My Semester

It's been a while, but that is what Thanksgiving and then finals will do to you.  I decided to post some information about my style pictorially, in the style of Surviving the World (survivingtheworld.net) for the first.

Before Law School, I had the hair of a rock star.  Now I have the hair of The Rock.

To the barricades!

Make it so

It might be proof, but is it admissible?

Patent pending

So yeah.  That's where I am right now.  More on how terrible finals can be when your computer explodes later this week.

Regulations

First off, my appologies for missing the month of October.  Two weeks of calling alumni took up a big chunk of my time.  And I am now on Trial Team, which should be exciting.

Every industry has regulations, whether they are simple Federal workplace safety rules or a more specific set of rules.  The legal profession is no different in that regard; what sets us apart is that our rules are completely self policed.

The Bar of each state administers the Bar exam, oversees continuing education requirements, and ultimately disciplines members who step out of line.  They exist within statutory frameworks in many instances, but ultimately we are given a great amount of leeway to deal with our own troublemakers.  And more importantly the community of lawyers decides what the entrance requirements are to join that community.

Which brings us to this fine and elegantly crafted link (Are Law Schools and Bar Exams Necessary, NY Times 10/24/2011).  In the article the author of a new book (First Thing We Do, Let's Deregulate All The Lawyers) makes a short summation of his whole thesis: That law schools and bar exams are not, in fact, necessary and exist only to keep all us fancy lawyer types in thousand dollar suits on the face of the proleteriat.  As you can tell, I'm not going to be spending this note heaping lavish praise on this idea.

Don't get me wrong...there is quite a racket to law schools.  I believe, in the way you can believe something you have been told once and thought was funny, that 48 states require you to have graduated from an ABA approved Law School to sit for the Bar Exam.  The two states cited as allowing others are California (who hosts the only, as far as I know, online law schools and makes up for their openness with the hardest Bar exam in the country) and Illinois (frequently said to be more open to non law school lawyers because of one A. Lincoln you may or may not have heard of).  In order to go to an ABA approved Law School you must almost universally have taken the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) which means forking over money to the LSAC (Lawyers Say Acronyms Cool, or more accurately the Law School Admissions Council) to take it.  In addition most Law Schools require you to use the LSAC's credentialing service, which is where they take all of the letters of recommendation and your scores and charge you 150 dollars to put them in envelopes.

And after that you pay for your Law School tuition, and then several hundred dollars for the Bar exam.  As a scheme, it could give Al Capone some tips for its efficiency.  But the other side strikes me a smuch more horrifying than that article would like to suggest.

Not even getting in to any arguments of the general merits of regulation versus deregulation, the first thing to remember is that the law is incredibly complex.  There have been numerous articles written about how many laws we all violate every day without even knowing we're doing so, and for the most part no one cares or prosecutes; but the fact that we can do so many things that are illegal in some section of the law every day illustrates what a quagmire it is.  And on top of this because of our system of precedence (the common law system), it is not out of question that a case from the 1800s might still have weight today.

Allow anyone who wants to call themselves a lawyer to practice law, and you are going to have a serious glut of underequipped lawyers coming in to the field.  And since we have done away with the Bar as an overseeing entity, there is little that can be done to reprimand truly awful attorneys.  Sure if they break the law we could arrest them, but even with the Bar watching you can be a poor attorney and be fine so long as you are meeting your ethical obligations; remove that oversight and just say that anyone who doesn't break the law as an attorney is fine, and you get a lot of screwed clients.

And more than that, as a rebuttal article located here points out, that won't stop the $1000/hour attorneys from charing that.  Corporations, politicians, and movie stars will all still be able to afford the big name attorneys with their big name prices; everyone else will have to muddle through even more mud just to find a good one.

My personal view is that anyone who can pass the bar is probably qualified to be a lawyer, but that we do need the bar exam to determine basic competency and the Bar as an entity to oversee ethical obligations.  I do agree that there is some room for expansion of non-Lawyer entities in the legal profession, and that allowing non-Lawyers to own law firms could be beneficial if tightly regulated.

