I was succumbing to my daily habit of perusing through Google News and this article caught my attention: http://www.dnj.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/110628014/ACLU-Tennessee-prepared-challenge-new-offensive-images-law.
Essentially, if you post an image online, that anyone claims causes them "emotional distress", your image is deemed to be offensive.
For personal reasons that won't be addressed here, I find the ACLU to be that barking dog that never shuts up most of the time, but here the ACLU has a point.
While I agree with the author that "emotional distress" in and of itself it vague, what bothers me even more is that images are only at most half of the problem. What about online bullying? Remember the MySpace suicide? There have even been a few stories of people that have posted near-suicidal updates on Facebook with resulting comments from their "friends" spurring the person on to commit suicide.
Why not also include language into the law that addresses words or text that is deemed to have cause "emotional distress"?
Is Public Chapter 362 an answer to a question that wasn't asked?
If we're going to write new laws, can we please make them less vague?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The farcity of fairness
Law school, like life, isn't fair. Professors sometime ask questions on tests that weren't covered in class. Or the moot court professor overrules your valid objection in order to enable the other side to make their point.
Law school isn't about being fair. Because the law isn't always fair. There's no way to obtain perfect justice in a system that was and continues to be developed by fallible human beings. Law school prepares you for the real world, not some perfect utopian legal world that doesn't exist.
Case in point: last year Civil Procedure was an excruciating class. I left every class confused and nervous about the final and midterm. The midterm was brutal. There were questions that weren't addressed in any form or substance in lectures. I got a C on the midterm. In essence, it was unfair. I don't study to make C's. I study to make A's. I felt cheated.
But what was I supposed to do? Complain to the professor that the test was unfair?
No.
I took my frustration from that midterm and made sure I understood the material to where I wouldn't make the same mistake on the final.
I busted my ass for the Civil Procedure final. Tens of hours, maybe even a hundred were spent fine tuning my understanding.
I ended up making an A in the class.
My point is this: when an injustice happens, rise to the occasion. Tackle it. Overcome it. Don't mope on the ground and argue why it shouldn't have happened. Get up and just go!
Law school is designed to be incredibly difficult, that's why everyone isn't a lawyer.
Law school isn't about being fair. Because the law isn't always fair. There's no way to obtain perfect justice in a system that was and continues to be developed by fallible human beings. Law school prepares you for the real world, not some perfect utopian legal world that doesn't exist.
Case in point: last year Civil Procedure was an excruciating class. I left every class confused and nervous about the final and midterm. The midterm was brutal. There were questions that weren't addressed in any form or substance in lectures. I got a C on the midterm. In essence, it was unfair. I don't study to make C's. I study to make A's. I felt cheated.
But what was I supposed to do? Complain to the professor that the test was unfair?
No.
I took my frustration from that midterm and made sure I understood the material to where I wouldn't make the same mistake on the final.
I busted my ass for the Civil Procedure final. Tens of hours, maybe even a hundred were spent fine tuning my understanding.
I ended up making an A in the class.
My point is this: when an injustice happens, rise to the occasion. Tackle it. Overcome it. Don't mope on the ground and argue why it shouldn't have happened. Get up and just go!
Law school is designed to be incredibly difficult, that's why everyone isn't a lawyer.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Righting Write
If often surprises me how many of my fellow law students loathe essays on midterms and finals. Many of them would rather have short answer or multi-state (multiple choice) questions. It's my personal belief that many law students loathe essays because they simply don't know how to write a good essay response.
I've done fairly well on my essay writing, as in straight A's, so I feel I have some position to advise law students on how to frame their essay responses.
The first mistake a law student can make is simply read the essay fact pattern once and then begin writing. You HAVE to read through the facts at least twice, if not three times. Law school essays are purposefully designed to have multiple issues and the professor expects you to address each one in order to get a high score.
After I've read through the fact pattern enough to accurately identify each issues, I then write out each issue to the side. This allows me to create a "bare-bones" framework for my essay. I'll also refer back to this list when writing my essay to keep on track.
When I begin writing an essay, I begin by giving a brief preview of the issues that I plan to address. This creates a legal "roadmap" that makes the essay more organized and easy to follow.
I then state the applicable law (AKA "Issue Spotting"), because before you explain why the result should be what it is, you MUST provide a legal basis that provides the underpinning for your reasoning. And that legal basis MUST be relevant. It amazes me how law students go on for an entire paragraph about a legal principle that wasn't even asked to be addressed within the facts given in the fact pattern.
Next, keep your points concise. State enough of the law to show you know what you're talking about, but don't over-do it. Then tie in the applicable law to the facts. This is known as your reasoning, this is how you transform the applicable legal principle to the outcome of the case.
Most professors want an end result, for you to tell "who should win". It's my personal belief that any essay could be successfully argued for the plaintiff or the defendant. In these types of essays, professors are looking more at how effectively you frame your argument and how strong you use those arguments and the applicable law to advocate for your client. As long as you apply the correct law and your reasoning is sound, you can persuade the professor in your answer.
In deciding which side "should win", I create virtual stacks with the given facts. I argue for the side that I believe has the "highest stack", AKA "strongest case", after comparing the pros and cons of every available claim for the plaintiff, and defense for the defendant.
