and therefore the estate granted could be limited by express words or by construction or operation of law."
Um, what?
I'm PROFESSIONALLY STUDYING this stuff. It's my JOB to understand what the hell this is saying. And it took me roughly 8 hours, accompanied by consultation with a plethora of outside sources, human, electronic, and textual.
And sure as shit, when we get to that case this morning in Property (our 8am class, I might add), our Professor goes, "hmmm... Mr. Dubinsky, would you favor us?" That's what it's like to be me. The most cryptic, unintelligible, dense mass of gibberish yet encountered and I get called on to enlighten the class. Figures.
I nudged my friend as I stood up, having predicted this ever since reading the blasted thing. So I got up and fumbled through the case and pretty much kicked its ass. I read my meticulously-crafted brief and answered all of the professor's questions more-or-less correctly. It's a massive relief knowing that I'm safe from being called on in that class for a bit. The cool part was that no less than 15 people today told me how well I did. Even one guy said that when the professor was looking at the seating chart, everyone in the class was sitting silently, thinking "please please PLEASE don't call on me for this case." Probably the most rewarding I've felt in law school thus far is feeling like I have a firm grasp on the law of future interests.
Finally (sorry this is so long), tomorrow is the Battle of the Rattles. All the separate sections get together with the 2Ls and 3Ls for some friendly athletic competition and drunken spectating. There are tournaments of soccer, football, and tug-o-war. It's BYOB and there will be free food and friends/family members/loved ones are encouraged to attend. It should be a lot of fun.
Anyway, it is time for me to abandon my post in cyberspace and go out to celebrate the completion (I'd say domination, personally) of yet another week of law school. Booyah.
Where to begin. Perhaps with the fact that I'm sitting here updating this on a Friday evening? Fear not; my crew and I just tend to roll out fairly late.
Anyway, it was great going home for Fall Break this past weekend and seeing the family and friends. It almost made me forget for a few days how much things have changed since I started law school. But it also reminded me that some things never change.
Last Thursday, something unprecedented happened, and it was pretty damn cool. I was called on in Contracts, and after responding to the barrage of questions hurled my way by the professor, something happened that I'd never witnessed before in law school. People applauded. Now, when we have guest speakers, the class applauds when they are finished speaking. Even some days when the professor does a particularly compelling job teaching the class he will be met with applause at its conclusion. But never had I seen the class applaud the routine response of another classmate that had been called on. Honestly, I don't know why they applauded. I felt it was pretty common sensical what I was being asked and anyone else could have done equally well or better than I did. I think it was more in the presentation than the actual substance; I was nailing the questions immediately after he was done asking them. Nevertheless, it made me feel pretty good.
Yesterday I was pulled over by an officer of the law (and I use the term loosely) while on my way to Torts in the morning. The reason? Failure to display two license plates. That's it. My registration and inspection stickers are good. Nor was I speeding or engaging in any other sort of moving violation. I worked for a Municipal Court for 8 months, so I was vividly aware that it is unlawful in Texas to display only a rear license plate. However, being a first semester law student, I don't exactly have time to go seeking out the nearest Volvo dealership, scheduling an appointment to have a front bracket installed to hold a front plate, taking my car there, dropping it off, waiting for the labor to be performed, and paying the fee with money that I don't have. Well, that's not exactly true. I could do all that. But it would be at the expense of study and preparation for one or more classes, as there is always something that can be done to further clarify what's going on in any given class. So naturally, having driven my vehicle for years in Texas, passing hundreds of police officers, and having never been stopped for displaying only one license plate, I made the choice most consistent with my perceived cost-benefit analysis (that being not getting a front plate installed). I tried to explain this to the officer when he asked why there was no front plate. I didn't lie to him and feign ignorance of the law. That didn't matter. He still gave me a citation. My research puts it at about $180 that could be put toward a myriad of better uses than lining the municipal pockets of the City of Balcones Heights. Now, however, my hand is forced and I will be getting my front plate installed on Monday morning (at which time exactly there will be a town hall meeting on campus with the Dean of the law school that I wanted to attend...). I will then take the proof of swift compliance to the prosecutor and hope for a dismissal. In Coppell, nine times out of ten swift compliance for this specific ticket and others similar yielded a dismissal from the prosecutor, so I am hopeful.
