Wow

Two things that don't often happen, happened today. The first, I'm making a political post in my blog. Second, I caught a clip of Boston Legal that makes my point for me.

So without further adieu,

Boston Legal on Gitmo

I Kant, seriously

Okay, I understand completely. It's a legal ethics class (professional responsibility), and it make some sense to know a little about what some prominent ethical philosophers had to say. What I don't get is why we had to read JS Mill and Kant, excerpted, in a law school course. Why not just make a quick summary of the idea, and maybe attribute it to Mill or Kant? After all, they were relatively short excerpts, they barely captured the essence of what Mill and Kant were trying to say, and they were written in that wonderful (sic) arcane style that all of us love to read so much.

And. The only point was to introduce the idea that there actually is an ethical basis for what governs the behavior of lawyers.

Now I know it seems rather childish of me to complain about 20 pages of moral philosophy. After all, I have had to read 300 year old Queens Bench opinions in Contracts and Property class; I've had to absorb the rule against perpetuities, selected parts of the uniform commercial code, and Pennoyer v Neff. So what's wrong with a little Kant and Mill?

Here's what's wrong. I've read these guys before, back in college. I have a good understanding of Mill, and at least a working grasp of Kant. I have happily forgotten the old philosophy that I read in the past, and would have been perfectly content never to think about them again. Re-reading just a short excerpt simply reminded me about the self-flagellation that is moral philosophy. Moreover, the excerpts in my PR text barely scratched the surface of both, and in the case of Kant, they actually got it wrong, at least with regard to the conclusion the authors were drawing (In reality, it was a gross oversimplification rather than actually getting it incorrect, but I digress, the result is the same). So not only did I not care, I actually got angry at the errors. It's the same mistake people make with Nietsche - they read one passage and believe they understand him. You can't do that with Nietsche, and you Kant do that with Kant either.

But at this point, it's behind me. I just had to vent. We're done (hopefully) with the misapprehension of the categorical imperative, and I can shove that bit of torture back to the deeper recesses of my brain and continue to (hopefully) focus on more practical matters. Like exceptions to the hearsay rule (gee, there are only 28 of them)!

Again

Classes begin again on Monday, starting for me with Constitutional Law 1. I've put this class off for two terms now so it's time, and I'm actually looking forward to the class. I am (probably) one of the few who actually enjoys reading the opinions of the supreme court justices, and the debates among them over the many controversial issues that are raised in their court. I will be taking Evidence and Professional Responsibility as well. Both classes are very practice-oriented; one detailing the rules of evidence that govern court rooms, the other the ethical rules and codes that govern the behavior of attorneys. My final class this term will be Moot Court, which is an intra-school program where I prepare an appellate brief and an oral argument in front of a mock-supreme court. The competition will be at the end of the term (late July/early August).

All in all I am more relaxed today than I have been before any of my previous terms. Am I getting used to this law school business? Probably. Either way, I am looking forward to this term because all of my classes promise to be very interesting (even PR). Next term will be a different story (I'll be taking 2 or 3 classes that I have no interest in, but they are required so I must take them sometime), so I guess there's no time like the present.

I have made a commitment to myself to keep up with my blog more, so my pledge to all 3 or 4 of you reading this is to update at least once a week, probably on Sundays. I will make every effort to update more often if possible. Either way, I've been getting more hits here lately so I feel a bit of an obligation to update more.

Good luck to all starting this term anew, it should be an interesting summer term.

Do we need to worry?

There has been some talk, after the supreme court recently upheld a ban on partial-birth abortions by a 5-4 majority, that the five Catholic members of the court are making judicial decisions based on their religion. While the argument certainly can be made on its face, there is no evidence that this is true in any real sense. To me, the split in the court is not on religious grounds, but rather on differing interpretations about the scope of privacy allowed by Roe v Wade. To wit, 5 members of the court believe that a ban on partial-birth abortions is allowable under the framework set by Roe, and 4 do not. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, if you read the opinion, it surely doesn't look that simple (and it isn't), but at the very least the decision was made arguably on constitutional grounds, and any debate is based there, not on religion.

There are certainly some troubling elements in this decision; the fact that at least part of the reasoning is based on the notion that a woman might later regret her decision certainly bears no resemblance to constitutional doctrine. However, to say that the 5 Catholics are toeing the Roman party line makes no sense... The court does not support Rome's just-wage initiative; the court (and in particular its Catholic contingent) is decidely pro-death penalty (which the Church is decidedly against); and the court has upheld the rights of homosexuals to engage in consensual sex. Justice Kennedy (a Catholic) also upheld abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

It seems, then, that the recent concern that the nine are allowing their religious convictions rule their decisionmaking is much ado about nothing. Is that to say that the justices are not influenced by their moral or religious convictions? I think it would be foolish to claim otherwise. However, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks of the current members of the court, it's safe to say that they are not agents of Rome, intent upon forcing Catholic doctrine on American jurisprudence. Whatever motivates them, it's far more complex than that.

