Heavy Environmental Impact

A study at the University of Illinois by Sheldon H. Jacobson found that 938,000,000 extra gallons of gasoline are burned each year because Americans are overweight. How about getting some of those overweight Americans off their rumps and onto bikes? It would help their health and help environment, right? Well, it might help their health; however the healthier they become and the longer they live, the more carbon emissions an individual puts out. In a study that came out last July, bike commuters actually produce more carbon over their lifetime because they live longer. Sometimes, you just can't win for loosing.

Half Way

Believe it or not, I am almost half way through law school. The almost consists of finishing my constitutional law take home final, but I do not have much more to go. I just handed in my 25-page paper surveying governmental programs dealing with homelessness, which you can download here if you are interested. It is definitely not my best work. The class was a lot of fluff. We went on three field trips, and when we were in class we either had guest speakers or watched PBS documentaries from the late 80s on dislocated populations. I have never done so much research on the Internet for a paper before. I went to college at a time when teachers still frowned upon using the Internet for research, but I think things have gotten a lot better since then. People were afraid they would not be able to verify information, but now that so many legitimate sources publish their information on the web, it seems archaic to go to the library and root through volumes of journals. Anyway, I will post again this weekend with a semester wrap up.

Getting to know your Justices, and yourself.

This semester has felt very different from all of last year. There was something so intense about the One-L year, as if all of life was wrapped up in law school. I am still studying a lot, but last year at this time I do not remember ever forgetting that I was at law school. I worked last Friday; I went out to dinner tonight; I watched a movie last night, and during all of those activities, I kind of felt like I was just living like a normal human being. Sure, I have not had a weekend where I did not study for at least 4-5 hours per day, but I am not behaving all that different than I would if I was simply working. I guess this means I am “thinking like a lawyer” – working on weekends – and that I have learned to find some balance in my life.

As to the law and my life, I learned recently that a former Supreme Court Justice came from my hometown and went to college at my alma mater, the University of Colorado: Justice Byron White. That is about where our similarities end. He was a professional football player with the nickname of “the whizzer,” and he tended to vote with the more conservative wing of the court–he joined Rehnquist in dissenting in Roe v. Wade. As a Kennedy appointee, he is further proof that you never quite know what you are going to get with a justice. O’Conner, who wrote the Casey opinion essentially upholding Roe was appointed by Reagan, so for people who are freaking out about the two new appointees to the court, history tells us to just wait and see; often justices do not act on the bench as we think they might. Still, in my inquiry into the personalities of the Supreme Court, I was excited to see that Fort Fun had produced a SCOTUS justice (Supreme Court of the United States). After learning that the rumor of Kip Winger growing up in Fort Collins was untrue, he grew up in Denver, I did not think there were any famous people from our little outpost on the boundary between the mid-west and the west. Around Seattle, everyone talks of their golden judicial child, Justice William O. Douglas– a decidedly more liberal justice.

Heeding my own words, supra, I do not want to simply reduce any justice to a single categorical description of liberal or conservative. One thing I have learned this year is that most Constitutional law questions are more complicated than a simple either/or category. By the time a conflict has moved its way through the lower courts, it has been stripped of much of the detritus of the individual facts, but unhinged from those facts, what remains is often a very difficult to answer question, such as trying to figure out what is meant my “liberty” in the 14^th Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” With such a daunting task, it is good that the court has justices with different perspectives and a good sense of humor.

Getting to Know your Justices

Check out this video of a discussion with Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia. These two justices represent the two major opposing perspectives on constitutional interpretation. Who seems to make more sense? The discussion is particularly void of any specific factual scenarios, so you get constitutional interpretation without the baggage of an individual case. What is interesting is not only the places where they disagree but also the beliefs and perspectives they share. Also, thanks to my faithful reader J. for pointing out some legal humor in a recent Supreme Court Opinion, Lopes v. Gonzolaz, where Justice Souter quotes Alice in Wonderland:

Reading §924(c) the Government’s way, then, would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect, and that result makes us very wary of the Government’s position. Cf. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11 (2004) (“[W]e cannot forget that we ultimately are determining the meaning of the term ‘crime of violence’”). Which is not to deny that the Government might still be right; Humpty Dumpty used a word to mean “‘just what [he chose] it to mean— neither more nor less,’”5 and legislatures, too, are free to be unorthodox. Congress can define an aggravated felony of illicit trafficking in an unexpected way. But Congress would need to tell us so, and there are good reasons to think it was doing no such thing here.6

You can see here how Souter is employing his own method of interpretation to determine what the statute is talking about. I wonder if I can quote Alice in Wonderland in my finals? Probably not. Supreme Court Justices get a bit more leeway.

Weird Al Yankovic-Bob

One thing about finals is that you actually have quite a bit of free time. Sure you have to study, but without class, that still leaves time to find funny videos on youtube, such as this Weird Al Bob Dylan parody made entirely from palindromes.

The Leaked Memo

Have you noticed how much of our information lately comes from leaked memos? This morning, a leaked memo from a senior vice president at Yahoo is getting a fair amount of air time. The so-called "Peanut Butter Memo" comes on the tails of the leaked Rumsfeld Memo, the leaked Hadley Memo, the Downy Street Memo, and the list goes on. Doesn't this all seem a bit suspicious? Is a regular press release not sufficient anymore? Or do we have a different reaction to a leaked memo? Is it possible that we think that a leaked memo is somehow more truthful, because it was meant to be kept secret? Have we all become so cynical that we believe the information the government and corporations holds from us is more true than the information they tell us straight out? There may be some truth to that, but I am not buying this leaked memo trend. What better way to get the media to jump all over your press release than to call it a leaked memo. For the last six years, many people have been talking about how secretive the Bush administration has been, so I do not believe that all of a sudden they are having a problem keeping all of their internal memorandum from reaching the public. In the modern information era, whoever controls information, controls the power, and the disseminators of information are very sophisticated in framing their information so that we not only receive the information but also the method to interpret it; that is the goal of any good propagandist. According to this new trend, the next time I hear "leaked memo," I am going to think, "now here is some information they really want me to know."

Finals

This is what finals feel like.

Psychodrama

I came across an interesting article about the use of a psychological technique called psychodrama during trial. Essentially the lawyer works to make himself more vulnerable in order to elicit an emotional connection with the jury. In my last post, I spoke about the use of humorous rhetoric to enhance the power of one's argument, but what about creating an emotional response? Are there limits to the use of humor or emotions? Is it OK to use personal stories of loss and tragedy during voir dire to elicit emotional reactions in the potential jury? To see who will cry? To see who remains stony cold? During my two days of jury duty, one of the criminal defense attorney's spent about 15 minutes leading us through a discussion about how different people make decisions. Do we use our minds? Did we think decisions should be logical or can we use our emotions to make decisions? Do we listen to others when making up our own minds? She was simultaneously trying to feel out the jury pool and trying to inform us of the way a jury should come to a decision. She wanted us to understand that a jury does not make a compromised decision (as is sometimes the case in other venues) but rather a unanimous decision.

The boundary between emotions and logic is an interesting question and I think I will give it some more thought in the coming months. The law requires logic so that we can have equal application. Emotions are too subjective to be used as legal standards, but emotions clearly have a place in the law. More to come. . .

Snow Day and Legal Humor

We had a snow day yesterday! It is true that school was cancelled, but for a Colorado kid, it hardly felt like a snow day. In my neighborhood, we had less than an inch of snow, but in the north-west, it is not the snow that shuts the city down but the sheet of ice that covers everything. The most dangerous part of my travel outside the apartment yesterday was getting down the stairs in front of my apartment which were also covered in ice. Unlike childhood snow days, I spent most of the days studying. I did take a break to sneak downtown for lunch. The city really was shut down; I have never had such an easy time finding a parking spot. I could have had my pick. So, even without the snowmen, having a snow day was pretty nice.