Which brings me to my next point. You MUST acknowledge the weaknesses in your argument. You simply cannot act like they don't exist. This tactic won't work in the real world, so professors won't let you get away with it in law school. If there's a defense that might bar the plaintiff's claim, and you're arguing for the plaintiff, address the defense. But address it in a way that disarms the defense. State how your position can overcome the defense. The same strategy works vice versa, if you're arguing for the defendant.
As I draw my essays to a close for a midterm or final, I also do a brief summary of the issues and the probable outcomes after applying the applicable law. It serves as organized closure when perhaps I've written several pages for an essay.
I personally prefer essays over any other type of question because it allows me to "stretch my legs" and fully explain the reasoning behind my answer, rather than simply being wrong because I marked the wrong alphabetical answer.
I've done fairly well on my essay writing, as in straight A's, so I feel I have some position to advise law students on how to frame their essay responses.
The first mistake a law student can make is simply read the essay fact pattern once and then begin writing. You HAVE to read through the facts at least twice, if not three times. Law school essays are purposefully designed to have multiple issues and the professor expects you to address each one in order to get a high score.
After I've read through the fact pattern enough to accurately identify each issues, I then write out each issue to the side. This allows me to create a "bare-bones" framework for my essay. I'll also refer back to this list when writing my essay to keep on track.
When I begin writing an essay, I begin by giving a brief preview of the issues that I plan to address. This creates a legal "roadmap" that makes the essay more organized and easy to follow.
I then state the applicable law (AKA "Issue Spotting"), because before you explain why the result should be what it is, you MUST provide a legal basis that provides the underpinning for your reasoning. And that legal basis MUST be relevant. It amazes me how law students go on for an entire paragraph about a legal principle that wasn't even asked to be addressed within the facts given in the fact pattern.
Next, keep your points concise. State enough of the law to show you know what you're talking about, but don't over-do it. Then tie in the applicable law to the facts. This is known as your reasoning, this is how you transform the applicable legal principle to the outcome of the case.
Most professors want an end result, for you to tell "who should win". It's my personal belief that any essay could be successfully argued for the plaintiff or the defendant. In these types of essays, professors are looking more at how effectively you frame your argument and how strong you use those arguments and the applicable law to advocate for your client. As long as you apply the correct law and your reasoning is sound, you can persuade the professor in your answer.
In deciding which side "should win", I create virtual stacks with the given facts. I argue for the side that I believe has the "highest stack", AKA "strongest case", after comparing the pros and cons of every available claim for the plaintiff, and defense for the defendant.
Which brings me to my next point. You MUST acknowledge the weaknesses in your argument. You simply cannot act like they don't exist. This tactic won't work in the real world, so professors won't let you get away with it in law school. If there's a defense that might bar the plaintiff's claim, and you're arguing for the plaintiff, address the defense. But address it in a way that disarms the defense. State how your position can overcome the defense. The same strategy works vice versa, if you're arguing for the defendant.
As I draw my essays to a close for a midterm or final, I also do a brief summary of the issues and the probable outcomes after applying the applicable law. It serves as organized closure when perhaps I've written several pages for an essay.
I personally prefer essays over any other type of question because it allows me to "stretch my legs" and fully explain the reasoning behind my answer, rather than simply being wrong because I marked the wrong alphabetical answer.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Cold Water
My Conflict of Laws book is open. I have my case briefing template minimized on my MacBook right now. It's been that way for 2 hours. I simply can't find the will to brief another case right now. I am. Burned. Out.
Don't get me wrong, I love law school. But there's two weeks left until we get a brief 2 week break. It can't come fast enough.
I find myself looking for distractions from having to study today. But with a midterm and a small quiz next week, in addition to the "normal" caseload, I've reached my maximum mental saturation. And it's only 1:32pm!
It doesn't help that my wife and daughter are napping either. That allows me to internet surf/watch movies undistracted, while serving as a distraction...
Excuse me while I find a glass of cold water to throw on my face.
Don't get me wrong, I love law school. But there's two weeks left until we get a brief 2 week break. It can't come fast enough.
I find myself looking for distractions from having to study today. But with a midterm and a small quiz next week, in addition to the "normal" caseload, I've reached my maximum mental saturation. And it's only 1:32pm!
It doesn't help that my wife and daughter are napping either. That allows me to internet surf/watch movies undistracted, while serving as a distraction...
Excuse me while I find a glass of cold water to throw on my face.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Open & Close
"When a door closes, a new one opens". Oh, how that adage has proved true this week. I waited three months to hear back on a job opportunity only to find out last friday that the company decided not to open the position. I dreamed about having this job, it was exactly what I wanted to do.
But, an opportunity almost identical to that one opened up this week, too. The company wants to fill the position fast, so if they find that I'm a good fit, hopefully I'll have good news soon.
I've learned so much over these past 5 months that I have months of blog material floating in my head right now.
I continue to love this year of law school. The classes are much more interesting and shorter. I find more and more that I'm drawn to drafting wills and estate planning. While I don't think I want to do that exclusively, I can see it making up a sizable portion of my law practice.
I'm doing more work for my father, which has given me invaluable insight and experience. I'm grateful that I have the unique opportunity to learn the hands-on application of the law.
For now, I look ahead, with the constant reminder that I'm simply in a legal incubator. I'm soaking in the training and learning all I can. Because one day soon, I'll be making difficult legal decisions, and it better be the right ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)