Then Torts itself was rather engaging, once I actually got there. One of the cases in the assigned reading for yesterday was Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining, Co. 76 Me. 100. Barrows, J. authored the opinion and included a reference to Tubal-Cain:
"If the defendants had proved that in every mining establishment that has existed since the days of Tubal-Cain, it has been the practice to cut ladder-holes in their platforms, situated as this was while in daily use for mining operations, without guarding or lighting them, and without notice to contractors or workmen, it would have no tendency to show that the act was consistent with ordinary prudence, or a due regard for the safety of those who were using their premises by their invitation"
The poor soul whom the professor called on for this case did not know who Tubal-Cain was when asked. Our professor got livid. He turned bright red and started screaming at the entire class at the top of his lungs. "IF YOU COME ACROSS A SINGLE WORD THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND YOU LOOK IT UP." Our Torts professor is normally pretty intense, but this level of veracity took us all a little bit by surprise. Personally, I wanted to laugh out loud during the diatribe, but I figured he might be prone to pick on me frequently in the near future if he saw me snickering out of the corner of his eye while he was screaming at the class. Overall, the message itself was a good one, though in my opinion the method of delivery was just a trifle superfluous. 1Ls at St. Mary's are split into four sections, A, B, C, and D (D being the evening program students), each of which have all the same classes and professors. I am in section B. However, our Torts professor teaches both section A and section B and tries to harmonize them as much as possible. Section A had class with him after our class, so needless to say when they walked into Torts today, every one of them knew who Tubal-Cain was. I'm considering attending the law school Halloween party as him.
And this morning in Property was fairly eventful as well. We are studying the law of estates right now, specifically future interests, and even more specifically the Rule Against Perpetuities. The material is so abstract, dense, and foreign that it really is not an exaggeration to say that it's like trying to learn a foreign language. I feel like a disproportionate amount of my time is spent trying to grasp the material in Property, at the expense of my other classes. As my Dad well knows, during Fall Break I devoted Monday entirely to the reading and understanding of Property, specifically a certain case: Stoller v. Doyle, 100 N.E. 959. Out of ALL the cases I have read thus far throughout my legal education, this one is BY FAR the worst. Trying to make sense of it is like trying to swim your way out of quicksand. Trying to confront it head-on is like standing at the bottom of a mountain trying to stop an avalanche. Trying to extract a rule of law from it is like trying to find a working time machine in a junkyard. But enough with the similies; I shall show you what I mean. Take this excerpt from the opinion in the case:
"The trial court did not err in holding propositions of law that by the first deed the children of Frank Doyle acquired a contingent interest in the real estate and that the later deed to him could not affect that interest. The argument for the defendant in error at that time was that the first deed vested in Frank Doyle title in fee simple to the premises, and that the condition restricting alienation and the attempted limitations on the fee were repugnant to the estate granted and therefore void. It was not then and is not now claimed that the restraint upon alienation was valid, but it was contended that there was no repugnancy between the granting clause and the conditional limitations because the statutory form of deed did not include such words as were necessary to transfer an estate of inheritance at common law, and therefore the estate granted could be limited by express words or by construction or operation of law."
Um, what?
I'm PROFESSIONALLY STUDYING this stuff. It's my JOB to understand what the hell this is saying. And it took me roughly 8 hours, accompanied by consultation with a plethora of outside sources, human, electronic, and textual.
And sure as shit, when we get to that case this morning in Property (our 8am class, I might add), our Professor goes, "hmmm... Mr. Dubinsky, would you favor us?" That's what it's like to be me. The most cryptic, unintelligible, dense mass of gibberish yet encountered and I get called on to enlighten the class. Figures.
I nudged my friend as I stood up, having predicted this ever since reading the blasted thing. So I got up and fumbled through the case and pretty much kicked its ass. I read my meticulously-crafted brief and answered all of the professor's questions more-or-less correctly. It's a massive relief knowing that I'm safe from being called on in that class for a bit. The cool part was that no less than 15 people today told me how well I did. Even one guy said that when the professor was looking at the seating chart, everyone in the class was sitting silently, thinking "please please PLEASE don't call on me for this case." Probably the most rewarding I've felt in law school thus far is feeling like I have a firm grasp on the law of future interests.
Finally (sorry this is so long), tomorrow is the Battle of the Rattles. All the separate sections get together with the 2Ls and 3Ls for some friendly athletic competition and drunken spectating. There are tournaments of soccer, football, and tug-o-war. It's BYOB and there will be free food and friends/family members/loved ones are encouraged to attend. It should be a lot of fun.
Anyway, it is time for me to abandon my post in cyberspace and go out to celebrate the completion (I'd say domination, personally) of yet another week of law school. Booyah.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Coalescence
Rules, defenses, doctrines, theories, causes of action, precedents, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions ... they are starting to coalesce into a chain of black-letter law that has new links added to it hour by hour. I don't know if it's that I'm finally starting to see the picture that the puzzle is supposed to make instead of the individual pieces or if it's just having it all hammered into me for going on 2 months. Whatever it is, I like it. With the understanding comes an amplification of the confidence I had going in. There are some damn bright kids in the St. Mary's School of Law Class of 2011, and I'm only really intimately familiar with those in my section. So I may not end up #1 in the class but I have faith in myself and my ability to do well.
