So that's that. Three days ago, I took my second and last final of the semester, and with no further ado, it's over. Four months of intensive reading, briefing, fretting, outlining, memo-writing, stressing, and of course, occasional blogging, and suddenly . . . nothing. I'm really not sure I've fully absorbed the idea that, for an entire month, I don't need to think about the law at all (as evidenced by a general dazed lack of focus, and by the fact that I continue to have anxious dreams about civil procedure). Just what am I supposed to do with myself for the next four weeks? OK, there's the holiday season, and there's that long list of neglected household tasks I've been compiling all semester, and there are still two kids to take care of and a wife to hang out with, somewhere around here, but still: shouldn't I be puzzling over some turn-of-the-century judge's convoluted prose, or trying to edit five pages out of a memo, or convincing myself I'm not going to flunk out of law school? Well, maybe I can still do that last one over the break, but the rest of it? All gone. The first semester of law school is over. So now what?
I'd like to offer some sort of grand, retrospective, insightful synthesis of it all, but I don't think I have the energy. Or maybe it's the desire. Or maybe on some level I know there's just not that much to be said. Yes, it was difficult, as everybody says, and no, I was not prepared for its demands, either intellectual or emotional. But I'd like to think I met those demands, however haphazardly, and that I came through all right in the end. Perhaps the greatest measure of this is that I am OK with waiting six weeks to get my final grades, and I'm not really concerned about whether or not I passed -- the hyperbole of my first paragraph notwithstanding. I doubt I've reached the level of nonchalance exhibited by the character in The Paper Chase, who felt no need even to look at his grades when they arrived in the mail, and instead cast them into the sea (nor will this likely be an option, as I don't imagine they'll be sending them by the post), but I have no doubt I'll be allowed to return in the spring. I may yet find a good sized puddle to throw my torts book into, but that would be more like an act of vengeance than of emancipation.
Anyway, here I am, on the other side. I really do think next semester will go much more smoothly, going into it as I am with some awareness of such basic things as how to take notes, how to read the cases, how to study, and how to prepare for finals. All of that really would have come in handy these past few months. But c'est la vie. It's over and done. Time to hang out with the family and enjoy four weeks of normality. Because let's face it: those advance assignments for the spring will be arriving before I know it.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
One Last Dispatch Before the Siege
I thought I'd take a brief moment, while the baby is asleep and I probably should either be doing dishes or studying, to catch everyone up. As you may already know, classes have ended. I am now in the midst of "Reading Days," during which I am supposed to study virtually nonstop in preparation for my finals, which take place next week, on Tuesday and Friday. I haven't studied non-stop, but I have done at least a few hours every day, and I'm feeling pretty good about where I am at the moment. I'll certainly do a final post once it's all over, but meanwhile, here's an overview of my final weeks of class:
Torts
Having completed the causation discussion, we proceeded to damages, which is shorthand for "How many ways can you get money out of a person?" I learned that there are nominal damages (tiny, symbolic awards for when no real damage was done), compensatory damages (monetary reimbursement for medical bills, lost income, pain & suffering, etc.), and punitive damages (awards meant not to compensate the victim, but to punish the wrongdoer, in cases involving recklessness or intentional harm). Only compensatory damages are typically available in negligence claims, so that's mainly what we talked about. Unsurprisingly, there are many, many ways to get money out of someone and call it "compensation." The pain-and-suffering stuff is the most interesting, and includes things like "loss of enjoyment" damages, where the court decides just how much I was enjoying my life anyway in order to decide how much I should be paid for not being able to do so anymore; "wrongful death" actions brought by legal beneficiaries for economic losses they've suffered due to the victim's death; and my favorite, "survival actions," where, among other things, if I die in a plane crash, and was aware that I was going to die, my "estate" can sue the airline on my behalf, not only for my death, but for the emotional distress I suffered from my "foreknowledge of doom." One example we read is just too ridiculous not to recount: A plane crashed when its left wing became detached from the plane. Attorneys argued, successfully, that the people on the left side of the plane would have seen the wing becoming detached, and therefore would have had advance warning of the crash, leading to a longer period of emotional distress for them than for the people on the right side. So what happened? The families of the passengers on the left side got more money than the families of the people on the right. Unfair? Maybe even psychotic? You didn't hear it from me.
We then talked about some defenses a defendant might assert, mainly contributory negligence (i.e., sure I was negligent, but so were you, so you should share some of the responsibility) and assumption of the risk (i.e., sure I was negligent, but if you didn't want to get hurt, you shouldn't have gone skiing in the first place). And finally, we actually left the subject of negligence to cover, very briefly, the intentional torts of assault and battery (two separate things in civil claims, though they're often brought together). The most interesting things from this discussion were (1) "intent" has nothing to do with "motive." If I voluntarily do something that is "substantially certain" to cause you harm, I "intended" to harm you in the eyes of the law. (2) "Assault" just means making someone "apprehend" that you might come into "harmful or offensive contact" with them. If I approach you menacingly, you can sue me for assault, even if I never touch you. And (3), "battery" includes not only hitting someone, but also touching them "offensively" (e.g., giving them an unwanted kiss), or even hitting something they're holding, or the car they're sitting in (as these are considered "extensions of the person"). Bottom line? Be careful out there, folks. You could be assaulting someone and you don't even know it.
Civil Procedure
OK, I'm gong to seriously gloss this one over, because if I don't, no one will ever read this blog again. What we've covered since late October in this class encompasses so much mind-numbing detail and interrelated rules and procedures I can hardly believe I've come to a point where it all makes some kind of sense. But the things is, it does, which I can only attribute to the indefatigable efforts of our professor. She was truly amazing.
