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."