I personally think we should model ourselves more after the English system, where they have Solicitors (who deal with clients and transactional law) and Barristers (who represent people in court).  Being a litigator represents a different set of specific skills than being a transactional lawyer (the ones who do wills, trusts, contracts, etc), and most people end up doing one or the other.  Seperating them out would allow the educational requirements and testing requirements to be tailored to that type of law, and would allow the truly ambitious to pass both sets and be recognized as  Barrister and Solicitor.  Maybe it wouldn't take less education to be a Solicitor, as I may have suggested to the annoyance of transactional attorneys, but different to make sure their skills were being served.  And I do believe it would be easier to be a DET (decedents, estates, and trusts) guy then a criminal defense attorney, and should be; in almost every other aspect of the law we recognize that losing money is not as terrible a thing as losing freedom.

Everyone complains about lawyers, no one more so than other lawyers.  I understand, living with them now, I do.  But I think it's importantt to remember that most lawyers don't charge $1000 an hour, or try to gouge you on billing; like any profession most lawyers charge a reasonable amount, and do a good job of trying to make sure your needs are met the best they can.  As a friend said the two people you don't ever want to worry about not having enough money are the doctor who is treating you and the lawyer who is representing you, because their distraction costs you a lot more than the barista's.

There are definite steps we could take to improve, and how crazy law school is I'll save for a whole different rant.  But we've got our safeguards for a reason.  So tell you what, Brookings Institute guy, let's not have the first thing we do be deregulate all the lawyers; lay off us, and we promise not to tell all of our really scathing economist jokes.1





1  Quick, someone write some really scathing jokes about economists.

Class Cancelled Due To Congress

There are areas of law that reach back in to the misty depths of time; areas of law that make you wonder whether Congress or King Henry has more influence on your daily activities.  The definitions of the intentional torts (Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattel, and Conversion, or BAFITTC) go back hundreds of years.  The most basic form of property ownership, that of the fee simple absolute, and many of the considerations of reversion go back to Henry the 8th.  In fact some day I'll do a whole post on how Henry the 8th effects how you own your house.  They seem eternal, rocks that weather the changing societies they inhabit; sure they might change (so women can own things, rather than being owned things), but the underlying principles remain the same.

And then...there are those other areas, those subjects on the wrong side of the legal tracks.  They like to play fast and loose, and you never know when someone might come along and mess their **** right up.  Constitutional Law is one such rough rider, where any given supreme Court case can send publishers scrambling to send out a supplement to explain the changes, and professors will watch cases tumble through the gears of justice wondering if their outlines will survive the court's term.  Who knows, maybe next year substantive due process with teeth will be fully codified, but apply only to Lithuanians with political connections.

But the most fun comes when a staid and stodgy, well established area of law gets thrown to the wolves by judicial fiat or congressional whim.  Which leads to fun classes where, a couple of weeks ago, my Intellectual Property professor comes in and says "You know all that time we spent discussing how the US has a first to invent system rather than a first to file system?  Well, that was before Thursday."  She set down a mildly desk destroying sheaf of papers as she said this.

Yes, thanks to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, my patent class is now divided into 'Before Thursday' and 'After Thursday'.  Information on the bill can be found by following this Fine and Elegantly Crafted Link (AIA Bill).  Important to note is that the last time the patent system was changed was in 1952; the rules had stood for all but 60 years, until I was taking an IP class.

It is, in short, revolutionary.  Everywhere else in the world (before Thursday) the first person to file a patent got it, presumably with exceptions being made for fraud or forgery.  In the U.S. the first person to file had a prima facie right to the patent, but if someone came along and could show they had actually invented it first and satisfied certain requirements they could get the patent instead.  Now the U.S. has moved to the first to file system, meaning the patent litigation process no longer cares if someone else invented it first if they did not file.  And this is only one of the changes.

It is also revolutionary because 1/3rd of my $200 book is now irrelevant and outdated.  Not just has Congress clarified some of the ambiguities that it mentions having never been clarified, but the entire basis for the system has been radically altered.

Welcome to law school, kids, where you spend three times as much for a book as you should and they might last about four months less than you'd hope.  If they decide to change copyright law before November, I'm going to have to find a liquor store and drink it.

Law School Dictionary Part 1

This blog is about my academic experiences as a law student; but not everyone who reads it is going to be familiar with this mysterious world.  As such there might be terms of art that I use (like term of art) that need some defining.  To help bridge the gap, here is the first entry in an ongoing Law School Dictionary!

