Going To Law School

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.

Yeah. But is there even a point in continuing? I hear horror stories from 3Ls and graduates about the future from this school ... if you do really well, you're ok, but if you do average or worse, nothing. absolutely nothing.

No, nevermind, I'm below median with grade distribution

i don't know what to say. i know someone who graduated your school in 2004 and still does document review work. but i'm sure there are many who shared your grades first semester who are doing very well.

if you leave now, what would you do? the job market is so horrible i strongly suggest you stay in school.

I have no idea ... drift around and die, I guess. This was definitely not a good idea. If I drop out now there'll be less debt, at least, even if there's no other work (and my past career is in creative! great!)

You've finished just one semester. You don't have all your grades back yet. Relax.

Can you even get a legal aid gig with grades like these? Ugh.

burt wtf can you calm down and take a deep breath. you're being stupid. those aren't bad grades. you have five semesters left. and please stop insulting legal aid, it makes you sound like a douchebag.

No, I like legal aid. I'm in the public interest program here. The grades are below median (2.98, median being 3.016), which isn't good from a Tier 2 school... if I couldn't even do legal aid, I'd probably drop out.

oh i thought you were implying that was for people who were the worst lawyers with the worst grades. i didn't know cardozo was tier 2 though. my school is "tier 1" but cardozo rejected me. anyway you're worrying too much and by next year you will see what i mean.

No, I'd be happy to work for them if that were even possible with these grades. We only had 2 major courses and the half of another major course (haven't gotten the grade back, but it doesn't bode well), so that's that. Next semester has more credits than this one.

ok you're still wrong but i'm not going to argue w/ you anymore

Can I work for legal aid with these grades? If so, I'll stay and start getting more public interest experience. I'm hearing horror stories about the NYC legal world ... like you need to be top 20% to even be considered by Legal Aid.

call legal aid and ask them LOL

They'll probably laugh in my face