School is back in session today, and since we are heading toward finals, I will not have many breaks for the next three weeks. You may see more posts like my previous one which consists of video clips I have been viewing as distractions from studying. It is important to keep perspective on this whole process.

If you have been reading for a while, you will know that I have had several posts on the topic of legal humor. My general thoughts on this topic have evolved. I no longer think, as I did during my one-L year, that the law does not have a sense of humor. While it is not necessarily easy or appropriate to compare the law to literature or drama, this does not mean humor is absent. Sure, the law is clearly different. Where literature has a metaphorical affect on human behavior, the law has actual effect. If you are sued and you are found liable at court, you will have to pay. Nothing in literature has this kind of power. However, you will only be paying if you do not win, and because one of the most important aspects of handling a case is making good arguments, humor may very well have a place in your toolbox of argumentative tactics. The use of humorous rhetoric is not just the province of bold and creative trial attorneys; there are even examples in the writings of Supreme Court Justices. No matter how we feel about Justice Scalia's style of constitutional interpretation, he is without a doubt the most colorful justice on the court, and his opinions are often the most entertaining to read. I was reading his dissenting opinion in the law school affirmative action case of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) when I came across a fine example of his sarcastic humor. The Majority upheld the University of Michigan's use of race as a factor in creating a "critical mass" of diversity in their law school admission decisions. Scalia responded, including this passage:

. . .If it is appropriate for the University of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a "critical mass" that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate - indeed, particularly appropriate - for the civil service systems of the State of Michigan to do so. . . . And surely private employers cannot be criticized - indeed, should be praised - if they also "teach" good citizenship to their adult employees through a patriotic, all-American system of racial discrimination in hiring. The non-minority individuals who are deprived of a legal education, a civil service job, or any job at all by reason of their skin color will surely understand"

This use of humor is cutting and its purpose is not necessarily to make you laugh. He uses humor to make his argument, but by using this type of rhetorical tool, he manages to make his argument both more accessable and more enjoyable to read. If you ust ask about any law student, they will most likely tell you that reading an opinion from the Consevertive Scalia is considerably more entertaining and engaging that an opinion by, for example, the former liberal justice William Brennen. Unfortunatly for Brennen, even if you think you agree with him, you may not be entirely sure because you have no idea what he is talking about in his opinions. Humor clearly has a place in the law, and I wish more justices and lawyers infused their rhetoric with it.

Things you CAN'T do when you're NOT in a pool

This is why I have always liked swimming. I know this video has nothing to do with law or lawschool, but I find it hilarious and this blog could use a little break from teh serious posts.

Problem with comments?

It has come to my attention that there have been some difficulties leaving comments on my blog. This is an unintentional programing glitch. I welcome comments and hope that this glitch has not posed any problems (I am flattering myself here.) I am trying to sort it out, but I am running up against the limits of my own computer knowledge. If you wish to comment, you can always e-mail me at hiltops@gmail.com and I will add it to blog as a seperate post under a title "Comment on '_______'" I will not edit comments any more than I would if it was left as a normal comment. Hopefully this will be resolved shortly.

What's in a name?

There is a reason I blog under my real name. Certainly, there are some risks. What I say in this blog is out in public, which means that I have to take responsibility for what I say. If I blogged under an anonymous moniker, I might write about other thoughts or topics, but the purpose of this blog has always been to chronical my thoughts about law school that I would normally share in a non-Internet forum with friends and family. The blog is simply a different medium. Many people share much more personal information on myspace or facebook than I ever would think of posting to the public, but maybe they are more open in person too? On the other-side, there are also some bloggers who feel their personal safety and privacy would be jeopardized if they used their real name. I think this concern is real, unfortunately. There are some creepy people out there who are looking to abuse innocent disclosures of private information. Therefore, I think I try to strike a balance between putting myself out there under my real name and keeping back those thoughts that would jeopardize my privacy or my job marketability in the future. If I feel good about what I write and a future employer reads this blog and does not like what he reads, it is unlikely I would want to work for him anyway. This is one of the perks to blogging under my real name. By being honest with the world, I am inviting the world to be honest with me, and I believe this standard works out best in the long run. The legal profession requires a standard of honesty and a lawyer plays a dangerous game when he begins to act in less than honest ways. So, I think this blog is a good place to start.

Not all lawyers will understand this. There are bad lawyers. Some are crooks, but others are just stupid. That is the same with all people. On the Internet, for example, there are plenty of crooks, and there are even more people who are just acting stupid. One of the behaviors that is rampant on the Internet is dishonesty. The medium is simply conducive to such behavior. Not all of this behavior is necessarily bad or harmful. Some of it is quite intelligent, creative, or funny. The Anonymous Lawyer phenomenon, that fictitious chronicle of a big firm lawyer, is both intelligent and hugely entertaining. The author's anonymity was part of the charm, and none were harmed by the deception. Another example of creative deception from television is Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report. He plays a fictitious character and part of the humor is getting interviewees, who are not playing a role, to say ridiculous things that play into the Colbert character. I find this show both hilarious and brilliant, and I lay much of its success on the good naturedness of the humor: the guests who are made to look like fools are in on the joke! The "dishonesty" is necessary for the humor, but no one is really deceived and everyone gets to enjoy the laughter.

Compare that to the humor of Sacha Baron Cohen, the mind behind the character of Borat. His humor is inherently disingenuous and cheap. Not only does he rely on dishonestly to make anonymous individuals look foolish, but because this is really more mean-spirited than comical, he has to rely on scatological jokes to make it work. Who doesn't think poop jokes are funny? This means it does not take much talent to get people to laugh with a poop joke. What separates a true comedic genius like Stephen Colbert from Sacha Baran Cohen is that it would be very difficult to emulate what Colbert does. The humor of Cohen on the other-hand is regularly, although admittedly less successfully, recreated by thousands of thirteen year-old boys in prank phone calls. In a prank phone call, the joke is one-sided; If the caller is successful in pulling off the stunt, his actions are harassment and can actually be quite frightening. If the caller is unsuccessful in pulling off his character, then he just looks pathetic.

Before I get to far off on that tangent, I should pull the narrative of this post back on topic. The telephone, the Internet, television all provide new opportunities to deceive. Deception is a necessary ingredient to fiction or drama, but there is a distinction between deception used for entertainment and art and deception used to harass. The new mediums of communication allow greater opportunities for both, but I think most people understand the difference. Borat is certainly funny, but Cohen's humor is not legendary and will soon be forgotten. I do not really feel sorry for his "interviewees," because I am sure they all signed releases before letting their images be used for the film. Unlike art, the law does not, and should not, rely on deception. It relies on good arguments, and it is the lawyer's role to make sure that those arguments are grounded in fact. This requires the highest standards of honesty, and it is for this reason that lawyers are disbarred for acts of dishonesty, in both their professional and personal lives. That is why I blog with my real name -- to say what I mean honestly and to take responsibility for my words. If people wish to critique what I say, they are free to do so, but as I enter into this profession, I expect the same standards of honesty from other attorneys. I do my best to stay away from those incapable of living up to the standards and responsibility of the profession. I like my deception in the form of a novel or some good comedy.