Law School:  A paradise of intellectual expansion or the third circle of academic hell, depending on the week or even the class.

The Bar:  Capital B, the scariest test most of us pray to only have to take once; the test that makes you a lawyer, by granting you permission to practice the law in a state.

The bar:  Lowercase b, a drinking establishment; the place where most lawyer jokes that talk about 'the bar' end up being about; where most of us go when we think too much about the big B Bar, or finals, or classes, or how much money we're spending, or how much time we're spending, or how we haven't seen our loved ones in so long...

AA:  Alcoholics Anonymous.  Which some days feels like it should be Attorneys Anonymous, or Alcoholic Attorneys.  Could be AAA (Alcoholic Attorneys Anonymous), but we wouldn't be very good attorneys if we were advocating copyright infringement.

1L/2L/3L:  Your year in law school, i.e. a 1L is in their first year.  A student may also be a 'rising' 2 or 3L, in that they have finished their last year but not yet started classes of the next year.

Civ. Pro:  Civil Procedure, the class that teaches you how to sue someone, i.e. how a civil case goes through the courts and the restrictions and requirements of those steps.

Crim. Pro.:  Criminal Procedure.  Civ Pro for the felon set.

Journal:  Law Journal.  Every school has one, it looks good on the resume, and it runs the gamut from 'fiercely competitive' to 'Klingon promotion'.  And no, Klingon promotion isn't the next item.  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KlingonPromotion

Moot Court:  A mock trial competition set at the appellate level.  Looks great on the resume.   For competitiveness, see 'Journal'.

Con Law:  Constitutional Law.  The class in which you realize that even the Supreme Court doesn't always know what the hell the Constitution says, and watch as your notions about the efficacy of our system evaporate like dust in the wind.

Dust in the Wind:  A song by Kansas.  Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky.

Externship:  Apparently this is new to a lot of folks.  An externship is like an internship, but you get paid in college credit and have to pay for it like a regular class.  Contrast an internship, where you're not paying and may or may not be paid yourself.

J.D.:  Juris Doctor, the first professional law degree in the United States.  I.e. the goal.  Depending on who you ask may or may not entitle the possessor to the style of 'Doctor'; the ABA says it does as long as you're not falsely advertising medical knowledge, the consensus in Europe is 'Haha, stupid Americans'.  America is unique in that the first professional degree for law is a Doctorate and the second degree (i.e. the one you get if you want to go into a more academic study) is a Masters.  After the JD you can get an LLM (Legum Magister or Master of Laws) followed by an SJD (Scientiae Juridicae Doctoris, or Master of the Science of Laws) to focus on academic principals, similar to how other fields get a masters and then PhD; many schools also offer an LLM program for foreign trained lawyers who want to practice in the U.S.  So if you're really dedicated you can in fact have two doctorates in law.  For some reason.

LLB:  Bachelors of Laws or Legum Baccalaureate.  What most other countries get, an undergraduate degree in law followed by some licensing classes.

'A Lunch':  A free lunch provided by someone in return for listening to them.  Law students may go to lunch together but this is not having 'a lunch'.  In the law school sense, asking 'Do we have a lunch today' is a way of saying 'Is someone going to feed us Papa Johns Pizza or sub sandwiches today to listen to their talk'.

Torts:  A class involving civil infractions you can sue for.  Includes negligence, which will bring up discussion of the McDonalds coffee case.  Which was totally legitimate, and if you really want to know why I'll blog about it; but for god's sake stop using that as your example of frivolous lawsuits, because it wasn't.  Torts is divided broadly into two sections:  Intentional Torts, and Negligence.

This concludes today's lecture.  Be sure to review your notes for next week's test...just kidding, the only test in law school is the final.

Such a Thing as a Free Lunch*

* For certain values of free.  Exceptions occur, apply within.

Or...What feels like the only reason I'm still in Law School some days.


Law School is fricking expensive.  This year, for three semesters, I took in $60,000 worth of loans.  My books normally run over $500, and my brother's hit $1000 this year; although that is a post for another time, probably when I next buy books.  There are some expenses that they tell you about, and some they don't.  And then you graduate (God willing) and have to pay back three times what you borrowed, even if your earnings don't meet your expectations. 

