The Mutually Shared Delusion

As I look back on my old posts here from 9 months ago, I can't help but blush a little. The excitement and optimism about the law and being a lawyer is just dripping from all the writing. It was a time of blissful ignorance and naivete. There was a feeling that everything was at my fingertips and I was seizing the day. Unfortunately, there was no day to be seized. I'm not sure that everyone, even some in the legal community, understand how times have changed. My corporations teacher starts nearly every sentence with "when you are a corporate lawyer." She gives us helpful hints and things to think about when we are in practice and working on putting together "big deals." If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. No one in that room is going to be a corporate lawyer, working on big deals for multinational clients. At least not for the foreseeable future. They'll be lucky to find volunteer work with the City government this summer.

Despite this inconvenient truth, time marches on at NYLS. Everyone lives in a mutually shared delusion. The faculty and administration pretends they are preparing students for a legal career. The students pretend that they are preparing themselves for that legal career. On my more cynical days, I tend to think the powers that be at NYLS know how dire the situation is, but purposefully coordinate their activities so as to keep it a secret from the vast majority of students, who have not been exposed to the realities of the legal market in 2009. Other days I think they are just as blind as the poor students whose tuition money they take. Perhaps they are in denial of the fact that the school is simply not relevant and has nothing to offer students in this market.

That might seem a bit harsh. But consider this. My class at NYLS has 420 students in it. To finish in the top 10 people in a class that size I think everyone would acknowledge is quite a special accomplishment. Yet, of those ten people (of which I am one, and I know most of the other 9), 1 received a job offer for next summer from a big Manhattan law firm. If the school cannot secure jobs for the top ten people in its class, why does the school exist? It should probably just close up shop. Perhaps this a little unfair because from what I understand even schools like Harvard and Yale are having trouble placing their students this year. However, it is not an unreasonable or unjustified thought.

Maybe things will get better. Maybe they won't. The fact is that the legal profession has imploded and there is absolutely nothing that recent grads or those in law school now can do about it. The fast track to prosperity for those who worked hard and finished at the top of their law school class does not exist anymore. Even if you assume that things will eventually improve, everyone's career has been set back years in terms of money and work experience. Some people just laugh it off, put their blinders down and just keep plugging along. I am jealous of them. However, I wonder how much of that is just for show. I can't imagine there is anyone in my position right now who is not also having a crisis of confidence.

So pardon me if the glow of the first year of law school has worn off. I've been there and done that. I had the Kingsfield-like Contracts teacher. I got an A from him. I learned about mens rea, personal jurisdiction, proximate cause, and adverse possession. I got A's in all those classes too (well except Torts). It was the most exhilarating and rewarding 9 months of my life. When I received those grades, it was the greatest sense of pride and self-accomplishment that I have ever felt. But looking back now however many months later, was it all worth it? Did it really matter as much as I thought it did at the time? Did it matter as much as every single person I went to for advice in my life told me it mattered? The answer is a resounding and unequivocal "no". It's virtually meaningless. I'll have to prove myself again this year all over again and hope that maybe next year some employer with throw me a crumb. Right now, my 1L GPA of 3.75 and $2.25 will buy me a subway ride to Brooklyn.

But hey, I have to get to bed early now. I am required to attend a conference early tomorrow about the emergence of a new duty in corporate law that directors owe shareholders (known as the duty of good faith). I'm told that it will come in handy for me when I am a big corporate lawyer. And the delusional continues....

Client Interview

As I suspected, the client interview was definitely harder than it looked. The interview was scheduled to be 20 minutes. I had scripted out beforehand the type of questions that I wanted to ask. The problem was that I exhausted all those questions in about 12 minutes. At that point, I had obtained all the information that I thought I needed, but was hesitant to close the interview because I knew that I still had 8 minutes left. The second the interview went off script, I deteriorated very quickly. I could not think of any more questions, and did not know how to fill the space. As a result the interview ended somewhat awkwardly, and left me feeling uncomfortable with my performance. However, immediately after I had finished, I was given a self-assessment form to fill out. The form detailed specifically all of the information I was supposed to extract from the interview. I was happy to see that I had discovered almost all of it, minus one or two smaller details. So, I suppose what I learned from this experience is to be confident in my ability. If I think I have all the relevant facts, I should not be afraid or hesitant to close the interview. My biggest problem this time was being unsure of myself. I am sure that is something that will only improve with experience. In that respect, I think this was a good starting point and I look forward to my next opportunity to try again.

Statutory Interpretation

Unlike torts, contracts, and property, criminal law is almost entirely statute-based. There are still many cases to be read. But unlike in the other courses, the cases are not read in order to discern what the law is. Instead, the purpose of the case readings is to provide examples and guidelines for how to interpret criminal statutes. Often times statutes can be quite ambiguous. When lawyers and judges are interpreting statutes, they need to consider the legislative history and the legislative purpose in order to understand what the statute means. For example, in criminal law, in order to be found guilty of a crime, there is almost always the requirement of a mental element (known as mens rea). It is not enough that a person does a criminal act, that person must also have a culpable state of mind at the time of the action (purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently to name a few). Sometimes statutes are silent as to what the mental requirement is. The usual common law practice is for court to assume that a mens rea requirement is implied in the text of a statute, and can only be nullified by the legislature specifically stating that there is no such requirement. However, interpretation can sometimes lead in another direction. Policy considerations sometimes can counteract common law assumptions. For example, if a law is passed that has clear public policy objectives (for example regulating the sale of prescription drugs), a court might discern that those objectives outweigh the potential harm done to an individual who is found strictly liable for breaking that law (finding a defendant guilty for simply committing the act without any consideration of fault or the reasonableness of their conduct). In these cases, courts will interpret the statute as not having a mens rea requirement unless the legislature specifically requires one. 