Supreme Enigma

Ever since Justice O'Connor retired, the makeup of the Supreme Court has been a bit of an enigma. Some consider the court packed with hard-line right wingers, minus a few stalwart centerist holdouts. Indeed, when Justice Stevens is now the most liberal member, it's clear that the court is predominantly conservative. But is it really? We already know that Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are the conservative foundation, with Alito probably squarely in their camp as well (although I am not yet sure what to make of him). We also know that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens usually find themselves at odds with the other four (although I will not concede that they are, as a result, 'liberal'). Souter seems squarely in the middle, and much like Stevens was in the 70s and 80s, Souter seems to be the apolitical moderating force on the court. Nevertheless, Souter seems to be much less conservative than expected when he was nominated by Bush Sr., and many consider him part of what is now the liberal side of the court. Despite this movement to the right, there still appears to be a 4-4 faction; still much room for contention on the supreme court.

An then there is Kennedy. What to make of Justice Kennedy. Indeed, he is a bit of an enigma on the court, sometimes siding with the liberals (gay rights), and other times siding with the conservatives (abortion). In the wake of Gonzales v Carhart, it seems that Kennedy may indeed take O'Connor's place as the swing vote on the court, such as it is.

A very good article on this subject from Slate.com can be found here. I don't necessarily find it troubling that our supreme court has become more conservative over the past 20 years or so, as long as there is some balance. There are good arguments that the very liberal Warren court may have done more harm than good, even if I do find much of their activism attractive. A homogenous court is probably much more dangerous than a balanced one, and right now, such as it is, we seem to have some balance left. I do hope that Stevens can hold out for at least two more years. The thought of Bush nominating another member of the court makes me shudder (it's not a republican thing, mind you, it's a Bush thing).

You know you're crazy when . . .

Despite the fact that I have two weeks off, I still can't get away from studying law. I have been reading my appellate advocacy book, off and on, and (for no reason I can think of) taking notes for my upcoming evidence class (which should be pretty demanding).

On a lighter note, I have discovered yet another great TV series from HBO (via netfix, of course). http://www.hbo.com/rome/

All I can say, is that it's too bad this series will only run two seasons. Again, HBO shows why they have the best programming on TV.

Reflections

This week I finished my first year of law school, my last exam on Thursday. While I won't have my grades back for several weeks, I am pretty comfortable with how I did and I'm sure I passed all of my classes, which means that after this term I will have earned 33 of the 90 credits for my degree. I have spent the last few days contemplating my experience so far, and looking forward to the next set of classes and beyond. I have to start thinking about my future now, but I think it's useful to reflect on this past year. Here are some of my observations.

First, law school isn't that bad. Now that sounds strange, but there is a prevailing opinion that law school exists somewhere in the lower rungs of Dante's inferno; that the law school experience is painful, and results in a degree that many find worthless. It's odd, but many point to the fact that there are more law students than practicing attorneys as evidence of the futility of attending law school to begin with.

I don't look at it that way, at least not after my first year. I find the method and the madness enjoyable and stimulating, and I know that I have accomplished more (academically) this past year than ever before in my life. I am not worried about work after school because I am confident in my own abilities. But that's besides the point. The bottom line is, law school isn't nearly as hard or as torturous as people say. Yes it's difficult, but it's not impossible. Yes teachers can be hard on you, but they can also be supportive. The law student who works hard will typically do pretty well, I really believe that.

I do know that there are plenty of people who can't handle school. I started in a very small class - 16 people (keeping in mind that I started a small branch campus that's now growing... my actual class size, including all campuses, is closer to 300). Of those 16, 8 are still in school, with a 9th currently on leave (we're all pretty sure she'll be back though). 5 dropped after the first term, the other three after 2nd term. The attrition rate at my school is over 50 percent (by the end of the first year), and I think nationally it's somewhere in the 40% range. Keep in mind that some people drop because they discover they don't want to be in law school, not because they can't hack it. I know that's the case for 3 people who dropped out of my class (they got perfectly fine grades). Others drop because they flunk out. Law school isn't for everyone, that's for sure.