So here's the not-even-remotely-in-depth version: In our final four weeks, we studied pleadings and motions, how to join parties and claims together, the "Erie Doctrine" (when to apply state law in federal court), what the ethical expectations are for lawyers concerning what they present to the court, the basics of "discovery" (the process by which the parties in a suit get information from each other before the trial), summary judgment (what happens when one party asks the judge to decide the case before trial, on the basis of what's been revealed in discovery), and "preclusion" (under what circumstances a particular claim or issue is precluded from being tried, because it was -- or should have been -- tried in a previous case). I think that's it. If it sounds like a lot, believe me, it feels like even more. To illustrate: All of this takes up about half of my outline (where I try to distill everything we've learned into an organized format) for the entire course, though it was crammed into only four of the fourteen weeks in the semester. It was quite a ride.
Lawyering Process
Lest I forget that there actually was a third class demanding some of my brain power this semester: We did finish up the first half of Lawyering Process, the only course that will continue into the spring. I had to write a final legal memo, fifteen pages long, about the enforceability of a non-compete agreement in an employment contract. I won't say I enjoyed it, but I know it's invaluable experience for the future.
---
So that's it. I will learn nothing new until mid-January. All that remains is for me to prove to my professors that I really know and understand this stuff (or at least most of it), so they let me come back. There have been times in the past few months when I actually worried that I might not manage that. But no more. Confidence is high, and I still have days to study. So wish me luck, and I'll report back when it's all behind me.
Torts
Having completed the causation discussion, we proceeded to damages, which is shorthand for "How many ways can you get money out of a person?" I learned that there are nominal damages (tiny, symbolic awards for when no real damage was done), compensatory damages (monetary reimbursement for medical bills, lost income, pain & suffering, etc.), and punitive damages (awards meant not to compensate the victim, but to punish the wrongdoer, in cases involving recklessness or intentional harm). Only compensatory damages are typically available in negligence claims, so that's mainly what we talked about. Unsurprisingly, there are many, many ways to get money out of someone and call it "compensation." The pain-and-suffering stuff is the most interesting, and includes things like "loss of enjoyment" damages, where the court decides just how much I was enjoying my life anyway in order to decide how much I should be paid for not being able to do so anymore; "wrongful death" actions brought by legal beneficiaries for economic losses they've suffered due to the victim's death; and my favorite, "survival actions," where, among other things, if I die in a plane crash, and was aware that I was going to die, my "estate" can sue the airline on my behalf, not only for my death, but for the emotional distress I suffered from my "foreknowledge of doom." One example we read is just too ridiculous not to recount: A plane crashed when its left wing became detached from the plane. Attorneys argued, successfully, that the people on the left side of the plane would have seen the wing becoming detached, and therefore would have had advance warning of the crash, leading to a longer period of emotional distress for them than for the people on the right side. So what happened? The families of the passengers on the left side got more money than the families of the people on the right. Unfair? Maybe even psychotic? You didn't hear it from me.
We then talked about some defenses a defendant might assert, mainly contributory negligence (i.e., sure I was negligent, but so were you, so you should share some of the responsibility) and assumption of the risk (i.e., sure I was negligent, but if you didn't want to get hurt, you shouldn't have gone skiing in the first place). And finally, we actually left the subject of negligence to cover, very briefly, the intentional torts of assault and battery (two separate things in civil claims, though they're often brought together). The most interesting things from this discussion were (1) "intent" has nothing to do with "motive." If I voluntarily do something that is "substantially certain" to cause you harm, I "intended" to harm you in the eyes of the law. (2) "Assault" just means making someone "apprehend" that you might come into "harmful or offensive contact" with them. If I approach you menacingly, you can sue me for assault, even if I never touch you. And (3), "battery" includes not only hitting someone, but also touching them "offensively" (e.g., giving them an unwanted kiss), or even hitting something they're holding, or the car they're sitting in (as these are considered "extensions of the person"). Bottom line? Be careful out there, folks. You could be assaulting someone and you don't even know it.
Civil Procedure
OK, I'm gong to seriously gloss this one over, because if I don't, no one will ever read this blog again. What we've covered since late October in this class encompasses so much mind-numbing detail and interrelated rules and procedures I can hardly believe I've come to a point where it all makes some kind of sense. But the things is, it does, which I can only attribute to the indefatigable efforts of our professor. She was truly amazing.
So here's the not-even-remotely-in-depth version: In our final four weeks, we studied pleadings and motions, how to join parties and claims together, the "Erie Doctrine" (when to apply state law in federal court), what the ethical expectations are for lawyers concerning what they present to the court, the basics of "discovery" (the process by which the parties in a suit get information from each other before the trial), summary judgment (what happens when one party asks the judge to decide the case before trial, on the basis of what's been revealed in discovery), and "preclusion" (under what circumstances a particular claim or issue is precluded from being tried, because it was -- or should have been -- tried in a previous case). I think that's it. If it sounds like a lot, believe me, it feels like even more. To illustrate: All of this takes up about half of my outline (where I try to distill everything we've learned into an organized format) for the entire course, though it was crammed into only four of the fourteen weeks in the semester. It was quite a ride.
Lawyering Process
Lest I forget that there actually was a third class demanding some of my brain power this semester: We did finish up the first half of Lawyering Process, the only course that will continue into the spring. I had to write a final legal memo, fifteen pages long, about the enforceability of a non-compete agreement in an employment contract. I won't say I enjoyed it, but I know it's invaluable experience for the future.
---
So that's it. I will learn nothing new until mid-January. All that remains is for me to prove to my professors that I really know and understand this stuff (or at least most of it), so they let me come back. There have been times in the past few months when I actually worried that I might not manage that. But no more. Confidence is high, and I still have days to study. So wish me luck, and I'll report back when it's all behind me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)