more thoughts on politics

I wanted to add some thoughts to my previous post (see below) concerning voting malaise. That post was written in a more stream-of-conscious fashion than normal and I did not give the topic its full thoroughness. I think everyone who can vote, should vote, and any law student who does not vote has yet to realize just how much politics will affect his/her career. No matter what area of law one decides to practice, from criminal law to real estate transactions, your practice will be effected by politics. The court is an apolitical institution, but everyone knows that judges are humans, and even if they are just following the law, following the law might be different depending on how you interpret the law. In a recent article, our new chief justices, John Roberts talks about how the "high court does not have political preferences," but he has an uphill battle to convince most Americans. The decision in Bush v. Gore did not help, splitting the justices along the lines of what we know of their party affiliations. Even if one's practice nave takes a lawyer into court, it is unlikely you will never deal with some government agency (i.e. Land use regulations set up by the Department of Ecology or the E.P.A.) The heads of those agencies are appointed by the President (federal) or the governor (state.) Those political appointments affect the atmosphere of an agency and have real life ramifications (The new head of the EPA for our region is a former Dow Chemical executive. Whose interests do you think she will favor?) If that is not proof enough that the law is tied closely to politics, let me remind you of the branch of government that makes the laws: the legislature! We now live in an era where the law has become almost entirely a creature of statute. Those statutes are written by the legislature, and the legislature is put in office by our votes. Not only should we all be taking an interest in politics at the federal level, but also at the state--at least enough interest to read a bit on the issues and vote.

Clearly, when you represent a client and in following the laws, we are bound by the laws or a valid constitutional argument that the laws should be overturned. There will always be laws that we, according to our political beliefs, find repugnant. I do not think that everyone should have the same beliefs (although it would be nice if everyone agreed with me) but I think it is incumbent upon lawyers to have a basic understanding of the current political climate and to participate at the most basic level in that political system. It is important for your clients that you understand how and why laws are made and what forces may affect their change.

I think I can put this topic behind me for a while , at least until the '08 election season, which should be in full swing come January.

Voir Dire, Part I

My lack of posting is not the result of being impaneled on a jury; rather, after loosing two days down at the county courthouse, I have been playing catch-up. I did however get to sit through voir dire (the process through which attorneys and judges choose a jury from a pool of individuals) for two trials, one a murder trial and the other a drug possession trial. More than being a distraction from law school, my two days were very educational. I learned a lot by watching how the attorneys handle the pool of potential jurors, and in addition, I learned a lot about the cross section of my community that was randomly pulled for jury duty. I will try and sum up my observations in the next couple of posts:

First, more people than you would think have been victims of a violent crime. 65 people were called for the first trial, a murder/ robbery case. Around 20 people were released right off the bat because of hardship. Most of those individuals either had trips planned during the next three weeks (or so they said) or were small business people/ commissioned salespeople whose livelihood would be greatly affected by missing three weeks of work. From the 45 or so who remained, at lease five had had a gun pointed to their head at some point in there life. When one juror was asked, she replied "which time. . .I have had a rough life." The attorneys were asking these questions because there was a gun involved in the case. The former cop sitting in front of me described multiple occasion of looking down a barrel, and one tall bearded fellow had been an environmental activist who pissed off some loggers. Several others relayed their experiences in private, but this list only included those involved in gun crimes. There were others who had been kidnapped, beaten, robbed, held for ransom, etc. I must have led a sheltered life. I understand that this supposedly random section of society did not include those who had already found their way out of jury duty, but I think more people than we normally think have been victims of crime.

more to come. . .

Hurry up and wait!

I might actually get to see the inside of a courtroom today. No, the bar has not yet decided to allow me to practice based simply on my brilliance. I have jury duty. So far, I have been assigned to a jury pool, but before the action got started, I was released for three hours while the lawyers went over our paperwork and made preliminary decisions. Because I listed my occupation as law student, I find it unlikely I will be placed on any jury during my next two days of duty. I probably could have written and requested to be released, but seeing as this might be the last chance ever to sit on a jury and considering I have rarely ever been in a courtroom, I thought it might be a good educational experience--I am getting a lot of my homework done.

If perchance I am put on a jury, I will not be blogging about my experience until it is over. I read an article a few months ago about a criminal case in New Jersey--I believe--that went all the way up to the state supreme court on a jury related appeal because one of the jury members had been blogging about his experience during the course of the trial. The supreme court ruled that his actions had not been material to the decision and had not influenced any of the other members of the jury, so they let the verdict stand. Personally, I do not want to take the risk. I am probably pushing the envelop right now by blogging from a coffee shop, while officially still on jury duty. Of course the bar has not admitted me yet, but when I have my JD and have passed the bar exam, I would hate to not get admitted because I committed a previous indiscretion or was the subject to a supreme court appeal. I am not a lawyer yet, but considering what I already know, I will probably be held to a higher standard if I were to come up before a bar ethics committee--something I hope never to face. With that said, I will post after this experience is over and leave you all with any other impressions I have, unless they are no different from my experience this morning: hurry up and wait*

*I borrowed this expression. Thanks! I hope this gives you credit without disrupting your anonymity.

Urban Living

Some days I think I should go into advertising. I like coming up with funny short jingles, puns, and I am generally interested in what kind of images/ideas/trends appeal to people. Maybe that is an option if law school does not work out, or maybe just because this town needs some better marketers. Let me just share with you a couple of examples. For those of you who have not heard, Seattle has a new slogan. The Emerald City has been declared outdated, and the city has unveiled a slogan that will capture the spirit of the city--a place where people spend their days hiking and boating and their nights shopping at Nordstroms and eating organic food in chic upscale restaurants. I am sure some one was paid millions of dollars to come up with a word that would capture the feel and spirit of our city, and the best they could do was METRONATURAL, or METRO NATURAL. Are they serious???? First of all, it sounds like a city filled with a bunch of gay hippies. Did they really think it was a good idea to launch a marketing campaign with a phrase that sounds like the adjective for boys who wear Lactose shirts with their collars up, lots of hair gel and get pedicures: metro-sexual? I understand what they were trying to get at, but there are so many better choices: ecourbanism, urbanaturalism, techno-green, cosmonatural! Read the PI article that asks the same question here.

If you think this is an isolated incident, you are mistaken. Seattle is changing very quickly and one of the biggest trends right now is the huge market for condos. This year alone, 4,000 new units are going on the market, and we are not talking about reasonable alternatives to owning in a city with an average home price near a half of a million; 400 square foot studios near downtown are selling for near $200,000. Along with new units sprouting up all over town, many of the older apartment buildings are becoming "condoized." For example, the building across the street from me is in the middle of the process right now, and unfortunately for me, the remodel is considered by almost all residents neighborhood and some local bloggers as one of the ugliest condo projects in all of Seattle. Check out this post on the blog urbnlivn about the project. I love how he describes the question he got,when he was taking pictures of the building if he was doing so because it was so ugly. Although the outside is decidedly ugly, my girlfriend and I went to their open house this weekend and the interiors are actually quite well done, but before one is lulled into the fantasy of chic metronatural living too quickly, it is important to notice that most of what you would be paying for is some new appliances. As a rental property, the building was notorious for having thin walls and outrageous heating bills. Beneath the veneer of new bamboo floors and stainless steel appliances, what you are mostly getting is an old building with single pane windows and old plumbing. One of the biggest outrages is that they are marketing as a two bedroom, a 600 square foot space, where the second bedroom is a murphy bed that folds out of the wall in the living room. They must be delusional if they think they can sell a "two-bedroom" without parking (on capitol hill, which if you know anything has the worst street parking situation on the whole west coast) for $350,000.

