Eugene is right: The is no consideration

but he still can collect. Let me explain...

There is definitely no consideration, but there are ways to enforce a promise without consideration.

The answer is promissory estoppel. There are three elements that make up promissory estoppel:

1. a promise that likens to induce action or forbearance
2. Reliance
3. injustice will occur if it is not enforced

The promise that Mrs. Melmouth told Queensberry that she would be him in a year. This induced Queensberry to not collect from Mr. Melmouth and he actually relied on the promise to his detriment (he did not receive the money that was rightfully owed to him.) Like Eugene mentioned, there was nothing stopping him from getting the money from Mr. Melmouth; EXCEPT for the promise by Mrs. Melmouth. The last element is injustice; If the promise is not enforced then injustice will occur. This element is debatable without a further examination of the facts. However, it seems that if Mrs. Melmouth doesn't live up to her promise then Queensbury won't be able to collect his money--hence injustice.

So yes...there definitely isnt any consideration. But there are other means of enforcing a promise such a promissory estoppel. Eugene...you will learn that in the next few weeks...

However, the more important issue is whether promissory estoppel should even exist. As a strict constitutionalist and moreso a conservative who believes in individual responsibility, I feel that the theory of promissory estoppel has been grossly expanded to the point it has ruined the law of contracts. The liberal idea that you don't need the traditional elements of a contract to enforce a promise/offer anymore is ludicrous. It has burdened the legal system with frivolous lawsuits and has made innocent parties liable for situations that don't fit the mold of traditional contract formation.

Don't get me wrong--there are many instances where promissory estoppel is important and necessary, but in the modern legal environment, promissory estoppel has been liberally applied to fit every possible situation out there. This slippery slope is the end of contracts as we know it.

Consideration Continued

Okay, here is my analysis of the hypothetical. First, I will start with what I believe is the wrong answer. In law school, the professors always say that you should be prepared to argue both sides of an issue. So, here we go. 

A contract exists because both parties have given something and both parties have gotten something. The wife gave the note and received a year of non-collection from the collector. The collector did not collect for a year and in return received the wife's note. A contract exists when a promise is exchanged either for another promise or for a performance. Although the collector never accepted (did not promise), he still in fact performed. The wife received a valuable benefit from the collector, which constitutes consideration, and therefore a valid contract. Sounds good. Case closed.

I don't think so. Here is what I think the answer is. The offeror is the master of his offer. He dictates the terms of the offer and he sets the mode of acceptance. The wife clearly and unambiguously asked for a promise in return for her promise. She was bargaining for a promise, not a performance. What she wanted by giving the note, more than anything else, was to be secure in knowing that she had a year to pay off this debt, and that the collector would not come banging down her door at any moment. This security is what she was bargaining for, a type of security that could only be granted through a promise. She did not get it. She was forced to sit on her hands and knees praying all year that the collector didn't show up. On the other hand, what did the collector really give up or sacrifice? Sure, he did not go and collect for a year. But if he had wanted to, he would have been well within his legal rights to go and collect at any moment during that year because after all, he never actually accepted her offer. So, if he takes the note but makes no commitment to actually wait the year, as he did in this situation, he has in reality given up nothing at all. He can sit at home and think to himself if I so choose I can wait the entire year, but if over the course of this year I really need the money, I'll just go collect it. That is not consideration. He is not bound to anything. He can do whatever he wants. His position is advantageous beyond the point of being a valid bargained for agreement.   

Ultimately, did the wife receive something valuable? Did the collector give something of value? Absolutely, without any question. But it simply was not what was bargained for. The wife bargained for a promise and never got it. Consideration must be bargained for, and here the purported consideration has not, it is therefore invalid. You might say that his grunt may have carried with it some implication of consent to her offer. However, the collector is standing at her door. She simply asks him to just say the word "yes". All he has to do is move his lips and say "yes". Yet, he refuses to do so. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to do, but he choses not to do it. No reasonable person can look at his actions and say that they constituted an acceptance of her offer. There is absolutely no objective manifestation of intent to be bound to her terms. 

Anyway, that's just me, a 2nd month law student, playing judge. I welcome any counter-arguments or further comments on the subject.   

Consideration

One of the most difficult concepts for law students to grasp in contracts is consideration. There is not really a working definition for the concept. It can best be described as something that has been bargained for. It is a benefit that one party to a contract receives, or some sort of sacrifice or burden on the part of the other party. A contract cannot exist unless both sides give consideration.

The following is a problem from my contracts casebook. I loved this hypothetical. I have my own idea of what the correct answer is, but I will leave that explanation for tomorrow. For now, I would just like to throw it out there and give everyone the chance to think about it. I would also certainly welcome comments if anyone is interested in doing so. 

Mark Queensberry was the current holder of a promissory note signed by Sebastian Melmouth. When the note matured, Queensbury came to Melmouth's house to collect. Mrs. Melmouth met him at the door and handed him a promissory note she had signed for the same amount; it was payable exactly one year later. She said to Queensberry that if he would promise her to forbear collecting on her husband's note for one year, at the end of that period she would pay her note if her husband was unable to pay his. Queensberry just grunted and walked away with her note. He did forbear collection activities for one year. Now Queensberry is trying to collect from Mrs. Melmouth. She is arguing that she had asked for a promise and did not get it, and that there is, therefore, no consideration. Is she correct? 

Second Memorandum Due!

So ever since I received my 1st memorandum back (as a mentioned a few blog posts ago) I have been working feverishly to improve the document so I could turn it in tomorrow as the second memorandum. After countless hours including omitted points, revising bluebook citations, and adding 6 new cases with new rules and principles, I have developed a paper I feel pretty confident in.

I am definitely getting the hang of writing a memorandum. It is an objective piece that is suppose to provide both sides of the argument concerning a potential clients case. It is read by a partner or associate in the law firm and they make a decision in regards to what to do with the case. The writing is completely different then anything I have done before so I'm really happy that I'm getting the hang of it pretty quickly. Our last memorandum is due later in the semester and it is an open memorandum where I will need to conduct WestLaw research for relevant cases that help support and oppose my conclusion.

But in the meantime, I have a Nexis Lexis research class, WestLaw research class and an ethics class to attend to in the next few days. Its going to be a long week, but will come out of it learning crucial tools for legal research.

We are all in it together...

I wanted to take some time and reflect on the law school community. Many of us have heard the horror stories about the cut-throat environment that is seen throughout law schools nationwide. We have heard of those competitive students who actually hide books or even rip pages out so that others in their section cannot use them.

Even though this cut throat environment has dissipated almost completely in U.S. law schools, I was told that a few of these types linger in every 1L class. Fortunately, I have not experienced one of these people yet. Everyone as CUA is so nice and helpful...its kinda funny how different my experience has been compared to all the horror stories I have been told. In fact, I am very grateful for such a community-type environment where everyone is willing to help--it makes the day just a little be easier.

You Don't Scare Me

My contracts professor has built up quite a reputation these first 3 weeks of classes. After the near murder of the poor student last Tuesday, I see a lot of my classmates having trouble coming to grips with his rather in-your-face style of socratic method. Before class today, I overheard two girls sitting in the row behind me talking about how they were having trouble sleeping the night before contracts class because they were thinking about the seating chart and when he might get to their names. During today's discussion, he questioned (very politely I might add) another student who immediately went catatonic. After a full three minutes of awkward silence she told him that she had done the reading and prepared, but she was too nervous to function. 

