Going To Law School

Here's the shit I"ve got to get down for Tuesday's exam:

International Shoe stuff... not so bad.
Erie Doctrine - Fuck no
Joinders - I might be OK with these.
Interjurisdictional claim prelcusion - OK, I guess.

I think I rocked Int'l Shoe on the exam because it was also the subject of our memo (of course so did everyone else in my section, probably). People tell me the BarBri lecture for Erie is great. I didn't put down a BarBri deposit, but I looked at notes from it. Glannon is pretty helpful on that too - do you have a Glannon book?

Joinders was something we did less thoroughly. We did a lot of claim and issue preclusion but I don't specifically remember interjurisdictional preclusion as a topic.

I don't have the BarBri lecture ... but I do have the BarBri audio CD for Civ Pro. I've got the Erie CD in and I'm going to listen to it once I get there in my syllabus runthrough.

Barbri CD featuring that Frier dude

yeah, the audio thing is the one everyone liked. The Freer one. Didn't know it was available on CD, but I was honestly a bit broke to go buying more study aids.

yeah, it was fairly pricey for a bunch of audio CDS ... $60

get some steroids

I am so fucking tired right now, but I've got to get this shit done. Maybe now it's time to invest in some yuppie drugs.

im pretty glad i didnt know of ilx as a 1L

i did but i certainly didn't document my life here

Eh, I learned some pretty useful things bantering ideas in here. Isn't that the whole point of the internet? It's easy and quick to share ideas about this shit. What, did you guys get straight As all by yourself? If so, congrats.

Crimmin. Fuck an inchoate offense.

ps never say anything earnest on ilx

yeah. You're just lucky you didn't have to do joinders in Civ Pro. This is the only thing I have a problem with now.

Actually there were two questions involving joinder issues -- our Erie question included Rule 18 joinder of claims (which is an easy rule), and there was something in an issue or claim preclusion question about whether a claim should have been brought in an earlier lawsuit.

Hey Hurting, on your Civ Pro exam when you did stuff like International Shoe personal jurisdiciton questions, did you bring up the due process clause of the 14th amendment at all?

I did indeed. I wouldn't spend like two paragraphs on it, but probably a good idea to show you know the foundation of it all.

Crim this morning. Whew. One left to go.

Yeah, I was thinking of doing that, too. I bet a few nerds in class are going to do that

Most professors advise against "brain dumping" but it does seem like you should at least show that you know what's up.

Well, that was fun. There was an Erie question over whether or not a judge should use a state or federal rule for how a judge decides a motion for summary judgment, a big question about whether a defendant could use nonmutual offensive issue preclusion, and other good things.

That's finally over. You done Hurting? I better get at least one A with the work I put into this shit ... and As from Cardozo are a pretty good ticket to Columbia.

Nope, Torts is tomorrow. Hey, maybe you know the answer to this -- does a defense negate transfered intent? Like if I defend myself against an attacker but injur a third party in the process, can I be liable for transferred intent battery?

We spent about 1 minute on intentional torts, so I donut know. If it's a defense then it probably wouldn't be intent, but depending on the action and situation maybe you could run it through causation? Like, if you defend yourself with a bat in a crowded room, it's foreseeable you might crack an innocent person in the skull.

The sad thing is, despite learning all these fancy doctrines, my Torts exam was just ... duty. breach. causation. damages. Pretty vanilla.

Nope, Torts is tomorrow. Hey, maybe you know the answer to this -- does a defense negate transfered intent? Like if I defend myself against an attacker but injur a third party in the process, can I be liable for transferred intent battery?

As I understand transferred intent, there has to have been an intent to harm one person, and then you cause the same harm to another person by way of that act. Shoot at one person, hit another - transferred intent for the second.

In a situation where you're defending yourself, you are not intending to cause harm to the other person, but are instead seeking to prevent harm to yourself. If, during that defense, you happen to harm someone, then I would go into a negligence analysis - Did you have a duty to act reasonably while defending yourself? If so, what was that duty? Did you meet it? Was there a harm caused? Was your defensive act the cause of the harm - both actual and proximate? And what are the measure of damages?