If you need further proof that they are delusional, or that there are a lot of suckers in this town, or that the condo market is out of control, you should check out their website. The marketing is right in line with the city's new metronatural theme. I especially like this description of some of the amenities you will enjoy as part of your life at the Vertigo condos: "up on the roof, you'll find a bit of green loveliness known to suburban dwellers as a garden. While the sun reflects off your patent leather boots, check out the city skyline and the Puget Sound." I can't tell if our mockery is intentionally induced as a way to engage our attention. Is is possible that if they were not so obnoxious with their language I would just ignore the building and would not be spending time writing about it. That might be the case, and if true, this would mean it is actually one of the most brilliant marketing schemes presently in operation. Just check out the tag line that is on all of the Vertigo condo posters and flyers: "The city is your game of tag. this is your base." Ha, ha, ha, are they serious? Who thought of that? Is it working? Maybe that "tag line" works in an era when the game of tag is being banned from school playgrounds across the country? One thing is sure, the investors who are marketing the condos are hoping there are enough suckers who place a larger value on image than on quality, because that is most of what they are getting.

Law of School is Funny

Law school is a funny place. Along with medical school, we are considered a trade school, but that classification always seems like an awkward fit. When I think of trade schools, I think of those schools that teach you professional skills like plumbing, auto mechanics, and pet grooming. Although we are training to practice the trade of law, a relatively small percentage of what we learn is actually the "practice" of law. I am not saying that a good founding in constitutional principles is not important to the practice of law-it is essential-but, rather, that most law school classes teach general legal knowledge. They are predominantly focused on intellectual concerns, not practical. On the other-hand, law school differs from other graduate school programs. In what feels like a past life now, I was once a graduate student in German literature. I used to joke with the other graduate students that we were in "trade school," and the joke was only funny because the only trade we were really learning was how to be a nutty professor of some obscure topic (mine would have been turn of the century German philosophical conceptions of transcendence through anti-transcendental expressions). Law school probably has broader application, but to give the "trade school" classification some credit-we are learning the intellectual basis for the practice of a particular trade.

So, law school is sort of a trade school and also a bit of a graduate school, but with assigned seats and lockers, it sometimes has an element of junior high. This mix of educational identities has a strange effect on the atmosphere of law school, which is what I really mean when I saw that law school is a funny place. It is not unusual to see students on any given day in suits; actually it is quite common place because many students also work while at school. Yet, it is also not unusual to see students in sweat pants as if they got lost leaving the dorms looking for freshman English class. There are a fair number of students here who did not stop at "go and collect two hundred dollars" after undergrad and for the most part see law school as an extension of their undergrad life. On the other-hand, there is a considerable number of students, especially at night, who have full time jobs, mortgages, two kids, and are already taking cholesterol medication. Add a $100,000+ price tag and a general atmosphere of competition, and more work than anyone could reasonably accomplish in a 16-week race for the finish line, and it is no wonder people are so grateful to get out of law school. As much as a do truly enjoy learning about the law I, like almost everyone I know, pretty much see this time as a necessary hazing ritual; and it is only necessary because they won't let you sit for the bar without it.

That does not mean I am not enjoying my classes. I am particularly enjoying IP and Constitutional law, but sometimes I look around and think, how did all of these people end up here together?

Government works?

As part of my work study job, I have occasion to call a local Social Security office. Often I have a very simple question, like yesterday when I simply wished to determine which worker was handling a file, so I could leave a message directly on his/her message machine. An attendant could have answered the question in thirty seconds, but if this particular office has its way, you will get so frustrated, you will never ever track down your claim. Let me explain.

If you wish to get in touch with your local office, the first thing you will have to do is get their phone number, which is neither in the phone book or on the Social Security website (only the address can be found in those places.) If you want the number, you need to call the national 1-800 number and you should expect to wait at least 7 minutes to speak with a representative and give lots of information. After you get the phone number, you can call the local office. I have learned from experience that if I simply act as if I have a rotary phone, I will most quickly be routed to "the attendant." If you follow their prompts for non-rotary phones, you will have to work your way through several levels of menus before you end up in the same place. Now, do not be fooled into thinking I have found a short-cut. I will still have to listen to a long recording telling me I can find all the information I need either on the website or the 1-800 number (which I have already discovered cannot help me.)

At this point I think it is only a matter of waiting in line for the next attendant, as the digital voice has told me. After several minutes, I hear a clicking sound and the line rings only to be interrupted by the message "mailbox 123 is full, your call will be forwarded to the attendant." I thought that is where my call was already going. When did I say I wanted to leave a message? Anyway, I am on my way now, and getting through that obstacle must mean I am close to speaking with a person now. But wait, after several more minutes of waiting, I receive another message: "thank you for calling Social Security. Have a nice day!" Disconnected. Hum. Try again. Same loop. Try a third time. Same loop. I guess if I want this question answered, I am either going to have to go down to the office or write a letter (and getting mail answered from Social Security is a whole other post).

I understand why our homeless disabled clients need us.

Classic Lines

It is time for some new classic lines from law school lectures. This time, some advise from one of our professors on dealing with judges:

• Have a healthy skepticism and contempt for judges, because you can never underestimate their stupidity.
  
• An odd judge may be ignorant, stupid, or lazy. You just never know if the judge in your case is going through a divorce or is just sick of doing his job and does not care any more.
  

• With growth of power, members of court interpret the government as having unlimited powers. At some point, people stopped reading the constitution. If we want the constitution to do the things we want it to do, we just amend the constitution. Why do judges keep doing things that aren't in the constitution just because we have been doing them.

And finally, the words of another Professor* of mine as he walked by me reading outside and catching some of the last sun rays of fall:

• Yo man! Wake up!

*The general consensus of our class is that he is totally nuts, but has been teaching and advocating for so many years he just says and does whatever he wants

Blogger Beta

Lots of blogging today. Guess I am trying to make up for my lack of blogging lately. Anyway, I just updated to the new blogger beta, so supposidly there are some new features. Fun, I will have to update some other aspects of this blog in the coming weeks. Some rainy weather would be helpful with that, but with beautiful days like today all I want to do is sit outside and soak up the sun.

Also, instead of writing more about detainee torture and the acts of congress (both are depressing) I wanted to say that I really like being a "lawyer in training." School is bearable, but as I continue with both of the jobs I was working last summer, one day a week in insurance negotiations for PI claims and one day a week advocating for disabled homeless in their Social Security claims, I realize how much fun this work is. I would much rather go to work than to school most days and when I am there, I really don't notice time going by. Maybe that is because everything is new, but maybe its because this stuff is fun. It makes me feel good about my choice to come to law school.

More

I had another post about the detainee Bill that I lost through computer problems, but instead of trying to recapture what I had written, I just want to pass on an interesting link that sums up some of the constitutional balance of power issues in the Bill. Basically, the more I read and understand this Bill, the more frustrated and upset I become, especially since it will pass with little debate and in the shadow of democratic fear of the looming mid-term election. The fact that any democrat that votes against the Bill will be painted as soft-on-terror is simplistic, unfair, and reduces a needed conversation about America's stance on detainees to a bullying act by Republicans. I think a Bill is needed, but not this one and not for the reasons it has been passed so quickly.

more

The more I read about this detainee bill, the more I don not like it. Not only do I dislike the Bill, but I think the reasons why the Bill is being pushed through quickly are entirely political. Why is it that a democrat cannot raise concerns about the passage of this Bill without facing condemnation from the Republicans that he is soft on terror. Isn't it possible that those two concerns are not mutually exclusive. A person could wish to fight terror and even wish for a Bill to clarify exactly what powers the executive has, while at the same time not want to pass this Bill. The way campaigns are run now make it impossible for candidates to actually voice nuanced positions without being rolled over by broad and mostly false smear campaigns. I am not saying that there are not some Democrats that are soft on terror, and even if I did not want to get into this war in Iraq, we are there now and have to figure out how to deal with the consequences, but right now we can't even have a discussion.