I don't know why this is exactly (perhaps its just my personality), but my experience in the classroom seems to be dramatically different from most other students. I find the professor to be both amusing and challenging. I am one of the few people relaxed enough in class to recognize his incredibly dry sense of humor and get a chuckle out of his jokes. I volunteer every class because I desperately want to interact with him. I want him to know that I understand what he is saying, and I want him to challenge me (maybe I also want to let him know that he doesn't scare me). He has taken the liberty of referring to me as "Gene" instead of "Eugene" during class. Considering that I have never exchanged a word with him outside of the giant lecture hall, I suppose this might mean I have made an impression. Who knows though... maybe not. Maybe its just totally random. They do say law school is just a giant mind-f**k. I think there may be some truth to that. 

Pardon the language =).   

That's Law School...

Law school is different. Very different from undergrad. Most of us didn't get lower than a B in college... In law school, my teacher told us that 50% of us will get lower than a B-. This is because of the law school curve.

Our first evidence of this was our first paper. The average for the class was a 71 and the median was a 69. She forewarned us that our grades would be that low since we are learning a new skill. Secondly, this paper was only 10% of that grade because she expected our grades to be that low.

My score was higher than the average score but I was still pretty depressed. However, when i actually looked at her comments on my paper, I felt alot better. She literally must have taken more than an hour commenting on each and every one of the papers she needed to grade. The commenta were detailed, comprehensive and definitely beneficial to my understanding of the assignment. It left me with very little questions and I am ready to move on to my next paper. Additionally, she also scheduled mandatory conferences with us to go over our papers individually. Honestly, a few weeks ago I hated this process of going into a paper dark without any guidance, but know I am understanding what they were trying to do. I am also very impressed that my teacher would take the time to comment in that much detail and to provide me with 20 minutes to meet with her one-on-one.

Our second paper is an extension of the first by adding just a few more cases to the analysis. So after seeing where I made mistakes (which definitely were very minor ones I can correct in 30 mins) I definitely feel like I can get a very good grade on my second paper.

SCOTUS taking back a mistake?

Andy McCarthy reported at The Corner earlier this week that the Supreme Court has invited the parties to argue that the Kennedy v. Louisiana decision was wrongly decided. I am not sure how many people are familiar with this, but it was a case decided during the summer that John and I discussed with our coworkers at great lengths. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that a Louisiana law permitting the death penalty for child rapists was unconstitutional. From my perspective, and I am sure John's as well, this is an extremely welcomed development. 

The opinion was obviously very policy driven as the Court's 4 liberal justices and one incompetent justice, Anthony Kennedy, decided to use the case as an opportunity to limit the use of the death penalty. Ideally we know they would like to just end the practice all together, but strong public opinion the other way makes that quite unfeasible. 

The Court's reasoning was quite thin. They argued that since most other states had outlawed the practice of executing child rapists, a "national consensus" had been formed on the issue, which prevented Louisiana from acting contrary to it. As many people observed, the reason most other states had outlawed the practice was because of a prior Supreme Court decision from a few years back that outlawed the death penalty in cases involving the raping of adults. Most states assumed that since the death penalty was outlawed for adult rape cases, it would naturally apply to children as well. So most states outlawed the practice under the assumption that they were required to as a result of the previous decision. How very convenient then that the Court would site a "national consensus" that existed only because of their own previous decision. 

Kennedy also made a borderline incoherent argument that the practice was cruel and unusual. His reasoning was that the punishment is "disproportionate" to the crime. Who really believes that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for the raping of a child (which in many if not most cases effectively ruins that child's life)? Even then if you were to accept the premise that this was a a "disproportionate" punishment, why does it then logically follow that it is cruel and unusual? What is the standard by which we deem something disproportionate to be cruel and unusual? All questions left open in the Court's flawed reasoning.

It is encouraging to see that the Court is now at least considering correcting an obvious mistake and doing the correct thing.  

Directed Verdicts in Negligence Cases

A directed verdict is where the judge renders a verdict, usually for the defendant, instead of handing the case to the jury because he feels that no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. The last few cases in Torts, a directed verdict was rendered.

I was kind of confused by the decision for the judge to direct a verdict especially in a case where a blind employee bumped into a 75 year old man, which resulted severe injuries when he hit the floor. The old man sued the blind employee for negligence because he did not have his walking cane with him at the time of the incident. However, expert testimony exclaimed that it is common and usual for a blind individual to not use his cane when walking around at his place of employment; therefore he acted with reasonable care.

I agreed, but believed that it should go to the jury to weigh the facts and reasonably render on the side of the defendant. However, the judge rendered a directed verdict of the defendant without handing the case to the jury. Puzzled, I asked the professor to explain. Of course he didn't answer me directly (professors never do) but instead he posed another hypothetical about a malpractice case where the doctor was actually not liable for negligence. He then asked me whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the doctor is not liable for negligence when the plaintiff is in the courtroom bandaged up. The jury would have been swayed by their emotions rather than rendering a reasonable judgment. It made sense when he explained it that way: juries are not always the best to render a decision. (also this was a matter of law and not a matter of fact since there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly or should have known that he was breaching his duty of care...anyway...)

In the blind man case, he did not breach his duty by walking without a cane. It was unfortunate that someone got hurt, but legally, he was within his right to walk without the cane in an area that is most familiar with him. A jury might have felt sorry for the old man if given the case, but that wouldn't have been the correct judgment based on the matter of law since the plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case.

Civ Pro a Laughing Matter?

While in Starbucks between classes today, I was reading for my Civ Pro class. The section in the text dealt with the actual service of process (notifying someone that they are being sued) and what forms of service were acceptable and what were not. Evidently, courts go back and forth on what is appropriate "service" and in many instances must take it on a case by case basis. One of the confounding problems is that a lot of times people who do not want to be served can make it very difficult on the plaintiff/government to actually serve them. The book gave some examples of how people tried to avoid being served, how they were eventually served, and whether the court decided that was an appropriate form of service. This case caught my eye in particular. 

Defendant hid himself under his wife's petticoats and refused to receive the papers. The process-server saw him crouching there, so he put the papers on what seemed to be the defendant's shoulder, and went away. The Supreme Court rendered a decision which held that “where a person, to avoid service of summons, shelters himself in his wife’s petticoats, the laying of the papers on his shoulder will be sufficient service.”   

Maybe it's just me, but when I read this passage in Starbucks, I could not help but chuckle. The people around me probably thought I was crazy. I can't imagine it's every day that a law student reads something laugh-out-loud funny in their civil procedure textbook, so I thought I would document the occurrence.  

Yes, It Appears They Are Serious...

Echoing what John said yesterday, Torts can be very frustrating. In a case I read tonight, a school district was held liable in a claim by a student from a different school district. What happened was the Defendant school district wrote a letter recommending a former employer of theirs for a position in Plaintiff's school district. He was hired. Plaintiff was later sexually molested by this guy and she sued the Defendant school district for recommending him for the position. The court found that the Defendant had a duty of care to the Plaintiff because it was foreseeable that this guy could have caused harm to a student at his new position 

Hmmm... bit of a stretch. By this logic, pretty much everyone has a duty of care to everyone else, even if they've never met them and their actions have nothing to do with them. I guess if the end goal is to create a society where the government either directly or indirectly (through coercing a third party) compensates all citizens for anything that goes wrong in their lives, this opinion makes for very good policy. If you think those policy ends are total hogwash, this opinion is a nightmare.  