It's enough that a sane person might call it a racket.  So Law Schools, like the illustrious one that accepted me (I love you, I do) try to come up with ways of making it sweeter.  They do this through career counseling, on campus interviews, and opportunities in the community.  But the number one thing it seems like they do some days?  Free lunches.

During my 1L year I estimated that three to four days a week I could get a free lunch provided if I just went in and listened to a talk.  Some days it was the Professional Development Office in their never ending attempts to assure us we will be able to find jobs, somehow; sometimes it was clubs and Student Associations telling us why we should be a part of them.  I once had a week where I took pizza from the Democrats at the beginning of the week, and I believe sandwiches from the Federalist Society at the end.  If the 'Annoyed Centrists' club had offered me a burrito I would have had the trifecta; some day I hope to be able to arrange a meeting of the GLBT club on Monday, and the club that has a 'Prayer Request' envelope up on that Friday.

I can't speak for all Law Schools, but I do have an ethical problem with these free lunches.  And by ethical I mean culinary: There are places to get food from besides a sandwich shop and Papa Johns, guys.  Seriously.  When it is sandwiches I never get enough, and I've had enough Papa Johns I can identify what toppings a pizza has by the grease on the bottom of the carton.  I've gained 50 pounds since moving back to the States, for the love of God.

It is an interesting and almost desperate feeling that these lunches sometimes provide.  As if we'll forget about the economy and the glut of new lawyers who will be flooding the market at the same time we graduate if we're so stuffed full of pizza we sweat oil.  Or if enough sub sandwiches will make us forget how much debt we have; especially if we're vegetarians, because one of the local sub shops idea of a vegetarian sub is bread and cheese.

That being said, if they stop deluding me with their oily opiates I'm transferring.  Just...could they drug me with Chipotle from time to time?

Sodomy and the Barricades

Constitutional Law today, the Professor said that one of the ways he was told to define a fundamental right was 'A right that you'd go to the barricades for', where if they took it away you would fight them for it tooth and nail.

Of course later this lead to the professor asking "So is this the barricade right for you?"  While we were discussing Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).  "Didn't Thomas Jefferson say that?  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!  And sodomy!"

Discussing Bowers in a red state is interesting.  Bowers is in fact a discussion of anti-sodomy laws that upheld a Georgia statute against 'homosexual sodomy'.  It upheld the law by saying that to make sodomy between men a fundamental right would "be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." It was later overturned with the Court's rationale that the fundamental right was not really about sodomy but the right to have an intimate relationship with who you wish.

These are the discussions you have at law school.  For the most part interesting, but utterly terrifying if you walk by at the wrong time.

Introductory Materials

At this very moment, I am a 2L.  To be more precise, at this moment I am a 2L who is supposed to be listening to an explanation of Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, regarding relevancy and admissibility.  If any of that makes sense to you, then you or someone you know may be suffering from 'Law School'.

There is no cure, as what happens in law school will stay with you for life.  There are only two treatments; dropping out--which leads to a tragic and near fatal case of 'Oh crap why did I take all that debt'-itis--or a J.D.  Of course in some cases either of those treatments may be worse than the disease, as they both involve once more interacting with the real world that we left behind when we came in to these hallowed and terrifically expensive halls.

So what is this, then?  An exercise in hearing myself speak (virtually speaking)?  Literary legal masturbation?  Maybe.  This blog is an attempt to explain, even just to myself, what I've gone through and am going through here.  Law School is equal parts wonderful, terrifying, and stupefying, and sometimes you just have to talk about it.  And explain it to people who aren't going through it.

This blog thus owes a lot to webcomics like XKCD (www.xkcd.com), Surviving the World (www.survivingtheworld.net), and Piled Higher and Deeper (www.phdcomics.com).  Each of them attempts to understand the various world they are involved in, and each of them is involved in some form of academia.  The biggest difference is that I can't draw (although I may provide some Surviving the World style blackboard drawings if I feel particularly masochistic).

The posts here won't necessarily be in any chronological order.  I reserve the right to flit back to 1L experiences and ruminations between current observations, and if you don't like it then please refer to the End User License Agreement between you and someone who cares.  And yes, you can expect nonsensical legal jokes like that all the time; it comes with the territory.

So step up to the Bar with me, and we'll get a drink, because some days that looks like the only bar I'll manage to make it to ;)