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.

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.

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