Some more reading One from the New York Times editorials and one from the other side's perspective, well, I went to Foxnews.com to find a story on the passage of the detainee Bill and guess what: I couldn't find a single story discussing today's debate on the Bill. Either they don't think that this is an important issue, or they would never report anything that might question the President's authority under this new Bill. Maybe the New York Times just likes the futility of reporting on a Bill that has not chance of not being passed. Ahh, I have to go to class now and the more I follow this story, the more frustrated I get. (I entreat anyone to point me to articles, blogs, etc. that think the passage of this Bill as it is is really good)

Note on last post

Note on the last post:

If you are wondering why the previous post looks so funny, it is because I posted it before I closed the spell checker and it published the highlighted words.  I guess you can all see where my spelling weaknesses are.  

prisoner debate

It looks like the detainee debate goes on. This article gives a good sum up of what the bill actually does. Basically it gives the president huge discretion to decide what an "outrage to humanity" might mean in terms of torture. Unfortunately, this bill does not do what it should do: define how the military can treat detainees. Bush knows from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that he cannot do what he was doing before, but without the legislature defining the limits, this bill basically gives him the authority to define a detainee plan as he wishes. He probably wishes as much broad power as possible to carry out his executive military powers, but the courts have acted to limit this. Now the legislature won't hold up its corner of the triangle of balanced powers. The hasty passage of the bill and the lack of debate is probably the result of fear of political fallout. Many democrats who are in hotly contested races do not wish to say X means of torture is OK while Y means of torture is out just to see a campaign add against him saying he supports the use of X.

The other issue that is not entirely clear in this bill is what happens when an American citizen is captured as an "enemy combatant." Clearly understanding the constitution is important in this debate, and unfortunately some Senator's lack of understanding is clouding the actual issues. The constitution does not apply to non-citizens, but it does apply to a citizen who is captured as an "enemy combatant." Some Senators who are voting against this bill are claiming that they are protecting their constituents rights, but if their voting constituents' rights are already protected. What they really need to say is that they are protecting their rights by not passing a bill that does not do what really needs to be done: give definition to the very vague Geneva Conventions. The powers that are given to the executive that are not limited can be used to their fullest extent and then we will not even be able to blame the president, because when the legislature had a chance to place distinct limits, it put its hands down and let this bill pass.

If you are curious, you can read the Senate Bill here or another article about it here. It is unfortunate that this Bill is up for debate right now only about a month before the mid-term election, because the consequences could be far reaching. What is conspicuously lacking right now is a cultural debate about what limits we should actually have on our treatment of detainees.

Torturing the Question

There has been a lot of discussion of prisoner’s rights under the Geneva Convention lately. The Bush administration feels that they should not be bound by the convention, because of the nature of our enemy (they are not a nation-state, they are not uniformed soldiers, and being bound makes fighting the war difficult and puts us at risk). On the other side are the U.N., Amnesty International, and many Senators who believe that as a signatory and as good policy, America is, or should be, bound by the Geneva Conventions. There are a lot of interesting issues here: can torture ever be used? What is America’s obligation to international treaties? How should we treat prisoners of war (as opposed to criminal incarceration of citizens who are guaranteed constitutional rights)? Maybe I will get around to discussing some of these other issues later this semester, but first I wanted to find out exactly what the Geneva Convention says. In all of the news reports that I have heard or read, there is scant reference to the text of the convention itself. It seems that textual analysis is practiced more often by lawyers than by journalists, so undertaking my role in as a lawyer in training, I thought I would reference some of the specific text from the Convention III pertaining to treatment of prisoners:

Part 1, art 2:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Certainly, Al Qaeda is not a party to the convention, nor would they ever wish to be, but does that excuse our obligations under the treaty? Is that unfair? Does upholding the standards in the treaty put us on unfair footing in fighting a rogue enemy that, whether or not we like this war, feels like they are at war with us? Again, I don’t know the answers to these questions, but the text seems to imply that we may still be bound, at least as long as we wish to remain a signatory to the Convention receiving its protections and bound by its duties. (This begs the question of whether the protections of the convention are really worth anything if the enemy is not bound by those same obligations?)

With reference to the treatment of prisoners of war

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This would seem to indicate that the prisoners of war taken in the so called “war on terror,” may not qualify for protections under the treaty. They are commanded by a superior, but they do not necessarily wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, and even if they carry weapons openly, they do not follow in accordance with the laws and customs of war, primarily with respect to targeting civilians.

There may be very good policy reasons for following the Geneva conventions. One, it might just be good moral policy and we wish to operate our wars according to rules that set a certain moral baseline. Secondly, it might prevent the corruption of the treaty standards in those countries that are signatories and who, at some point in the future take American prisoners. There are some policy arguments pointing the other way as well. An article in last weeks New York Times Sunday Magazine made the point that when Col. Mike Bumgarner decided to implement the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo Bay, he had much more difficulty keeping order in the prison.

That aside, I think it is important to set limits on what kind of tactics are allowed in dealing with detainees. Abu Grab should not be repeated, and both the Supreme Court 's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld banning the Presidents prior policy of allowing "all necessary force" in the fight against terrorism and the bills passed in, Congress this week proposing new regulations for detainees are good signes that the constitutional balance of power might still be working. I am going to wrap this post up now, but this topic leaves many more questions open than it resolves and I hope to return to it throughout the semester.

Bob Dylan and the Law

I am working on a larger post tying together some current events with legal thoughts, but in the mean time, I came across this interesting fact today. A recent study has shown that the most quoted musician in legal writing is Bob Dylan. That is not really surprising for a couple of reasons. First, he is a great writer and stylistically, his language is perfect for quoting. Secondly, Dylan often sings/writes about the themes of justice. Finally, those in a position to have opinions/law reviews/ and other legal writings published are about the age of the generation who grew up on Dylan. I am personally a huge Dylan fan and grew up on his music as much as anyone else, albeit on Cd's as opposed to vinyl, so I am not surprised at all. I just got (thanks!) his new album, Modern Times, and it is great. The album is classic Dylan, while at the same time sounds fresh and unique. You should give it a listen; if anything else, it will give you some good one-liners for your next legal article.

Supremacy Claws

A leit-motif in almost all of my classes this semester is that the Supreme Court is a bunch of uninformed, idiotic fools who do not understand precedent, have not accurately read historical documents, and come up with completely absurd and arbitrary arguments that, "can't you see," are just totally unfounded. All of my professors have tried more than once to get the point across that the Supreme Court does not always get it right, and in some instances, they get things completely wrong. We are not talking about political opinions that are contrary to those I or my professors might hold, such as the way the court will vote on Roe v. Wade, but missteps of logic, misstatements of facts, and blatant editing of prior decisions to suit whatever position the writing justice is attempting to justify. Some of my professor's attitude must come from that fact that they are experts in the area that they teach, and even though the Supreme Court only hears 70 cases a year, those cases cover a vast array of legal topics, and no one can really expect even the most brilliant legal scholars to be experts in all areas of the law. Furthermore, law professors surely all get a boost to their egos when they can point out to a bunch of supreme-court-pedestalizing law students that their reasoning and analysis is far more acute than those sitting on the most powerful court in the country. Thus, I find myself asking: am I witness to the small glories of obscure academics, or am I witness to a purposeful pedagogical technique on behalf of my professors to get us to question authority and think for ourselves? Probably some of both.

barely legal books

I saw a humorous flyer in the halls of the law school today. Some student was selling his/her one-L textbooks and had made a poster with those little phone number flaps. The text of the 81/2" by 11" sheet read:

One-L Text Books
Barely Used

After a year of law school, that student should know by now that the way you use language is extremely important. And while I understood the intended meaning was probably that the books were in good shape with little highlighting or writing in margins, all I could see was the other meaning that he/she barely used his/her books. I must say I appreciated the laugh, but it would be even funnier if the vendor of barely used legal books did not make the linguistic mistake on accident and was actually in on the joke.