By the way, this decision was from the California Supreme Court in case you were wondering. All the landmark tort cases come from California. Not many big cases expanding the scope of tort law coming out of Texas or South Carolina.      

Are you serious?

So we officially started Negligence in torts class today. And let me tell you, this pleading negligence stuff is really bothering me. I'm not saying all negligence cases are frivolous; in fact, many are very important and have made the world a much safer place.

But there are many negligence cases, especially against companies that have caused endless litigation that has resulted in owner manuals to be as thick as phonebooks. The American citizen, through negligence litigation, has not only disregarded personal responsibility but has created a society were you blame everyone except for yourself.

We have read cases where products have been misused, individuals trespassing on private property, and reasonable precautions are not enough; all of which the defendant has been liable for negligence. Granted, most of the cases in which these things occurred, the court has ruled correctly and said that the company wasn't liable. However, this is not the case in every situation.

Thankfully, the defense has a tool called contributory negligence (which now, i think is being called comparative negligence). This is an affirmative defense used by the defendant to show that plaintiff was more or equally negligent than that of the defendant's negligence. It is the best tool I feel (or at least that I have learned about) to stop frivolous cases where plaintiff's don't own up to their mistakes but rather try to blame big business.

Do You Want to Be a Lawyer?

In Contracts today, I had a true Paper Chase moment, with my professor doing his best Charles Kingsfield impersonation (the movie is an absolute must see for anyone who is thinking about going to law school). We finished about 5 minutes early and the professor opened the floor up to questions. One poor, unsuspecting student raised his hand on the other side of the room. To be perfectly honest, I did not hear exactly what he asked, but I deduced that it was some sort of simple fact- based question regarding the Uniform Commercial Code. It appeared to be a question that he could have easily answered for himself if he had just gone back and looked at the previous reading assignment again. The professor just stared at the student for about 30 seconds before beginning the following line of questioning... 

"Did you do the reading?"

"You say you did the reading, but your question was not of the type that someone who did the reading would have asked."

"Have you paid attention for the last 90 minutes?"

"You say you have been paying attention, but your question is not of the type that someone who has been paying attention would ask."

"Do you take this class seriously?"

"Do you want to be a lawyer?"

"Would you like to apologize to your fellow classmates for wasting the last 5 minutes of this class with you silly question, when we could have spent it discussing intelligent questions?"

I understood what the professor was trying to do. In reality, the student was probably wasting everybody's time with the question. But that does not make the experience any less mortifying (God knows how the guy must have been feeling). The girl sitting next to me commented that she would not dare ask a question for the rest of the semester. 

I personally would not go that far. But as a general rule I think it will be very prudent for the rest of the semester if I think before speaking. 

Sometimes Even the Best Get it Wrong

In my last post I was discussing how challenging it was to read with a critical eye the legal opinions of some of the most celebrated jurists in American history. What seemed like an impossibility last week (finding flaws in the arguments of geniuses) became reality today. 

In Torts today, we discussed a legal opinion from Oliver Wendell Holmes from 1927. He was in his 80s at the time and was perhaps losing it, but it turned out to be the most bizarre and stunningly incoherent opinion I have read since starting law school. One of the fundamental concepts of torts is determining what is the reasonable standard of care in a given situation. The courts have found that the reasonable standard of care is an issue of fact that should be decided by a jury. But Ollie, perhaps old and cynical at the time, decided that this particular case was one where he didn't need a jury to tell him what reasonable behavior should be, because he thought he had the answer for himself. 

The case involved a man who while in his automobile was hit by a train while driving across railroad tracks. There was no denying the railroad's negligence, but the law of torts states that if the plaintiff was in any way responsible for his injury, there is no liability. Holmes decided as a universal principle that in order for a driver not to be negligent in a case such as this, he had to get out of his car and look both ways down the tracks before driving over them. If the driver failed to do this, he was creating unnecessary risk, and was negligent.  Hmmm.....

The silliness of this opinion was proven by the fact that it was overturned less than 5 years later when Benjamin Cardozo stepped in and corrected the obvious error. Cardozo correctly observed that getting out of the car to look to see if a train was coming clearly would not increase safety, and in fact would make the situation even more dangerous. By the time a driver got out of his car and looked down the tracks, by the time he turned around, got back in his car, started it up again, and began to drive... it was very possible that a train, not visible to the naked eye when the driver originally checked could have come speeding towards the intersection and hit the driver who was now driving across confident that the coast was clear. Cardozo, respectful to his predecessor on the court (ironically Cardozo took Holmes' seat), politely changed the law back to the infinitely more sane policy of letting juries, not judges, decide what is reasonable care.

The moral of the story I guess, is that even sometimes the greats (and Oliver Wendell Holmes is certainly one of if not the greatest) get it wrong on occasion. So, I guess all law students can take some solace in the fact that even the very best legal minds have struggled with this material. 

Just another day at law school

It was just one of those days I didn't want to get out of bed. But thankfully, I did and made it to class on time. Class went as usual; we discussed the removal process in Civ Pro and went into the last shot theory in Contracts.

However, I did have my first club meeting this evening: The Intellectual Property Law Students Association. This organization is devoted to preparing students for the IP arena by bringing speakers, companies, and of course network opportunities to the CUA community. Everyone seemed very nice and very enthusiastic about IP law; so naturally I fit in. It was great to see how many people were interested in IP law especially those that were not pursuing a career in patent law like myself. I was also excited to hear more details about the IP Moot Court especially since I learned the national competition is in Boston each year!!

Third Week Law Student v. Oliver Wendell Holmes

I have been so busy the last few days that it has been impossible to create a post. I am trying to stick to my schedule of staying 2 days ahead on all the reading, but it is turning out to be quite the undertaking. Last night, the Torts reading for next Monday included 8 cases that needed to be read and briefed. I got home from class at about 1:30. Factor in 30 minutes for dinner and 45 minutes to watch Sarah Palin totally renew my faith in politics, and I did not get done with my work until after midnight. 

So far, I would have to say that Contracts is the most challenging course. Not so much because the material is any more complicated than Torts or Civ Pro (in reality con law is actually quite simple and basic once you cut to the essence of the opinions), but because of the professor. He constantly challenges what we read in the case book. When I am reading the cases, I read them several times to gain a full understanding of the facts, the issue, the holding, and the reasoning. I then read over my brief a few times, commit the new law coming out of the case to memory, think about why it makes sense and is the correct resolution given the facts, and move on to the next one. 

This has been quite an effective strategy so far in Torts and Civ Pro. My strong ability to identify the issue in a case, and to fully understand the holding and the reasoning of the court, has served me well in those courses. I have already on several occasions been able to distinguish myself during class discussions through my mastery of these aspects of the opinion.

However, in contracts, the professor is constantly throwing a monkey wrench into my neat, orderly, and concise way of understanding the cases. I find the pattern has become quite familiar. After he has thoroughly traumatized a student, and ultimately managed to pull the court's holding and reasoning out of them, you can almost feel a collective sigh of relief in the classroom. Every student is thinking the same thing: "Finally! Now that we have identified the law, we understand it, we can probably (hopefully) apply it to different fact patterns, its time to move on. We've escaped this case!"  Not so fast...