Second, law school culture is, pretty much, exactly what people say it is. It's funny, but there are really only three kinds of people in law school: the student in it for the money, the student in it because he or she "loves the law", and the student who is in law school because they're unsure what else to do (IE "a law degree is useful, right?").

The first kind of student quickly comes to the realization that law school is work, and that the 'money' may or may not actually be there in the end. It is this student who quickly becomes disillusioned by school, often pointing out how much hell they have to go through just to pass their classes. They never realized that the reward they were seeking does not match the work they put in. This student either drops out or ends up in corporate or tax law, hating life. Not to disparage that kind of law, but it takes a special kind of person to be a tax or corporate attorney - someone who genuinely loves that kind of law.

The second kind of student tends to do pretty well in law school. This person is in law school because the law is what he or she wants to study. Much like the person who becomes a teacher because they want to, this person isn't motivated by money or status, but instead by an idealism that has driven him or her to law school. This student can become disillusioned, after all it's a lot of work, but this student can just as easily thrive. I would place myself in this category, and thankfully I haven't lost any of my own idealism (despite having to trudge through contracts).

The third kind of student is probably the most common, and in many ways the most perplexing. This is the person who did well in undergrad, but isn't sure what they want to do. Maybe parents pressured them into law school. Maybe they 'planned' on law school all along, but aren't sure why. Maybe they just didn't want to get a job after college yet, but didn't want to go to business school either. At any rate, this person can succeed or fail but it all depends on motivation. Some of these students are rock stars - that is, fantastic students who have a flawless work ethic (not to mention the brains). These students do very well, even if they aren't sure what they want to do. Often they find themselves somewhere along the way - that is, they find what they're good at and dive in. More often, however, this student goes through the motions, passing their classes but not standing out, and it is this student who graduates and has a really hard time finding a job. This is the person who ends up cynical and will characterize law school as a complete waste of time. Usually they end up working somewhere other than in the law.

Finally, I'm actually enjoying myself more now than I have in a very long time. I'll close this post here, but to all of those who think law school is a waste of time I have a message: don't go to law school. It's as simple as that. To all the rest, my message is also simple: do what moves you. It has taken me 15 years or so to take my own advice, and now I'm finally reaping the rewards.

Kill All Lawyers

This will be a short post. I came across a very worthwhile article written by Gerry Spence, a famous lawyer who represented Karen Silkwood, Imelda Marcos, and the Ruby Ridge boys, among others.

http://www.gerryspence.com/killalllawyers.pdf

The article is an argument in defense of trial lawyers who represent plaintiffs and criminal defendants; that the public ire toward them is wholly misplaced, and the media blitz against them is wrong. He makes the argument much better than I, so I simply urge you to read it and come to your own conclusions. It's relatively long (42 pages), but well worth the read.

Moot

Last week I competed in the first year moot court competition. It's part of the criminal procedure class, so our problem naturally centered around a search and seizure issue. My partner and I were respondents, and in this case we represented the defendant. I have to say that we both had a great time, strange as that may seem.

Moot court is a competition that is, essentially, a simulation of oral arguments in front of the supreme court. At that point, there has already been a trial and at least one (and sometimes more than one) appeal. Each side (petitioner and respondent) has two "lawyers", each person gives a ten minute "speech" in front of the court. But it's far from a speech because the judges are constantly asking questions. My partner and I each prepared about ten minutes worth of material, and each of us maybe got through 1 or 2 minutes. The rest of the time we were answering questions from the judging panel. There is no interaction between the two competing teams, the interaction is with the court.

Good judges will ask pertinent questions, meaning I actually did get to present most of my argument (to the good panels). Bad judges will ask ridiculous questions, and sometimes even be rude. Those are really the hardest ones to deal with because the entire time I had to be deferential to the court, and still respond quickly (even curtly) to irrelevant questions. I have a friend (an old debater - you know who you are if you're reading this) who would go nuts watching the "yes your honor" and "no your honor" in response to some of the questions I was getting. For those who have done any academic debate, moot court is like a ten minute cross examination period without the combat - that is, the judges ALWAYS have the upper hand, and the lawyer has to be crafty in response. I must say, in retrospect, that it was far more fun than debate because it's so much more challenging.

We did well. Out of 30+ teams my partner and I made the quarterfinals, and were both pre-selected for early entry into the moot court program. That's essentially step-one if I want to compete on the national team (which, of course, I do). I'll be taking the class next term, so perhaps there will be more to blog about after all (heh heh).

So. . . stay tuned . . .

Yikes!

It has been too long since I updated this. I will make an effort to be more attentive and post more articles. Stay tuned!