Throughout my one-L blog, I made repeated reference to the fact that legal writing had very little humor and that this is mostly due to the serious nature of legal discourse. Appellate opinions, which make up the core of first year curriculum, are taken seriously by both the parties involved and the lawyers who are in the dual role as advocates for their clients and possibly proponents of a new interpretation of a law. Lawyers can make arguments that eventually have the effect of changing the law, and that is rarely a laughing matter, but lest you think the legal world is void of laughter, I must now revise my previous musings by noting that in the lower echelons of the legal pyramid, there is plenty of things to laugh about: mostly, the utterly absurd things done by clients or opposing parties.

I see this in my tort work and my friends who work in criminal law relay plenty of stories of human stupidity like the oft quoted defense to a police officer finding drugs in one's pocket: "these are not my pants. I just borrowed them." I was working on a case last week where one of our clients was treating with a chiropractic for one accident when he was involved in another accident. This particular chiropractor has the patients fill out a self-evaluation at each session. Our client had filled out each self-evaluation form for every treatment before the second accident, on the day of the second accident, and throughout the rest of his treatment with slight variations on this basic sentence: "feeling better, but my neck still hurts." I have never wanted to be an insurance adjuster more than with this particular file. And the truth is, he may really have been in pain, and he may really deserve to be significantly compensated, and maybe he was just being as truthful as he could be. MAYBE, it is important to laugh at clients behind the closed door to your office in order to safely relieve the frustration of them not doing, or saying, what you think they should in order to make their case the perfect case.

My thoughts are just wandering now, but the types of cases I have worked on so far are far from perfect cases. It takes a significant amount of controlled creativity to make arguments that are both validly based on the documented medical evidence and yet convincing enough to elicit some sort of compensation for our client's pain and suffering. More perfect cases definitely exists. Take fore example the plane crash a few weeks ago in Kentucky, I think. The first suits in that case were filed last week. In that instance you have clear negligence on the part of multiple parties and the government, all of which have deep pockets and are heavily endowed with insurance. That is the kind of case that certainly takes work, but all of the factors are weighing in your direction. At the periphery of plaintiff's work and at the my entry gates into this profession, sometimes all I see is vast piles of absurdity. A good laugh, a good days work, and a good night sleep. I think I like being a lawyer.

Please excuse any unclear prose in tonights post. It is late and I have been studying a lot today so that I can leave most of my books behind when I leave for Colorado on Thursday morning for a wedding. If you don't hear from me before then that means I was successful in my attempts to get ahead in my work, and I left my computer behind.

Busy Bodies

This post requires some background. The law school at Seattle University was purchased from the University of Puget Sound several years back, maybe seven. Sullivan Hall, where our school is located, was built specifically for the law school at this time. Just this summer, they had to remodel the library because, supposedly, our career services department sucks and they wanted to give them more space (so that they could suck up more study carousels). In addition, I believe the size of the entering classes is becoming larger and larger, such that even many of my second year elective classes are taught to almost 100 students in large lecture halls and are called "discussion classes" by the professors. To top it off, I am going to spend close to $30,000 just for the privilege of sitting in those classes.

Considering the newness of the building, the law school's desire to grow, and the price tag to get in the door, you would think that I could find a place to study at the library at 1:30 on a Tuesday afternoon. There is currently not a single study spot on the first floor, a smattering of free carousels on the second floor amidst row after row of occupied places, and I have vowed to stay away from the third floor because that is where the over-achieving, study-show-offs go to surround themselves with others of their type in the "super-quiet" floor. Luckily I mentioned my dilemma to my undergraduate friend who works as a work study at the circulation desk, and she recommended that I go over to the undergrad library. All of the undergrads are still on summer vacation, and according to her, hardly anyone ever comes here anyway. So, while the one-L's are jammed into their cattle-carousels in the newly remodeled law library, I have an entire room of this library to spread out and work in quit. If I wasn't sure that only about four or five other people, including my family in Colorado, actually read this blog, I would not publicly disclose this new discovery. I can't say it is perfect. The new chairs they purchased at the law library really are comfortable, especially compared to these forest green vinyl and metal chairs from the 70's, but not having to be surrounded by a bunch of crazed law students makes the slight sacrifice of comfort worth it. Now I must just conquer my own internal distractions and read Real Estate.

still summer

The weather around here still feels like summer. Hard enough to get homework done, let alone comment about it.

Electivation

One nice thing about this year is that they changed the coffee at the schools little coffee and food window. Not only is it all organic and free trade, but it is also palatable. It is also nice to know that I had some say in choosing that brand of coffee. When we had a taist testing last spring, I voted for that brand and it looks like I was finally in the majority for something I voted on, and my daily access to caffien is relatively important. I am also happy with my choice of classes. My IP professor is wonderfully tangential. We spent the first class trying to answer a question that he said was the question he was not presenting us to answer but had to be answered before we could answer the question that he really wanted us to answer. Before we could answer the question he really wanted us to answer, we had to answer this second question so we knew exactly why he choose for us to answer the former rather than the latter. It sounds confusing now, but it made a lot of sense in class.

My housing law and policy class consists of almost entirely guest speakers, videos, and field trips. I think he is going to drop us off in the middle of Seattle's ghettos and ask us to write about our image of the housing situation.

Federal Indian law: interesting. Real Estate Law: the class is about half full with property flippers and former mortgage brokers. It seems like good information to know, but it isn't going to be the most interesting class I ever took. And then there is con law. I am heading off there right now. I can tell that it is going to be the most demanding class. Not only does it meet every day, but the professor wrote the book, which means if the way he explains it is not clear, you can't be sure class will clear that up. Well, that's were I am heading.

summer up

I start classes again tomorrow: constitutional law, basic real estate, federal Indian law, intellectual property law, and housing law policy seminar. It should be a busy semester, and as a Two-L, I get to take classes in other parts of the building beside the basement. I do not really have many thoughts about the year ahead, except to say that even after this many years of school, the last night of summer still has the same feeling of excitement mixed with nervousness. As I sharpen my pencils and lay out my clothes for tomorrow (code for reorganizing my "My Documents" folder and doing a bunch of loads of laundry) I find myself reflecting on the summer that has passed.

This summer went by so quick, I feel that just at the moment I was beginning to get a grasp of what it is like to do "legal work," I am returning to the classroom for more theory. I am looking forward to the rich fall weather, gaining some knew knowledge, and the lack of rigid structure that school provides, the the lessons I learned this summer felt different than the knowledge I gain at school. If there is anything that really defined the past summer and will stand out in my memory, it will probably be my last day on Friday when I closed my first deal. Of course it felt great that I was able to make some pretty quick and strong arguments to the adjuster, which were sufficient to convince her to add another $4,500 to the claim, but that won't be what I will remember. The moment I will remember is the deal I couldn't close.

