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.  

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.      

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.     

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. 

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!

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!    

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.

'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.   
   

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. 

 

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."