So, yeah. Take your time. Torts is all about the analysis, as detaileda above.

Just wait until Constitutional Law. That shit is AWESOME.

Nice, my brains all thinkin lawyerlike

Nice, my brains all thinkin lawyerlike

Just wait, dude. You'll be embarassing your spouse and alienating family members soon enough.

Oh, how they hate arguing with me. HATE.

"As I understand transferred intent, there has to have been an intent to harm one person, and then you cause the same harm to another person by way of that act. Shoot at one person, hit another - transferred intent for the second.

In a situation where you're defending yourself, you are not intending to cause harm to the other person, but are instead seeking to prevent harm to yourself. If, during that defense, you happen to harm someone, then I would go into a negligence analysis - Did you have a duty to act reasonably while defending yourself? If so, what was that duty? Did you meet it? Was there a harm caused? Was your defensive act the cause of the harm - both actual and proximate? And what are the measure of damages?"

This sounds right to me from a common-sensical perspective, and ultimately I believe the purpose of this kind of analysis is to reach sensible conclusions and not merely to follow abstract conceptual rules. But from a purely conceptual POV I have a problem with it. Self-defense is technically an affirmative defense -- I committed the tort, but I was justified. The actor DOES intend the contact and does intend it to be harmful, he just has a proper reason for doing it. And a negligence theory is almost never going to work unless the guy was doing something REALLY reckless and excessive in defending himself. Of course, maybe the original offending actor, rather than the defender, should be liable for the third party's injuries.

you have enough to do well on this exam. Go with God, and enjoy your break.

ahhhh

Right on, DUDE!!!! One round down!!!!

Seriously - to both you and burt - the first round is EASILY the hardest. You have little to no idea what you're doing , and everyone is just stressing about everything all at once, etc.

Take the next two weeks to just kick it and get fat. You've all earned it.

Any of you law types have advice on a good law resume? I'd like to start sending resumes off for summer internships soon, mostly because I'm too poor to afford a proper vacation.

Summer job-gettin' advice appreciated. Career services is not much help (not to mention closed over the whole break -- GAH!)

oh man, I bombed my exams. What now?

Should I drop out? I feel terrible.

hey dude now you get to pick a job cooler than being a lawyer!

Like what? I'm in a shitload of debt right now

Assuming you still want to be a lawyer, give it more time. A friend of mine did poorly on her first semester exams, but wound up No. 15 in our graduating class. It can happen.

:{

Torts - B
Civ Pro - B-
Some stupid 2 credit class - B+
Contracts - nothing yet

Cardozo's not exactly a top flight school, so I'm freakin out maaaaan.

I'm still above median, but barely.

wait till you see who the A+ people are

I don't want to know. How do you get an A on this shit? I answered everything right. The curve at this school is a B-

there is no right answer, man! that's why you didn't do well. if your answer is ANSWERING a question and not obfuscating it further with different interpretations of the law, facts, and policy--then it is not a good answer.

Hmmm, true enough. I probably just approached it totally wrong

Of course with these shitty grades, I have no idea why bother continuing.

many people bounce back really well after a poor first semester. yours isn't poor as much as average.

there are many books out there on law school test taking skills.

Yeah, these exam approaches make absolutely no sense to me. Is law really like this on the ground?

http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Maybe-Excel-School-Exams/dp/0890897603

I have it, but never read it. Dammit, what kind-of summer job can you get from a crappy school with average grades?

being a lawyer means you are an expert at taking the LAW and using it as a tool to further whatever position you have been hired to advocate.

so, as a lawyer, yes you would walk into court, or a settlement, etc, flailing your arms that there is one correct answer and your client should win.

on a law school exam, unless they are asking you to advocate one position, your job is to see the big picture and lay everything down. every side, every argument, every fork in the law, facts, and policy that bears mentioning.

your job is to SPOT THE ISSUES and TEAR THEM APART. not to answer a question one way.

hopefully your teachers will make the A+ exams available, so you can see what you did wrong.

that book is essential. you should have read it.