Just moments after closing the first deal for a very good sum, I met with the attorney and she could tell that I had enjoyed the experience of negotiations. I then explained to her that I liked to make the arguments but I wished I had more knowledge. At this she said that was not really the point; rather, the heart of good negotiations is to get that moment with the adjuster where you share something personal, when you have a connection, when you are working with them even though you both have mutually exclusive goals and roles. Not moments after she said this, I received a phone call from another adjuster to whom I had written a somewhat harsh letter earlier that week. She was not really in the mood to budge on her figures and she was offended that I had described her handling of the negotiations as "crass." As I quickly looked over my letter, I saw some very valid arguments, but I realized I had not written them to a person. The letter had been an intellectual exercise, and without realizing there was a person on the receiving end, I made no effort to couch my arguments in a cordial manner. As we talked I could feel myself connecting with her, and after apologizing sincerely and discussing with her the difference in what it was like to write and to talk with her, (I was basically just honest with her) she began to soften her tone and said she would look over the file next week and fax me over some new figures. It was at that moment that I realized the law was, at it center, about relationships. All the law is is a time-tested, ever-evolving, complex set of rules for how we are all supposed to relate to each other and what should be done when those relationships are in conflict. I understood probably the best lesson I could have learned this summer; sometimes the most important legal skill is the ability to connect with other humans, whether they be your client, your boss, or the opposing council.

This is not to say that I have not talked with some adjusters who were real assholes and who were way out of line with their settlement offers. I can think of at least two right off hand that were real jerks to me, and in both those cases, our clients were significantly more injured than in the case I settled on Friday. Sometimes it is OK to tell an adjuster that their handling of the claim is "crass," but I will be much more careful in choosing my words from now on, and I will always make sure I know who will be reading/ hearing those words.

With the beginning of school, I am sure I will be posting much more often. I will make an effort to post, at a minimum, once a week on Sunday nights.

tied up

I have been a bit tied up lately. Even after a summer of wearing a tie on a semi-regular basis, it still took me four tries yesterday to get it right. first it was too short and that little small tail was hanging down below the tip. Then I over-compensated and the tie was hanging down three inches below my belt line. The fourt attempt was far from perfect, but I figured I was just going to sit behind the desk in my office all day and no one was really going to see me so it didn't matter that much. I had already spent enough time tied up with it. Some of the other difficult moments of my summer of personal injury? Trying to track down how medical records from ambulance services. I was somewhat shocked to learn that almost no one keeps track of which ambulance company drives you to the hospital. The hospitals do not keep a record of it. Their liability begins when you show up at their front door. How you got there is irrelevant. Our clients rarely know more than that they traveled in an ambulance, but you can hardly blame them. Also, since most of our clients don't speak English, I can't just call them up and ask. We do have paralegals to do that sort of stuff and I do take advantage of both their labor and their langauge skills, but the downside is that you can't ask the questions and they rarely get all the information you might need. If you try calling the fire departments in the area where the accident took place you will go in so many circles you will think you just spun down a fire pole into the flames of bureaucratic hell. You might get lucky and have a police report in the file so that you can call their central dispatch. They seem to have the best idea of what ambulance might have been dispatched on the particular day of the accident. By this point you have spent an hour tracking down a $700 bill which the insurance companies will rarely dispute but might result in the ambulance company becoming aware that your client is still alive and has not paid his bill. I sometimes wonder if it is worth all the effort when they think Juan Lopez has already moved back to Mexico. If I am lucky, my day might also include some telephone negotiations with an insurance adjuster or an opportunity to write one a letter telling him/her how ridiculous his/her offer is. And if I have anything to say from my brief experience with insurance adjusters, it is this: just like with any other group of people, some are pleasant, some are jerks, some are ignorant, some, unfortunately for my purposes, are quite bright, and finally, you often get what you pay for. So if you are insured by Geiko, think about switching.

classic lines from law school lectures, or not!

Things are still kind of crazy over here. Saturday is my admin law final and I am going to be working for most of the rest of the week. I have had guests in town from Germany, and even though their timing could not have been worse, when friends I haven't seen in 5 years decide to plan their whole trip to American around visiting the town where I live, I have no problem rearranging my schedule a little bit. It has actually been quite nice. I have been a bit of a tourist in Seattle over the last couple of days. I rode the ferry to Bainbridge yesterday and today we went to the aquarium. Starting tomorrow I am going to send them off with a map on their own.

At least I am not taking the bar which starts tomorrow; I still have another two years to prepare for that torture. Studying for Admin law is comparatively mild, which is not to say that it is enjoyable. I have been thoroughly enjoying my work in the law, but class has been a real drag. Probably the most valuable knowledge I gained from taking this class was about myself. I am pretty sure i no longer want to work in environmental law, which largely consists of admin work (discussing the difference in regulating .oo1 and .002 percent of particulate matters and what standard of review should be used to decide if the EPA can set a standard at all if the statute claims they should take all feasible steps to prevent pollution.) I think I am going to have to eat crow for some comments I made earlier this semester about the student who wanted our teacher to just teach us what is going to be on the bar. Right now, I would be grateful if he had only have that focus in his teaching. Today, actually right now since I am writing this during class, he is reading us verbatim the Washington Public Disclosure Act and giving us short comments about each section. I could see how this might be helpful if everything he said was not completely obvious. I think he can be pretty sure that all of us know how to read. Having taught classes myself as a grad student, I know that when a teacher starts to read the assigned text verbatim to the class that he has not prepared anything for that class.

A lot of people complain that law professors are lawyers who couldn't make it in the real world, but if teaching is what they are good at, I prefer a good teacher any day to a bad teacher with lots of real world experience. The two teacher I have had so far with "lots of real life legal experience" have been the worst teachers and have made their subjects seem utterly uninteresting. Give me any day a teacher who failed in practice but who can make the UCC interesting to a man who has been deeply involved in Government for his whole life and who thinks it would be fun to teach in his retirement but has no idea how to make even controversial topics interesting. Admin law professors are, as a friend described them, much like CPAs. The closest thing to a sense of humor in this class came when our teacher made a comment about "pre-mature adjudication," which would have been funny if he hadn't felt it necessary to also point out that "it sounds like something else, doesn't it?" That turned from funny to creepy pretty quickly. Explain the subject, not your bad jokes! The only other memorable moment came when he performed what I have called the "Admin Law strip tease." During one of our almost two-hour-long classes last week, he slowly took off various pieces of clothing--tie, jacket, button down shirt--until he was wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an endangered bird. It just so happened that he revealed his support of endangered species at the exact moment in class when we were reading a case about the endangered species act. To me, that is just gimmicks. When you can't teach, you blame your students for being lazy or you try gimmicks such as described above or you bring food to class. While I in no way want to give the impression that I did not appreciate the blueberries he brought to class last week, but I would prefer an engaging lecture even more.

That said, I have to try and teach myself admin law in the next 5 days. That is not going to be especially easy, but if there is one more thing that I have learned from this class, it is that learning the law is up to me. I can't count on the professor to impart some great wisdom, no matter how much he supposedly has stored far off in some recess of his real-world-experience mind. So, I'll be back next week to let you know how it goes.

quick update

Don't think I have abandoned you blog. I am still here, and I am still making observations about the law and law school, but they have taken a back-seat to the actual practice of law. I have entered a somewhat different stage in my transition toward becoming a lawyer. Everyone says that when you leave law school, you are a different person than the one you are when you arrive, but this process has many different stages and some build on the previous stages and some consume them. Even though the One-L year was overwhelming, it also left me plenty of time to be reflective, whereas my summer working/volunteering/night-class-in-admin-law leaves me very little time to reflect on what I am doing. It is all very new, exciting, and engaging, but unlike the past year, I do not feel I need the release of this blog journal to keep the chaos in check. I have entered a stage where I am doing without thinking--which is not to say that I don't do a lot of thinking at my job or in class. I use my mind, but I use it for the purposes of practicing law as opposed to thinking about what it means to practice law. I am sure once I get my feet on the ground and begin to feel "legal" in a more intuitive way, I will be in a position to reflect on it, and the likely place to look for those reflections will be this blog, but until then I am a little too engaged to step outside and want to look in.