I did get Socratizied in Torts not too long ago. It was bound to happen at some point and it wasn't that bad. Especially given that the professor who called on me is infamous for making students in his class cry (when he's in a good mood) or drop out of law school altogether (when he hasn't had his coffee). It was good to get it over with and be able to just shrug it off; there are going to be MANY more times throughout my law school career when I'm called on and don't have the perfect response to let fly from my lips.
Outlining is progressing well, though I'm slightly behind where I'd like to be at this point in the semester. I hope to change that this week and during Fall Break this weekend when I head back up to the house I spent the majority of my childhood in for what looks to be the last time. St. Mary's has a policy where all 1Ls get a midterm in every class and the professor decides whether or not to count it toward their grade. Luckily, none of mine will. I think I have a pretty good idea of what each professor wants, but we'll see. My Contracts midterm was decent. My Legal Research & Writing midterm was good. I turn in my Property midterm tomorrow morning. Haven't gotten Torts or Civil Procedure midterms yet. I say bring em on, though!
I forgot to mention it in my past entries, but about a month ago I attended the September Wills Clinic at the Center for Legal and Social Justice. One thing that St. Mary's offers is a certificate when you graduate with a certain number of Pro Bono hours logged during your legal education. I am going to pursue that achievement fervently. On top of getting some credit towards the certificate, it was overall a great experience. Basically, we just sat there as witnesses to low-income families who come in to have pre-drafted will templates filled out for them by generous attorneys who donate their time to do this. I got to be a witness for a very old, very frail Hispanic man and his three daughters who were there to get a will drafted for him. Not only was it interesting to see how it was done, but when it was all over the old man got up and wanted to shake my hand and thank me. It made me smile. I plan on going to the October Clinic as well on Wednesday. But right now I have to go to sleep. I still haven't been called on in Property and the list of people who have yet to be stood up is dwindling down down down, so I want to be on top of my game.
Before I go, one note: on the inside of all of my books I wrote my name, my phone number, and the message "Please be a good bailee and return if found."
LATES
I did get Socratizied in Torts not too long ago. It was bound to happen at some point and it wasn't that bad. Especially given that the professor who called on me is infamous for making students in his class cry (when he's in a good mood) or drop out of law school altogether (when he hasn't had his coffee). It was good to get it over with and be able to just shrug it off; there are going to be MANY more times throughout my law school career when I'm called on and don't have the perfect response to let fly from my lips.
Outlining is progressing well, though I'm slightly behind where I'd like to be at this point in the semester. I hope to change that this week and during Fall Break this weekend when I head back up to the house I spent the majority of my childhood in for what looks to be the last time. St. Mary's has a policy where all 1Ls get a midterm in every class and the professor decides whether or not to count it toward their grade. Luckily, none of mine will. I think I have a pretty good idea of what each professor wants, but we'll see. My Contracts midterm was decent. My Legal Research & Writing midterm was good. I turn in my Property midterm tomorrow morning. Haven't gotten Torts or Civil Procedure midterms yet. I say bring em on, though!
I forgot to mention it in my past entries, but about a month ago I attended the September Wills Clinic at the Center for Legal and Social Justice. One thing that St. Mary's offers is a certificate when you graduate with a certain number of Pro Bono hours logged during your legal education. I am going to pursue that achievement fervently. On top of getting some credit towards the certificate, it was overall a great experience. Basically, we just sat there as witnesses to low-income families who come in to have pre-drafted will templates filled out for them by generous attorneys who donate their time to do this. I got to be a witness for a very old, very frail Hispanic man and his three daughters who were there to get a will drafted for him. Not only was it interesting to see how it was done, but when it was all over the old man got up and wanted to shake my hand and thank me. It made me smile. I plan on going to the October Clinic as well on Wednesday. But right now I have to go to sleep. I still haven't been called on in Property and the list of people who have yet to be stood up is dwindling down down down, so I want to be on top of my game.
Before I go, one note: on the inside of all of my books I wrote my name, my phone number, and the message "Please be a good bailee and return if found."
LATES
Sunday, September 21, 2008
A for Today!
I've said it before, but I've wanted to be a lawyer ever since I was a small child. I remember when I was in middle school, my good friend Chris had a Halloween party at his house and I went as a lawyer. I put on a suit and tie, combed my hair over, grabbed my dad's briefcase, and was on my way. Everyone said I had the scariest costume there. I also remember that while my dad was in law school, he would bring home some piddly crap every now and then. One time he brought home a t-shirt that said KeyCite it! on it. Now, having been in law school for a month, I'm keenly aware that KeyCite is a tool featured by Westlaw to facilitate legal research by telling you what is still good law, how many times a certain case has been cited and whether or not it has been given positive or negative treatment by other judges and legal scholars. However, back then, I had no idea what KeyCiting was. All I knew was it had something to do with lawyers and (to me at least) that was cool.