The professor will then always come back with the question, "so, now that we understand it, tell me why the decision is incorrect?" Everyone's face just drops at this point. We've just spent the last 40 minutes working very hard to understand why and how this opinion became the law, and now we have to punch holes in the dam we just built. It has become the job of a third week law student to pick apart the legal reasoning of Benjamin Cardozo, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and all the other greatest legal minds in American history. Not an easy task to say the least. 

Last week I discussed how invigorating it was just to be able to get to the point where I could follow the reasoning of these legal giants. But now, it is my task to pick and prod at them, to critique THEIR reasoning and understanding of the law. It does not get any more difficult than that. I am finding it to be the most intellectually challenging exercise of my life. At times it physically hurts my head, but I suppose thinking about the material from this type of critical perspective will ultimately be of great assistance to me when trying to master it.      

Outlining [John]

My first practice exam is tomorrow. However, my teacher informed us that he will not even be looking at them, but instead will give us a sheet with his grading criteria. Regardless, I am definitely preparing as it was the real thing. I have began compiling our notes, tutorials into an outline.

I will definitely, blog on my exam experience tomorrow. For now, I am going to back to studying so I can watch the convention tonight!

Study Groups [John]

So the study groups officially have began...

As 1L by Scott Turow suggests, study groups are essential to the law school experience and it is very important to find a good group. So far, I have only one study group for my Torts class. The group is comprised of, what I feel, some of the best minds in my class. Today, we spent most of our time outlining the topics that were covered in our first tutorial. I felt that we did a great job filling in the blanks with exceptions and clarifications of the rules and principles. We will be meeting every week for the next 12 weeks to review and outline the topics that we discussed in class.

Also, this Friday I have my first practice exam. Generally, the only grade you receive in a law class is the final exam. This stands true for all my classes except for my legal writing class--I have about 3 grades in that class. However, unlike in the past, more and more law professors are providing in-class and/or proctored practice exams that will not be graded but will be looked at and the professor will provide suggestions. I think this is an excellent addition to my doctrinal classes because it helps us gauge how much we have learned and also provides insight into what the professor expects on our final exams.

Reflecting on the First Week of Classes

Many students complain about the LSAT. It is indeed one of the most difficult and most intellectually rigorous exams that most people will ever take. It seems cruel, unforgiving, and ultimately unnecessary. Most people think: "I can read... I can write... I certainly know how to argue... I know I can be a good lawyer regardless of what this stupid standardized test says!" Those thoughts ran through my head from time to time. As someone who received a very good score (but not elite), I found the test to be a very humbling experience; a real blow to my (what some would say) substantial ego. 

Unfortunately, after completing my first full week of classes; reading and briefing over 20 cases, and analyzing countless hypothetical scenarios, I am here to say that the LSAT does matter. The skills tested on the LSAT are exactly the skills you need to be successful in law school. Granted, I am a little rusty on the contents of the exam, but the one question type from the LSAT that immediately comes to mind is parallel reasoning. I found these questions to be particularly feverish and maddening when preparing for the test. The ability to answer those types of questions correctly, however, demonstrates the skill that is most important for being successful in law school. 

When judges read cases and make law, this is the skill they are using. They are looking at a very specific collection of facts and what they are doing is creating an abstract rule that can then be applied to a different set of circumstances. What lawyers do, when representing a client, is look into past case law and see if court precedent supports their clients case. It is very unusual that they would find a case that has exactly the same facts as theirs. So what they must do is examine similar cases for "parallel reasoning" that they can then apply to their client's case. Law students, on exams, are asked to demonstrate that exact skill as well. They are given hypothetical scenarios that are meant to spur thoughts of specific cases they have read in class that deal with the same legal issue. They are then asked to use parallel reasoning to apply the abstract rule from those cases to this new set of circumstances. 

LSAC is certainly much maligned. I don't think there is one law school applicant out there who didn't think LSAC was evil incarnate (at least at one time or another). But experience has now shown me that the council knows what its doing. If you can't do well on the LSAT, you can't do well in law school. I don't care how many high school or college speech and debate contests you won. 

No pressure though. 

The complexity of the law [John]

I am definitely starting to realize the complexity of the law. At one moment, you think that you have a pretty good grasp on issues such as consideration in contract cases and then you are thrown for a loop. Exceptions such as past consideration, adequacy and gifts definitely make the law confusing. There is no doubt in my mind now that no average Joe can represent themselves in a court of law without a lawyer...its just too difficult.

It gets even worst in civil procedure where there are a multitude of exceptions to subject matter jurisdiction. No wonder there are so many appeals. It just seems so difficult for judges to make the right decisions based on the matter of law 100% of the time with all these exceptions etc. But then again, that is why we have the appeals process. It is their job to help clarify the law and its procedures.

Thankfully it is the weekend, and I can make a serious effort on my closed memorandum that is due on Tuesday. But for now, I am going to sit, relax and rejoice that Sarah Palin is my VP candidate!!!!

Digging In to the Cases...

In law school, you recognize very quickly the types of cases you can expect to read in each class. For example, torts and contracts cases, generally grounded in the common law, are largely decided by state courts. Civil procedure cases, however, at least on the subject of jurisdiction, are largely Supreme Court Decisions. These are the cases where I actually recognize the names of the judges who wrote the opinions. This can be a good thing, and this can be a bad thing. Its good in the sense that it definitely adds to the learning experience if you understand the background and perspective of the judge who is writing the opinion. It is also a bad thing, because you evaluate the opinions with pre-conceived notions about the opinions. For example, today I was reading cases dealing with the subject of personal jurisdiction (when can a state can force a nonresident to appear and defend itself in the state's court). 

In the first case, the issue was whether or not plaintiff, a seriously injured mother and wife who was injured in an automobile accident could force a New York based automobile distributor to appear in court in Oklahoma. The majority ruled that since the company did not have minimum contacts in OK, the state did not have jurisdiction. Included in the casebook was a dissent by Justice William Brennan. I just thought to myself: "what a shock". The most notorious and liberal justice of the 20th Century siding against the corporation. He advocated for an extremely broad view of jurisdiction in his consent. 

However, the next case I read dealt with the same issue, this time whether or not Burger King could sue a Michigan resident in Florida. I was surprised to see that staying consistent with his previous legal opinion, Brennan sided with the giant corporation, Burger King, and argued that the company did in fact have authority to haul this Michigan citizen into court on its home turf in Florida.

I am often cynical when it comes to Supreme Court Judges. I tend to think that legal theory or philosophy doesn't really mean anything to them. It is just the tool they use for the purpose of imposing their political views on the country; not just liberal judges, but conservative judges as well. I was pleasantly surprised by Brennan's opinion in the second case, standing true to the principle he believed in, even though you could just tell deep down he was dying inside ruling for the corporation against the "little guy". 

Perhaps law school will strengthen my faith in the American judicial system.     

Memorandum Writing [John]

Sorry about the late post. I have spent the entire afternoon writing my legal memorandum concerning the Massachusetts Identity Theft Statute. Other than being confused on how the structure of the outline is suppose to be (the teacher never really made it clear), I am definitely enjoying the legal writing. It's like writing a math proof back in high school where I have to go detail by detail to prove whether the fact pattern sufficiently satisfies the statute beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also got the Soapbox case this afternoon. Like the memo, I have to argue a specific side of a case...but this time I have to do it orally in front of a panel. I was assigned the respondent side and will be arguing for a Redskin linebacker who is accused of battery. The case is very interesting because its the incident occurred on the field during a game between a New England Patriots linebacker and a Redskin linebacker. More details to come later!

