Mobile Blogging
I'm sitting in a drive thru right now and testing the typepad blackberry client. Few things are cooler than all the new things you can do with mobile devices. OK there needs to be a pagebreak feature.
I'm sitting in a drive thru right now and testing the typepad blackberry client. Few things are cooler than all the new things you can do with mobile devices. OK there needs to be a pagebreak feature.
What happens when you mix late-night studying with Captain Morgan?
Last night, I dreamt that I was explaining personal jurisdiction to my father and a Chinese exchange student. Specifically, I was explaining the holding of Asahi, and how it might or might not apply to the exchange student's claim against a Chinese manufacturer. If I recall correctly, the student had some sort of defective product for his car and wanted to bring a claim against the manufacturer. Specifically, I was discussing the "stream of commerce" theory as applied in Asahi.
I have no idea who the exchange student was, and I have no idea why in my dream I forgot that my father is an attorney. But on the plus side, I'm ready for my civ pro final.
P.S. Fred Claus looks like the dumbest movie of the season.
So, we all had to take a writing proficiency test that tests us on punctuation, grammar, and style. I wasn't really sweating the test too much, except for one thing: It's one of those damned "choose the best choice" tests in which there are multiple right answers. I detest those. Tests should have one, and only one right answer.
The test was a Scantron test, and I guess it gets the job done. But the test would be much more effective if they actually made us write something to make sure we know what we're doing. Just a thought.
Lexis: Is like trying to go somewhere by hopping backwards on one leg while blindfolded.
Westlaw: Is like getting in the car and driving there.
That is all.
I just finished my round in the arbitration competition. Cross examination and I are madly in love. BFF. Seriously. God, I can't wait to get a real victim in the chair.
Soooo tired. Let's face it, I'm pooped.
Seriously: In the last week, I've spent more than a few twelve hour days dealing with law school, and more specifically, the arbitration team I'm on.
I'm on a four-person team, and our competition is this Friday. Overall, I'm impressed with the team and how far we've all come. We've each put in a lot of hard work honing our roles, and I'm very hopeful we'll advance to nationals.
Even if we don't, I'll be happy the whole damn thing is over this weekend.
I feel like I'm prepping for trial again... going over testimony; making trial exhibits; practicing opening statements... it's a lot of work. That's right, kiddies: You CAN make a ton of money as a trial lawyer, but it's not all easy money. You'll work your ass off if you want to go before a jury.
I've been a bit too busy to do much actual school work for the past week, but I'm hoping it won't take me too long to catch up. Thankfully, my RWA class is almost over, and that buys me a lot more time to study.
Today we covered Gasperini in Civ Pro, and I don't often say this, but Scalia was right. His dissent is not only the better opinion, but the correct opinion. The bitch-slap he delivered to the rest of the court was well-deserved.
On Thursday, we get to go over Twombly. Yay.
Apparently I missed the memo: We get our results back today in 1.5 hours. I wonder how many dropouts we're going to have tomorrow.
I predict only that I'm not in the bottom 50% of the class. And I make this prediction only because I was allowed to type my exam. Had it been handwritten, I'm sure the professor would have flunked me out of spite.
Update: Highest score in class: 41. Lowest: 30. Me: 39. :(
I don't know who else remembers Monster House (the TV show, not the movie), but at the end of every project, the team would get a "Done" stamp. (And in one notable episode, a "Dun" stamp.) I definitely got a Done stamp for my contracts midterm yesterday.
The exam was one question, with two parts. We had an hour to complete it. The question was much easier than I feared it would be. While I wouldn't say I'm weak in contracts, it's not my strongest subject. No one who knows my love of all lawsuits tort would be surprised to learn that I find contracts to be dry and boring. I have a special dislike for UCC 2-207, but not for the reason you might think. 2-207 deals with what's called "the battle of the forms," which occurs when merchants send purchase orders and similar forms with conflicting terms. Sellers tend to try and disclaim all warranties, mandate arbitration, and otherwise screw over the buyer. Buyers tend to claim they're entitled to ridiculous warranties, mandatory treble damages, and otherwise screw over the seller. UCC 2-207 tries to eliminate much of the confusion over conflicting terms. Emphasis is on "tries." I'm fairly certain that if you looked up "botched legislative abortion," UCC 2-207 would be there. Most people hate it because of its complexity and half-heartedness. Admittedly, I don't care for those qualities either.
But I hate the fact that the law constantly bends over backwards to accommodate commercial interests above all else. If the drafters of the UCC spent their time and efforts trying to ensure consumers got safe products and straight deals, I think the world would be a better and safer place. But instead, brilliant legal scholars are more interested in figuring out whose boilerplate applies. Here's a novel solution: No one's boilerplate applies. Dickered terms and only dickered terms control.
(sigh) Yes, I know that's remarkably shortsighted and impractical and would never work. But I'm just tired of everyone accepting that the Raison d'être of the law is and should be to promote commercial interests above all else. And the ironic thing is that many people assume I'm going into personal injury law for the money.
Anyway, that was my only midterm and I'm pretty sure I'll be in the top 10% of the class. Of course, all my lawyer friends tell me that if you think you did well on an exam, you bombed it. Time will tell.
As I mentioned before, I tried out for the MSU Law ABA Arbitration team. I made it, beating out a handful of very talented 2L's and 3L's for the spot on the team. As if that wasn't enough, I also won the MSU All-School Moot Court competition, against some very good competitors. I got a nice certificate suitable for framing and a gift certificate to the student book store. I'm well stocked on books, so I think I'll use it to buy and MSU law sweat shirt, since winter is coming and I already own the MSU Law shot glass.
I'm obviously proud to have won the competition, but more than that I'm pleased that I love this stuff as much as I thought I would. I definitely want to spend my days in a court room.
This morning was the tryout for the MSU Law Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Arbitration team. For those of you who don't know, the arbitration process is very similar to a real trial. You make opening and closing statements, introduce evidence, examine witnesses, etc. So I had no choice to go out for the team. Traditionally, only 2L's and 3L's participate in teams like this. But they let me try out because of my background.
Yesterday I was handed two 20+ page packets. One consisted of all of the arguments from last year's team problem (which are assigned by the ABA) and the other was this year's packet. I was given the choice of either massaging last year's arguments, or making up my own. Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I chose the latter. I figured that as a 1L, I needed to show I've got the chops to plow through deposition summaries, affidavits, and documentary evidence, and then synthesize that information into a good opening argument. I spent about five or six hours last night putting my opening statement together and gave it this morning.
I think it went over pretty well. I was the only person who tried to create a new opening statement, which I think gave me bonus points in the eyes of the two professors. One of them really liked a catchy line I used in the statement, and overall I got a very positive vibe.
If I make the team, we'll be competing in the regional competition in November, followed by a trip to Florida in January for the finals - if we win the regionals, anyway.
There are six or seven people competing for four spots. While I think I definitely should make the cut, there aren't any other students who I think shouldn't. They all put their own interpretations on the opening statement and were strong in their own unique ways. I know that sounds wishy-washy to say, but honestly: No one bombed. I should know tomorrow if I make the cut.
Tomorrow I also have a 2000ish word article due for the school paper on the McDonald's Coffee Case. I won't be surprised if my good buddy Ted Frank writes a letter to the editor to rebut my article. And I have to prepare two 8-10 minute oral arguments for tomorrow... and finish up my 8-10 page draft of a memo about negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Tonight will be a late night. But I can't bitch too much, because two late nights in a month of law school isn't bad.