The only small wisdom I can bring forth today is more of a public service announcement: in the last years, I have somehow become more relaxed, or fatalistic, about wearing my seat belt, but after a wrongful death case came across my desk last week, I have had a sudden resurgence of a desire to make sure I live as long as possible. When you read about car accidents all day long, you realize how quickly an accident can occur, and while one party is usually "at fault," I see again and again how just about anyone can have a spmall lapse in attention at the wheel, and the difference between the "at fault" driver and the "injured party is not always clear cut. That said, personal injury is mostly a game between lawyers and insurance adjusters, but if you can do anything to make sure you stay out of that game as a driver, then you should do it.

Summer time

Supreme Court Sum Up

It definitely feels like summer now. With the Supreme Court wrapping up last friday, I can take a break from following the daily output of 9 old sedentary authorities and follow the turns and twists of 150 sweaty young men. Yes, the Tour de France started on Saturday, and with the top 5 riders from past years out of the race (Lance retired and the next four caught up the the Spanish doping scandal) it proves to be an interesting year for lesser known riders. For those who find watching bike racing to be an increadibly boring and worthless way to spend time, don't forget that following the Supreme Court holds comparitively less excitement, and yet there are those of us that wake up and check the docket like the sports pages to see what opinions have been released. If you are reading this and feeling hopelessly left out because you happened to have missed an entire year of legal opinions from the most important court in the country, there was a wonderful wrap up in this Sunday's Times, including a great many graphs, that summarizes the most important decisions of the year. Roberts is at Court's Helm, but he isn't. . .

As for the tour, because I don't have cable I have to watch it at a bar. Luckily, I just discoverd that the Summit Public House, which is only a couple of blocks from my appartment is legendary for showing the Tour and gathers quite a crowd of bike geeks for the replay at 5:00. It is actually the perfect place. It gets me out of the appartment and has the added bonus that they allow dogs. George has been on his best behavior sitting at the foot of my barstool quietly watching the door and steeling the attention of all of the girls as I watch the tour. He was even rewarded by the barkeep with some leftover bacon, so he probably won't mind going back.

Appellate Insults and Legal Payback

Have you ever wondered how appeals court justices insult each other. There is a wonderful example in the concurring opinion by Judge Frank of the Second Circuit in the case between the National Labor Relation Board and Universal Camera Corp. 190 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1951). This is actually the second time this case came before this court, the first time only a year earlier. In the meantime, the case moved up to the Supreme Court and was remanded with instructions to reconsider the weight of the conclusions of a special investigator for the NLRB, whose conclusions had previously been overruled by the NLRB's board. The facts of the case are not really important, but it is one of those cases that moves up and down the courts going one way and then the next, and my Admin Law book decided to reprint each of the opinions so that we could see how the case moved around. Judge Learned Hand, who is pictured above in the middle, and who, with a name like Learned Hand, was born to be a judge, wrote both of the appeals court opinions. He is one of those appellate judges, along with Cardozo, pictured left, and Warren, pictured right, whose opinions crop up again and again in first year casebooks. He is also one of the most well renowned and respected justices of American jurisprudence, which you will see when you read the way Judge Frank criticizes his majority opinion; or could Frank's words be just a mask for a scathing in your face appellate insult. This is how Frank's concurring opinion begins:

Recognizing, as only a singularly stupid man would not, Judge Hand's superior wisdom, intelligence and learning, I seldom disagree with him, and then with serious misgivings. In this instance, I have over come my misgivings because I think that his modesty has moved him to interpret too sweepingly the Supreme Court's criticism of our earlier opinion written by him. . .

If this had been a dissent, I think it would fall more to the scathing side; rather, after review Frank's words again, I see here a touch of a type of brilliance that we rarely see in our day to day dealings with the world anymore: the capacity to respectfully disagree. If only we all had the capacity to tell other's they have made a mistake with such craftily constructed phrases and such relationship edifying independence.

On another note, I received my first pay check for doing real legal work. (work study at the library circulation desk doesn't count) After forking over an ungodly amount of money, fronted by banks and the U.S. government, in order to work in this chosen field, I am finally seeing that there is hope of some of that coming back to me. And if I can proceed to earn that money with half the class of Hand and Frank, I think I am going to do alright by the law.

Work blogging

I decided to go ahead and write a short post during my lunch break at work. I am not well versed in the standards of internet use at work since this is for all practical purposes my first office job. I think blogging is alright. The other worker monkeys check their e-mail and such and a student I know who works at the State Supreme Court tells me she still floats around myspace while at work.

As I work on these insurance settlement demands, I can't help but wonder how all of these people thought to get a lawyer. If you are hit by an uninsured motorist and you are covered by your own insurance, I would never think to go out and find myself a lawyer. I guess before I came to lawschool I had a pretty negative connotation about suing, such that I never thought I would be in the position to sue someone else. Granted, most of these cases are settled, but there are still lawyers involved. Another reason for my bewilderment at the vast numbers of suits, or potential suits is that I have always had the most minimal of insurance coverage. Maybe when you have very comprehensive insurance, you have a tendency to want to get the most out of it. You are paying higher premiums for something, namely the right to recover "pain and suffering" in the event that you actually file a claim.

Being able to blog at work seems to provide a documentation of the random thoughts I have while reading the files I read. Normally these thoughts would pass throughout the day without ever making their way outside of my mind, but armed with ready internet access and limited in where I can get to during the break, I guess there is not reason not to give them a route out.

short absence

There is probably only a few of you still reading this blog lately because I have been updating so seldonly, and it is not going to get better in the next week. I will be leaving in the morning for Houston to go to a friends wedding, and judging by my previous weeks posting habits, it might be slow around here for a while. After several weeks of having almost nothing to do, things have picked up. I am working, volunteering, and taking a class. Plus, with the summer weather, when I am done with those activities, the last thing I want to do is sit longer at the computer.

This seems to be one of those posts where I return to the theme of blogging itself. I occationally, like many bloggers, feel obligated to reflect on this practice. I was reminded the other day that one of my more egotistically motivated reasons for started to blog was to get more name recognition when self-googling. It seems to have worked. If you googled my name last fall you came up with a listing for a town in India and a manufacturer of helicopter parts. Those listings are still there, but they have been bumped to the second page after a full page of hits that actually point back to me. This has had the added benefit that those who wish to find me can, such as old friends who I have not spoken to in years and whose random e-mail landed in my inbox as a pleasant surprise. All that aside, now that I can be found, I feel somewhat obligated not to disappoint, which means that I do hope to make blogging a more regular practice.

Until then, check out this fun blog that collects gossip about the federal judiciary, Underneath their Robes. Also take a chance to read up on the recent Supreme Court decision that barely held on to the protections of the Clean Water Act. You can read the Kennedy opinion and the Scalia dissent here. That should keep you busy until I get back; it is a 30 page opinion. For myself, I am heading to the the urban wetland of Texas that just this week is receiving a foot of rain a day.