Student Organizations: To Join or Not to Join

Tomorrow is the Activities Fair. I will definitely stop in. It seems like a good opportunity to network, specifically with upperclassman, who may be able to offer exam outlines and/or career tips. I'll be very interested to talk with the students over at the Federalist Society table (I am assuming the school will put their table in the Men's room across the hall from the auditorium).

Law Preview advised very strongly against getting too involved in student groups during the first year. The grades are just so important, that most/all of your time must be spent studying. They also said that extracurricular activities just don't mean that much to employers (aside from Law Review of course, which is an incredibly prestigious accomplishment that will stay on your resume your entire career). They advised that if you are going to get involved in an activity, be one of those people who shows up for the free pizza/guest speaker once a month. Take on absolutely ZERO responsibilities. If you find yourself working late into the night on a Monday trying to book a speaker for your group's meeting that upcoming Friday instead of spending that time studying for Contracts, something has gone terribly wrong. 

Sounds like good advice to me. But, I can hardly resist lending my support, even if it is only moral support, to the Federalist Society. Their mere existence at a school like NYL is in itself a profile in courage. 

My only question is how many students actually belong to the NYL chapter of the Federalist Society? I am willing to take bets on this. I am going to set the over-under on the size of the group as 6 members. Any takers?      

Its all Greek to me! [John]

As the rumors have stated, Obama's speech on Thursday will have an ancient Greece backdrop (see above). After learning this, I opened my Civ Pro book began my homework by briefing a case with a Greek Plaintiff. The case was in regards to diversity jurisdiction and whether a law suit between citizen from a foreign state and a citizen of a foreign state with permanent U.S. residency can be enough to move the case into the Federal System. Anyway, what is even funnier is that I opened my Contracts book and my second brief was a case between two Greeks.

I am Greek, as most of you know, so these kinds of things are funny to me. After laughing for a few minutes about this coincidence, I asked myself are Greek's litigious? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find statistics based on ethnicity but I think it would be reasonably to say that they are not more litigious than anyone else--this was just some crazy coincidence.

Anyway, sorry about the random tangent. However, I did want to share with you something trivial I learned today. In Contracts class, we discussed "consideration." Without going into the benefit/detriment test or the Bargained-for Exchange test, I did want to give you some parental advice.

Parental Advice:
A contract does not have sufficient consideration if the right that was suspended for a promise is not a legal right. Therefore, if your child is involved in illegal acts such as drugs, then technically if you promise them $1 million if they don't use drugs until they are 21, that promise is not a legally binding contract; this is because they didn't have a legal right to do drugs in the first place. So basically, your children will hate you for the rest of their life, but legally they will never be able to collect on your promise.

Reading the Cases

I am trying to stay 2 days ahead on reading (completing assignments due Wednesday on Monday, assignments for Thursday on Tuesday, etc). Much easier said than done. The cases are very interesting and it is by far the most intellectually stimulating work I have ever done. However, working the cases through is a very slow and tedious process. It's mostly because the judges are trying to take very specific facts and produce grand abstractions which can then be applied to different, yet comparable situations. This often produces results that are very difficult to wrap your mind around. Unfortunately, however, these abstractions are essentially what you must learn in law school. They are the tests and standards you must apply to the hypothetical fact patterns that appear on the exams. A student's ability to apply these "rules" to different circumstances is pretty much the sole determiner of his/her grades. 

The reading also comes slowly (and this just might be a pet peeve of mine) because a lot of the cases are very old, and some of the terminology is difficult to work around. At some points, when reading 19th Century cases, it feels very much like trying to get through Shakespeare (which I was never much good at).

The work is  hard, but it's fun and its exhilarating. There's no greater rush then reading a case, re-reading the case, doing your brief, and all of a sudden the light bulb goes off, and you actually understand what the hell this crusty, old judge is thinking and why he is thinking it. If there is anything more exciting than being able to get in to a Supreme Court justice's mind and actually follow their train of thought, I don't know what it is.  

This is indeed a very exciting time. 

Moot Court vs. Law Review [John]

Even though it is the 2nd week of school, I have some very big decisions to make that effect my 2nd and 3rd year of law school. One decision is whether to enroll into the Moot Court program or the Law Review. In order to do Moot Court next year, I will need to complete the Soap Box prerequisite. Therefore, I need to enroll in the Soapbox in the next few days and present a 10 minute oral argument during the week of Sept. 8th.

As I mentioned in my last post, I am going to do Soapbox since I want to keep my options open. (I have to decide if I want to do Law Review later in the year.) I learned today that we have an intellectual property moot court team which is definitely something I am interested in. However, it seems the the Law Review is more esteemed in the legal field (unless I am going to be a litigator...which I doubt I will be). Either program will be great, but its a key decision that I need to make and it will effect my legal career.

On Thursday, a Moot Court representative will be talking to our class to help clarify questions we might have. I am definitely looking forwards to it.

What is your opinion? Should I do moot court, or law review?

The Library Blues [John]

Its sad...but I have been in the library so much that I am actually having dreams about it. But its the reality of law school. Especially for 1L's; much of our time is spent constructing the foundation of the law by analyzing concepts from their origination to their modern interpretations. But the library blues is definitely kicking in. I know that every time I walk into the library, I will see the same group of students at the table next to me, and the same guy in the cubicle behind me. I also know that once I get to the library, that my schedule will be exactly the same last Monday...Civ Pro, Lunch, and then Contracts homework. But, I guess thats just school. 14 more weeks.... I really miss the summer...

On a lighter note, 1L's version of moot court begins on the 27th, so my schedule will definitely be changing to accommodate the preparation of a 10 minute oral argument that I will be performing the week of September 8th!

Torts v. Contracts: The Law's Political Spectrum??

Perhaps I am going out on a limb here. Maybe my view is distorted because being such a political creature myself, I tend to see almost everything through the lens of politics and ideology. But after reading the introduction material to all my courses, perusing the first couple of cases in each book, and now having sat through my first torts class today, I can't help but making a few political observations.

The law of torts is extremely collectivist by nature. Someone is injured during the normal course of the their life by someone or something (perhaps a household appliance or an automobile) and there is the intrinsic assumption that this person is owed something from another individual or a larger entity (a corporation or the government). The law of torts commands that every person has a duty and an obligation to every other person, and that corporations and governments have duties to all of us. If someone is hit by Coca Cola truck, society has an obligation to compensate them for their bad luck. Coca Cola pays the damages directly, but consumers also share in the cost as Coca Cola compensates for the loss by raising the price of their products. Sounds collectivist to me.  

On the opposite side of this spectrum, I see contract law as very individualistic by nature. The right of two private parties to enter into a contract with one another on their own terms is an incredible source of individual freedom and liberty. There is no government intervention or paternalism that dictates what your contracts look like. It is completely up to private citizens to decide the nature of a contract and whether or not it is their personal prerogative to enter into it. In fact, the role of the courts in contracts law is largely to enforce contracts where they deem them to exist. The courts hold people personally responsible for the agreements they themselves created. There is no excuse-making on the behalf of the party that wants out of the deal, no sob-story or claims of oppression by the powerful against the weak. No, none of that at all. It's basically a matter of "you decided of your own free will to make this contract, and now you are responsible for the consequences of your own actions." This is the very essence of individualism and personal responsibility. 