I understand that this can be confusing. That is precisely the point. Statutory interpretation is NOT easy and can be downright painful. But my extensive work with it in criminal law is providing me with another skill that every lawyer needs to have. I continue to be impressed at how well-rounded and complete the first year of law school is in teaching students all the required basics of being an effective lawyer.  

Client Interviews

Next week I will have my first client interview simulation. We have spent the last two classes going over all the important aspects of a client interview: establishing an attorney/client relationship, understanding the client's goals, ascertaining all the relevant facts, and setting out a work plan going forward. I tend to think it is going to be a lot harder than it looks. The lawyers in the sample interviews we have been shown make it look so easy, but it definitely will be more difficult for a student doing it for the first time. The lawyer really needs to be able to think quickly on his feet and draw all the important information out of the client. But hey, practice makes perfect and this is just a pure learning experience (not a graded assignment). I am interested to see how I do. 

P.S. Property does have some funny words. I think my new favorite word in the English language is "chattel". 

Jobs

I know several people who have become frantic about the summer job situation already. No matter how much the career counselors try to explain how meager (to put it kindly) the job market is for 1L's, many students have absurd expectations. While it would be a tremendous asset to gain experience working in the legal field during the summer after the first year, it is by no means as important as first year grades. I have heard stories already this semester of people staying up until 4 o'clock in the morning on school nights writing out 10 cover letters (for positions they have no chance of getting). I think they would be much better served studying criminal law until 12 o'clock and then going to bed. As someone who has gone through the horrific process of trying to find a job after college, I have come to recognize several traps. The most important is that in desperation, it is very easy to become painfully inefficient and waste tons of time. Logging into your school's jobs database and spending 4 hours emailing your resume and personalizing cover letters to 50 jobs that you barely bothered to read the job descriptions for may make you feel a little better inside (because you are "doing something"), but it is a complete waste of time. At this point, I am not positive of the best way to go about finding a summer job, but I know for sure that is not it. John is probably correct in this regard. Most students best chance at getting meaningful employment is through a pre-existing connection or contact. 

I hope to educate myself about the process more in the next few weeks and come up with my own plan for how to tackle the issue (but never at the expense of time needed to study). While it seems to be common sense that it should not be hard to find  a job when you are willing to work for free (as all first year law students SHOULD), in this hyper-competitive job market, who the hell knows. The fact that NYLS does not rank until after second semester in mid May, makes it considerably harder to distinguish yourself from the pack in February, March, and April. What can you put in your cover letter? "I know I am at the top of my class, trust me!"  

This process troubles and stresses me more than any looming 5 hour comprehensive exams. 

Still Want to be a Lawyer?

I just came across this story on the Drudge Report. 

I am taking a class called Lawyering this semester that teaches students how to actually work as a lawyer. The first subject we are learning about is the client interview. Every student is going to have a simulated interview, one-on-one with a "client" (played by a professional actor). I am very much looking forward to it, and it should be a very enlightening experience. It is so easy for law students to get bogged down in reading cases and thinking conceptually and philosophically about the law (and that is important), but they forget that the law is essentially a people business. Cultivating relationships with clients and potential clients is probably the most important part of a lawyer's job. And in the case of the poor lawyer in the story above, the clients may sometimes even supply the fertilizer. =)  

Beating Bad Precedent

Well, the one very useful thing about reading a million cases in law school is that you definitely learn how to construct your own legal arguments. One of the more useful learning experiences is seeing how judges justify their decisions in cases that reverse precedent. I mention this because John said in his last post that he was writing a memo for a position that seemed to run contrary to the case law. From what I have seen so far, there are two ways to handle a situation like that. First, you distinguish the hell out of your case from the "bad cases". Sometimes this can be very difficult, and in case reading you can see brilliant judges straining to distinguish their case from "bad" precedent. "Well in that case, the defendant threw a tomato at the comedian, but in this case defendant threw a banana." Not overly persuasive is it? However, I have read cases where judges have made distinctions that are not much less ridiculous. The other way to do it is to embrace the bad cases and somehow construct an argument that makes it seem like your position is completely consistent with these cases. This is obviously extremely difficult to do. The great Benjamin Cardozo routinely employed this strategy in his decisions. Although, as my contracts teacher would say last semester, all Cardozo opinions should come with a disclaimer: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. 

I don't know about John, but I find it more interesting and a more worth while learning experience to argue for positions that appear to run contrary to all the case precedent.  I like having the odds stacked against me. I don't know... maybe I'm just a masochist. 

Good to be Back

The first semester is in the books. Contracts, Torts, and Civil Procedure are history. Now it is on to Property and Criminal Law. At least for me, second semester appears to be slightly less "conventional", and by that I mean less of the type of core first year courses that everyone knows. Aside from the previously mentioned Property and Crim Law, I am also taking Lawyering, Written & Oral Advocacy, and Legislation & Regulation. From what I understand, both Lawyering and Leg/Reg are relatively new courses at NYLS and the professors are still in the process of fine tuning them. We shall see. First semester was a very memorable experience, but it feels good to be starting over. Everything is once again new and exciting. I can already tell that Criminal Law is something very different from Torts/Contracts/Property. It seems much more philosophical (that can be a good thing and a bad thing). Reading 40 pages a night on the musings of various philosophers on "what is punishment" and "why do we punish" can be both intellectually stimulating, yet at the same time extremely tedious. I'll be very interested to see where the class goes. Let's get started!  

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? 

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 =).   

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. 

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.      

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. 

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?      

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. 

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. 

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!    

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.