The point, I suppose, is that I'm living the dream. I'm a month in. Hell, I've even gotten a midterm already. At St. Mary's, the midterms are not graded, but they are required so that the professors can give you a glimpse of what to expect on the final as well as some feedback on your legal analysis. On Thursday, my Contracts professor gave us a problem to work with. He's an outlier when it comes to law professors. Instead of teaching the rules of law, he basically engages us in class-wide debate for the full period and lets us run free. He'll bait people into saying what they really think by entertaining an answer that is completely wrong, never correcting anyone. If no one speaks up with the right principle or application of the law, he'll let us walk out of there potentially thinking the wrong thing entirely. He's big on teaching us how to be advocates for both sides of any given legal issue rather than memorizing and regurgitating legal rules. He gave us a problem about a man who was given a job as a pastor with a church in Houston. That's one contract right there (employment). This man was so good that his congregation, and with it his donations, kept growing. He did so well, in fact, that his superior promised to "always support him in his endeavors." That's one contract and one promise (our professor makes a distinction). Was there consideration? Debatable. Shortly thereafter, however, the man found out that his superior was having illicit sex with members of the congregation, but kept quiet about it. That is, until he himself was faced with charges of having sex with underage boys. He was fired from his job and his benefits revoked. He met with his superior and said, "you promised to always support me." His superior didn't care. That is, until the man told him he knew about all his illicit relationships. He then extracted another promise from his superior, who pledged to contact the head of the organization about helping the man with his criminal proceedings. That's 1 contract and 2 promises. Void as a matter of public policy? Illegal? Duress? All valid angles. Ultimately, the man was left out to dry and had to rely on a public defender and was convicted. The man brought suit against BOTH his superior AND the head of the organization for breach of contract/promise.
Our professor gave us a two-sided sheet of paper. On one side the instructions read "Argue for Plaintiff." On the other it said "Argue for Defendant." Who knows if I said anything right, but I did have a hell of a lot to say. And that was right after the class discussion, where I earned an "A for today" (his words, not mine) through my analysis of the case we had to read for class. Good times. I also got my first legal memo back in Legal Research and Writing. The professor wrote "good organization and application of the law to the facts." /flex
I'm keeping up with the reading but not doing too much ahead of what's immediately required to stay afloat. I'm also not keeping up with my outlines nearly as well as I should be. That's going to come back and bite me in the ass. All in all, things are good. Bring on Week 5!
The point, I suppose, is that I'm living the dream. I'm a month in. Hell, I've even gotten a midterm already. At St. Mary's, the midterms are not graded, but they are required so that the professors can give you a glimpse of what to expect on the final as well as some feedback on your legal analysis. On Thursday, my Contracts professor gave us a problem to work with. He's an outlier when it comes to law professors. Instead of teaching the rules of law, he basically engages us in class-wide debate for the full period and lets us run free. He'll bait people into saying what they really think by entertaining an answer that is completely wrong, never correcting anyone. If no one speaks up with the right principle or application of the law, he'll let us walk out of there potentially thinking the wrong thing entirely. He's big on teaching us how to be advocates for both sides of any given legal issue rather than memorizing and regurgitating legal rules. He gave us a problem about a man who was given a job as a pastor with a church in Houston. That's one contract right there (employment). This man was so good that his congregation, and with it his donations, kept growing. He did so well, in fact, that his superior promised to "always support him in his endeavors." That's one contract and one promise (our professor makes a distinction). Was there consideration? Debatable. Shortly thereafter, however, the man found out that his superior was having illicit sex with members of the congregation, but kept quiet about it. That is, until he himself was faced with charges of having sex with underage boys. He was fired from his job and his benefits revoked. He met with his superior and said, "you promised to always support me." His superior didn't care. That is, until the man told him he knew about all his illicit relationships. He then extracted another promise from his superior, who pledged to contact the head of the organization about helping the man with his criminal proceedings. That's 1 contract and 2 promises. Void as a matter of public policy? Illegal? Duress? All valid angles. Ultimately, the man was left out to dry and had to rely on a public defender and was convicted. The man brought suit against BOTH his superior AND the head of the organization for breach of contract/promise.
Our professor gave us a two-sided sheet of paper. On one side the instructions read "Argue for Plaintiff." On the other it said "Argue for Defendant." Who knows if I said anything right, but I did have a hell of a lot to say. And that was right after the class discussion, where I earned an "A for today" (his words, not mine) through my analysis of the case we had to read for class. Good times. I also got my first legal memo back in Legal Research and Writing. The professor wrote "good organization and application of the law to the facts." /flex
I'm keeping up with the reading but not doing too much ahead of what's immediately required to stay afloat. I'm also not keeping up with my outlines nearly as well as I should be. That's going to come back and bite me in the ass. All in all, things are good. Bring on Week 5!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