Is torts law liberal? Is contracts law conservative? I obviously do not have definitive answers to those questions, and I am certain that even if there is a general rule, there will always be exceptions to it. But this observation is something that immediately jumped out at me while doing my introductory readings this past weekend. It is a hypothesis that I am definitely going to keep my eye on as my courses progress and I will test it as often as possible. 

Legal Writing: Law School's Ugly Step Child?

Today was the first official day of classes. I only had one class, Legal Reasoning and Writing. The professor said it will be the most important class we will take this year because reasoning and writing are the skills that all successful lawyers must master in order to be successful. Torts, Contracts, and Property will come and go and the grades will only matter for acquiring that first job after school. But in 5 years, no one is going to care what you got in those courses, all they are going to want to know is if you can reason and write. This was not the first time I had heard a speech like this from a bitter legal writing professor. At Law Preview, the Legal Research and Writing professor (the chairman of the writing department at Fordham Law) gave a very similar lecture. 

I have definitely observed that the writing departments at most law schools seem to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. Most law schools send implicit and sometimes rather explicit messages that legal writing is not all that important. I have heard at some T-14 schools, the legal writing class in the first year is not even for credit. I even heard that at some Ivies the job of teaching the legal writing class falls to a 3L. This attitude towards legal writing was definitely reflected in the Law Preview class which offered a Legal Research and Writing session on the last Saturday (after 5 straight 10 hour days), and it was optional. Half the students who paid for my Law Preview session did not even show up on the Saturday.  

I am somewhat confused by this because I do believe the legal writing professors to be correct: the ability to write is the most important skill a lawyer can possibly possess. I am very perplexed by the fact that legal writing  is so marginalized and de-emphasized in law school, especially in the all important first year. It also seems that the more prestigious the school, the less emphasized legal writing actually is. Very strange. 

If anyone has any idea or even a theory as to what exactly the law schools are thinking here, I would love to hear it because I have given it a lot of thought, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.  

Finally...the week is over [John]

Its been a long week. I read more than 215 pages, briefed more than 25 cases, and spent about 13 hours in class (only God knows how long I spent in the library). Ok fine...215 pages isn't a lot, but it was definitely tiring especially since 75% of it were cases that needed to be briefed.

As for today, my three classes went well. I felt that I did a pretty good job preparing for them and am definitely getting a better grasp on how all the concepts are fitting together. Currently in Civil Procedure, we are going over the Federal rules and procedure for Discovery. It reminded me of the days when I worked as an administrative legal assistant at a law firm. I used to help fill out 26(b) forms, production of document requests and interrogatories. Back in those days, I didn't fully understand what the reasoning was behind filling out the forms, but now I definitely see how important the discovery phase is during the trial. haha and those summary judgments. I remember those vividly...it always felt like every case we had our attorney's would motion for summary judgment...Now I understand why....

Time to Get to Work

Today was the last day of orientation. Classes finally start tomorrow (Legal Research and Writing, 9 am sharp). We had a ceremony today where all the 1L's took an oath to be upstanding law students, and eventually upstanding lawyers. It was a very classy event. I am now officially about to embark on my career as a lawyer.

I had my first Civ Pro "class" today... if you want to call it that. The professor went out of her way to hold everyone's hand. A lot of lecturing, and she only called on volunteers. She warned everyone though that the tone of the class would change very quickly and noticeably. I don't doubt it. I am looking forward to the challenge.   

This entire week has sort of felt like suspended animation. I have been raring to go, but the work has been slow coming in. I can tell the school has made a conscience effort to try to make the transition to law school slow and painless. I was anticipating more of a trial by fire. However, with all my syllabi posted online now, and a full slate of classes scheduled for next week, there is more work to do now than I could ever hope for. Its time to get started. Finally!    

Giving in...

So today was Torts. Excellent class with an excellent professor. However, even though I had read the cases thoroughly, briefed them and answered his proposed questions, I am still struggling. I finally had to give in and turn to Study Aids. If any of you have read 1L by Scott Turow, you will know that Study Aids were like illegal drugs in those times. Now, professors think they are an excellent source to reference. (Not a supplement to your case readings though) Even some professors actually recommend certain Study Aids to compliment their class.

I still, as a traditionalist, didn't want to use study aids. But I finally had to give in. I went to the reference desk in the library and whispered to them "could I have a Torts study aid." It felt so illegal especially when the reference desk clerk got "excited" like this was some rare thrill. Anyway, as I mentioned it isnt illegal, its not looked down on and many people in my classes use them. They definitely helped me clear up specific topics within last nights readings. Regardless, I still don't believe I am going to buy them, but I definitely see myself frequently checking them out of the library.

Law School = Drugs, Alcohol, and Gay Marriage [Eugene]

Orientation is mercifully almost over. I had an interesting workshop this morning that dealt with the legal profession and substance abuse. Apparently I am about the enter a profession that has a disproportionate number of drug and alcohol abusers. Very encouraging. 

Anyways... the president of the NYC Lawyers Assistant Program (LAP) spoke to my section in great detail about his personal struggles with drugs and alcohol. Apparently he would represent drug dealers in the South Bronx, and he would subsequently get paid in product. After a while, when he was really strapped for cash and with a worsening addiction, he began stealing from his clients. Yikes! Perhaps a counter example to the lawyer = Superman analogy John brought up last week. 

In my faculty seminar section this week, we have been reading and discussing several cases dealing with engagement rings (who gets the ring in the event of no wedding?) Yesterday, the professor gave everyone a new hypothetical case to read and analyze and today we had a little mock court section. The hypothetical case changed several facts from the actual cases we read, most notably that the engagement ring was given from one woman, Cathy, to another, Tara. I know its Manhattan, and I realize this is a northeast law school, but is it so much to ask that I survive 2 days without having gay marriage thrown in my face??? Guess not.   

Hurricane Catholic Law

There was a eerie calmness in the library this week. Everyone seemed to be getting through the last few days with relative ease. And then it all hit at once....like a hurricane, law school has officially arrived.

As I have mentioned previously, I thought I had a good grasp of the homework and the topics discussed. In fact I even thought that I could get all my work done before I got home. Today was a different story. Classes got harder...a lot more Socratic method and delving into the details of each case. I learned what teachers expected you to know and what they didn't. I learned that my case briefs were great...but like everyone is learning, great is not enough. I kinda am getting the feeling that even if I try my hardest to prepare for class, I will never be fully prepared...

On that note, I am going to take another look tonight over the homework I have already done, and see if there is anyway I can strengthen my case briefs and better prepare for hypotheticals that could arise in class.

Day Two of Classes [John]

Today was no different than yesterday. My professors seem very nice and the classes they teach seem very interesting. Currently I am working on a multitude of case briefs for different aspects of the law. As Eugene said, anything is better than doing briefs. But I'm getting through it...at least the cases are interesting so far. For example, in Torts, we are developing the historical content of "actions involving intent" in regards to personal injury law. We literally went back into history (back to the King's Court in 1466) and see how precedent has been developed throughout the years on this matter.

In my Lawyering Skills class, we learned that on Thursday, we have our first attempt to oral arguments. The dispute is over a monument honoring Veterans of the Vietnam War. Hopefully, I will be assigned to the right side of this issue. More details to come after class Thursday!

Currently, I am two days ahead of schedule on my homework because as I said, I have an abundance of time during the day to sit in the library and finish my homework. I know this will definitely change, but I am going to take advantage of this free time while it lasts.

Day 2 of Orientation: Just waiting around [Eugene]

I made my first sacrifice for law school last night. Instead of watching my beloved NY Giants preseason game against the Browns (a game in which I later found out the Giants starters scored 30 points in the first quarter!!!), I sat quietly in my room and read.  This is likely to be the first of many sacrifices I will have to make this year. I hope the Giants can forgive me. 

Odd schedule for Day 2. I do not have to be in until 2:30 today. Honestly, I would much rather go in the morning and get out at 12:00, than have to go at 2:30 and get out at 5:30.  I have such nervous energy right now, this waiting around all day to attend events and seminars is just brutal.

Also, for my Civil Procedure class (meeting for the first time on Thursday), I have been assigned to read  A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr. It's an excellent book. I am having a lot of trouble putting it down, especially when the alternative is briefing cases. For anyone out there with some time on their hands, I highly recommend it.     

Lets get this show on the road! [John]

Ok fine...I admit...I guess I feared for the worst. Fortunately, my first official day of law school was nothing near my biggest fears. The teachers were friendly, helpful, and most importantly understanding. They understood we all were a little nervous and that we all didn't know what to expect.

For me, class began at 9:10 with Civil Procedure. I got up unusually early to prepare for class since I feared for the worst. I skimmed the chapter once more, re-read my notes twice, and essentially attempted to memorize the case I had to case brief for homework. However, once class started, I realized that I was definitely over-prepared and had nothing to worry about.

Since I had only two classes today, I had an abundance of time to work on homework for other classes. As a result, I can head home now, cook up a good meal and watch the Olympics without burdening myself with an overwhelming amount of reading that would have occurred if I had not taken the time during the day to get a head start.

All in all, my first day was 10 times better than I thought it would be and it definitely eased the nervousness I was feeling last night.

Money Money Money [John]

This whole Law School thing is costing me an arm and a leg. From tuition costs to book costs, there hasnt been a day where in the last week that I haven't swiped my credit card for something law school related.

This reminded me about a teacher at AU that told us that he seriously believes that law school should only be one year maximum (i think he said 6 months exactly). He believed that everything you need to know about the law, you learn your first year. His caveat was that the next year or two should be used to develop your skills as an "apprentice" at law firms etc.

Many professors during law school have hinted towards the same thinking. They say that law firms constantly tell law schools that recent graduates are not ready for jobs at law firms. Yes, every law student can recite the rules and precedent in a specific section of the law; but their main complaint was law students were never taught every-day legal skills such as client relations, filing, legal writing, etc. Law schools in the past have lacked teaching these skills and only focused on "how to think like a lawyer." (The Socratic Method) As a result, law schools are now incorporating these skills into their classes; hence why I am taking a class called "Lawyering Skills."

However, after realizing how much money I am spending, the more appealing my AU professor's legal education method sounds appealing. Why not get the hands on skills at a law firm as a sort of "apprenticeship." It would save us a lot of money that we spend just to sit in class and saves law firms money because instead of hiring incompetent grads at a starting salary of 100,000, they could give us maybe half that for a year and teach us the "street smarts" of the legal profession.

'Jump Start' Day at NYLS [Eugene]

I attended an event called 'Jump Start' at NYLS today. I had an opportunity to take an early library tour, buy books, and take a picture for my student ID card. I also received my fall semester schedule. My courses will include Torts (4 credits), Contracts (4 credits), Civ Pro (4 credits) and Legal Research and Writing (3 credits).  It was a nice opportunity to get a head start on some administrative stuff so I won't have to be bogged down with it next week at orientation. Just two observations: 

1. On the library tour we got our introduction to Westlaw, which is pretty much the official legal research database for the world. All law students have unlimited access to it throughout the duration of their time in school. One person described Westlaw to me as being like an intravenous drug. In law school they give you unlimited access to it and make you completely dependent on it for the rest of your career. When you leave school and begin to practice, however, the Westlaw service is anything but free and unlimited. I heard a horror story today about a 2L who obtained a summer associate position at a prestigious law firm. One afternoon during the summer the 2L was asked to do some simple research for an associate. The 2L's afternoon of research on Westlaw cost the firm $20,000. We were told today that on average it costs law firms $10 per minute to use Westlaw. So I am beginning to see why all 1L's must take some sort of legal research course.  It appears that one of the most important skills a lawyer can possess is the ability to efficiently and effectively conduct legal research. 
   
   
2. One main theme jumps out at me as I begin to examine my course schedule. The amount of time spent in class is simply not that rigorous. I will be in a classroom with an instructor for an average of about 3 hours a day, for 5 days a week. 15 hours a week is no more than the average undergraduate spends in the classroom. This is great, right? However, something tells me that all the law schools in the country didn't get together and say, "Gee, all the poor law students need plenty of rest and downtime, so lets not over-burden them with too much class time." You do not learn the law in the classroom. You learn the law in the depths of the library, when its just you and your case book, reading and briefing cases for infinite amounts of hours. In class, professors guide your reading and give you the questions you need to be asking yourself when you are reading the cases. The real work, however, does not begin until you leave the classroom.   
   

"The Project of Law School" [John]

So Orientation is unofficially over. We have no class tomorrow but only a welcome reception with the Dean tomorrow night. So I would like to use this post to sum up this past week and to lay out my expectations for the weeks to follow.

Orientation was definitely very helpful in easing the pressure and uncovering the mystery that is law school. Most of the lectures they had us sit through delivered very helpful tips on how to approach my law school career and also highlighted the many services that Catholic Law provides its students. The days were long--and I mean very very long, but I definitely appreciated them.

As for next week, I still am a little nervous about what to expect. Granted, today we did have a "model class" which went through the steps of an average day of class. It cleared up many questions I had and left me feeling confident that I will do good in class. However, one of the constant themes throughout orientation was to actively participate in class and don't get left behind. This shouldn't be a problem for me, but there is always that lingering question--what if it does happen?

This is not undergrad; teachers are not going to hold your hand up to commencement. (and yes you all know what I mean...paper extensions, excused absences, postponed exams...no more) They will however, do their best to guide you but of course that is within reason.

That brings me to my next point. Law school is like a job. You show up at 9 and leave around 5. You are suppose to bring an asset to the table that will help benefit the company. In law school, that was your resume and the skills you developed throughout undergrad. The expectation now is not what the law school can do for you, but rather what you can do for the law school. My law school experience not only affects my reputation but also that of the law school. Today, I want to make it clear that I am up for the challenge and cannot wait to delve into what one professor rightfully called it "the project of law school."

IRAC... or DRAC [Eugene]

I am very glad John brought up IRAC. Although, I have not started school yet, it is something that I am already very familiar with. The good people over at Law Preview warned my class two weeks ago that all of our law schools would try to indoctrinate us into the legal analysis method  that is IRAC. It seems like Catholic has already begun, and its only the third day.

To be completely honest, the Law Preview instructors did not have much nice to say about IRAC. In fact, they flat out thumbed their noses at it. To quote the Law Preview text book: 

Praised for its simplicity, IRAC has helped hundreds of thousands of students survive their law school exams. But if you are interested in doing more than just surviving your exams - if you want to conquer them - then you will see how using this methodology is far too limiting for students who want to earn a top spot in their class

Ouch! Law Preview instead recommends their own equally cheesy acronym for law students wishing to do legal analysis: DRAC. This supposedly superior approach lists the 4 steps of analysis as 1.)Dispute, 2.) Rule 3.) Arguments, 4.) Conclusion. The key difference here is in step 3. In IRAC, so they say, simply applying the legal issue to the case you are discussing unnecessarily limits the scope of your analysis, whereas laying out all the potential arguments that each party could possibly make in a dispute (the DRAC way) will broaden your analysis to include not only factual issues, but also legal and public policy issues as well, and therefore give you a more complete and more correct answer. 

Yeah, whatever all that means! However, DRAC is essentially the big scoop that Law Preview offers its students. So for anyone out there who is planning on attending law school in '09 or later and was thinking of taking Law Preview, I just saved you $1,200. 

 

From Iraq to IRAC... [John]

My undergrad career as a political science major delved into the policy issues of the War in Iraq. Law school has brought forth yet another IRAC. IRAC is a mnemonic device that is used to help develop legal analysis of issues considered within a law suit. The acronym stands for Issues, Rules, Application/Analysis, Conclusion.

When approached with an issue, you need to first look for authority that includes rules that will help resolve the issue at hand. Then you must analogously apply those rules to the facts of your case and then reach a conclusion that determines whether the facts satisfy the legal rule.

Of course, it is much more complicated than that, but a blog post is not the venue to delve into the intricacies of forming a legal argument. However, by sharing this with you I wanted to stress the importance of legal writing and the forming of an argument. We have not began any of our doctrinal classes yet, but rather have focused heavily on understand the basics of the law and how to correctly develop an argument. They expect us to have a good grasp on this by Monday when class officially starts. Hopefully, by Sunday night, I can report to you that I fully understand and have practiced numerous times the IRAC device of legal analysis.

Law School: A Necessary Evil??? [Eugene]

Yesterday in my introductory post I explained why I felt that law school was a necessary evil. It was an incredibly sobering experience for me when I began searching for a job and realized how tough it was for a social science/humanities major to find "good work", and really even any work at all. The BA just doesn't mean that much these days. The way the current educational system is set up, more education, i.e. law school, is required. In the Wall Street Journal today, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute opines that the entire higher education system in the US is broken. I happen to agree. Money quote:

Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

Whether you agree with the solution or not, it would be very difficult to argue that everything is fine with higher education. The proof in the pudding is that pretty much every single social science/humanities major in the country feels the need to apply to law school now. For the outrageous costs that are required to obtain a BA, it should definitely be providing young, intelligent people with more opportunities and open more doors than it actually does.  

Body Guard? Orientation: Day 2

Second day of orientation went great! I had two lectures and began my Lawyering Skills class. Many subjects were brought up but one in particular really caught my ear...

What is a lawyer? Everyone has their own opinions. Black's Law Dictionary says that a lawyer is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law." However, it never mentioned what is our job. Today, I heard our job summed up as follows:

"Our job is to put our body in between our client and those that will do them harm"

When I first heard this description it seemed like I was a bodyguard or "Superman" protecting the innocent. However, the more I thought about it, being a "Superman" figure is not so far fetched. Lawyers have an obligation to their client, no matter what the client has done, to protect them from outside entities that would cause them harm no matter if they act in self-interests or the interests of society. In our professionalism lecture today, we discussed this obligation and its relationship to the client-attorney privilege. The professor's argument was that this obligation is both ethically and morally important; lawyers need to act in their clients best interest, even if it might lead to the court finding a murderer "not-guilty." I tend to agree that we must uphold this relationship no matter the circumstances, but instead of telling you why, I would love to hear from you, the readers. What is your opinion on this issue?

23 Years Later [Eugene]

Unlike my friend John, it would be completely disingenuous for me to say that I have wanted to be a lawyer my entire life. In fact as late as last year at this time, law school was not even on my radar screen. I graduated from George Washington University in '07 (BA International Affairs) with thoughts of high paying jobs and economic self-sufficiency on the brain. It was quite a rude awakening for me when I hit the job market in DC during the summer of '07. There were plenty of opportunities, particularly in the non-profit area, but none were high paying or even offered a path to a high paying job in the future. It did not take very long working under these conditions that I realized that I had to improve my marketability. Hello, law school!!! 

For me, law school is a necessary evil. If you aren't going to go to law school and you don't have friends in high places, there is just not a lot of economic opportunity out there for humanities/social science majors. Its sad, but its true.

As I entered the admissions process and began reading about law school, my interest and desire to study the law definitely increased. After taking the Law Preview class at NYU last week, and beginning to do my initial course readings for NYLS, I am officially excited about beginning this endeavor. I have certainly come a long way in this last 6-8 months in terms of my intellectual desire to go to law school, and my conviction that I would like to practice law for my career. But unlike John, I definitely did not start here. 

From what I have heard from friends/contacts, it seems that most law schools have begun orientation and classes this week. NYL, however, does not start until next Monday, 8/18. I will have more then.     

The Journey Begins: Orientation Day 1

So today I have officially began my first day at Catholic Law. It was a day of administrative work beginning with filling in a bunch of forms and ending with me receiving my class schedule. I am Section D and taking Lawyering Skills, Civil Procedure, Contracts and Torts.

Unfortunately, none of my friends nor anyone I met today was in section D. However, our first class (Lawyering Skills) starts tomorrow; so in less than 24 hours I will meet the 35+ classmates that will be in every class I take for the next year.

The rest of the week is filled with different orientation events/classes including a class on Professionalism and a President and Dean reception at the end of the week.

As for now, I am going to make some dinner and begin my first reading assignment: "The Foundations of Legal Analysis."

22 years later...

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1500l.jpg

Ok, fine...it wasnt exactly 22 years ago that I decided that I wanted to go to law school; though my parents say I was born with the fight of a lawyer. However, for as long as I could remember, the urge to practice the law has influenced my path through life.

After graduating from American University in May 2008, I had many opportunities present themselves to me. The problem was I had my heart set on going to law school and there were no if, ands, or buts about it.

On August 11th, I begin orientation at Columbus School of Law at Catholic University. I enter my 1L year interested in intellectual property with the hope to work for the government protecting U.S. Intellectual Property Rights abroad. Hopefully, Catholic University Law's excellent location (in the heart of our Nation's Capital) will help me achieve my dream.

Many readers have asked when will I begin blogging. Well since school hasnt started, I havent had much to blog on. As of August 11th, I will begin blogging daily, so please check back then.

What is Law School En Banc?

Law School En Banc is a blog written by two students entering their first year of law school in August 2008. John is going to Catholic University Law in Washington, D.C. while Eugene is going to New York Law in Manhattan, NY. Since the 1L curriculum is mainly consistent among law schools nationwide, we felt it would be interesting to compare side-by-side our daily experiences: two law schools, two cities, two different perspectives. Each day we will blog about our experiences in-and-out of law school from the classes we take to the forums we attend. Politics will only be discussed when it relates to our experiences at school, so we suspect all the time.