How it goes

Classmate in lawbrary: Hey, Butterflyfish, how's admin treating you?

Me: Like a pimp treats his ho.

Also:

Got my Labor grade. Yeah, I know. The prof is a grading machine. Pounds it out in a few hours. Anyway, result: Worst. Grade. Ever.

Meh, can't say I didn't deserve it though.


Edit: Compare my reaction to a slightly higher grade, here. Yep. Times change I guess. Or to 1L exams while waiting for grades, here.

Nothing shakes one's confidence like being completely and utterly wrong

I like my Admin prof. He gives classic issue-spotter exams and makes old exams available and even provides a short sketch of model answers -- they're not exhaustive, but they give you an idea of what he was expecting to see in the answers. It's a really helpful study tool for me.

Except when it induces panic.

How I spent the last hour of my life.

Open up a new practice exam question, sketch out an answer in about 30 minutes, feel pretty good about it. Non-delegation, intelligible principle, scope of review, a little bicameralism and presentment, a little Scalia humor for good measure (assessing whether commission described is "junior varsity congress"*).

Then hmmm . . . there are some sticking points in the analysis . . . there seems to be insufficient info. to come to a reasoned conclusion about some of these issues . . . and maybe I should have taken a harder look at standing instead of jumping straight to the delegation stuff . . . ah well, let's see the damage.

Open exam answer file.

WHAT THE HELL??????

This was 100% a justiciability question????

Standing, ripeness, finality, legal effects test . . .

That was it.

My issue-spotting radar is completely broken.

Then again, I am probably better at Admin than I am at taking a hiatus.

_______________________
* See Mistretta v U.S. (Scalia dissenting, naturally)

Never leave me alone with your Oreo cookies either

I have no willpower.

Regular readers know I tend to leave exams feeling pretty badly, even without rational justification. I've cried over Tax (in which I did well) and Contracts (in which I did ok) and not over Family or Biz Org (which I knew I bombed and did in fact bomb).

Labor Law was a disaster . . . and I'm not crying.

This is either a sign of 2L-itis, of maturity, or insanity.

Oh well...

Going dark again.

Lujan, where have you been?

Its been about 15 months since I first thought about whether trees have standing and Lujan v Nat'l Wildlife. Injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Memories, like the corners of my mind . . .

I never noticed that Justice Blackmun attempted to Scalia-smack the Scalia-penned majority in his dissent. You know, the technique Scalia often employs wherein he uses hypotheticals to take the majority's argument to its most entertaining 'logical conclusion.'

Blackmun tried it -- he discussed whether a "plaintiff alleging loss of consortium should make sure to furnish the Court with a 'description of concrete plans' for her nightly schedule of attempted activities."

(This made me laugh out loud, which tells me I need either some sleep ...or some consortium.)

The only kind of "Labor" I'm in

I learned the following things today:

How to do the NLRA §9(d) two-step. Do you want to know? Really? Didn't think so.

Definition of "laboratory conditions." In the labor context, it means that the workers have to have an opportunity to indicate their choice as to representation free from undue influence and intimidation. Heard the term used all semester. Never knew.

Property rights matter, except when they don't.

Free speech matters, except when it doesn't.

And this exam is going to suck...

It's 2:17 a.m. -- do you know where your blogger is?

I couldn't sleep so I redid my taxes.

Well I had been procrastinating one piece of my taxes just because figuring it out was annoying. Not like I redid the whole thing. Anyway, one less thing to do tomorrow. I also saw Unbreakable -- the M. Night Shamawhatshisname, Bruce Willis movie. I saw it coming. I did.

The guy has made a career of the twist ending. I think what he should do next is like a murder mystery, and make all the clues point to something incredibly cliche like the butler, and make everyone think its the butler the whole movie and at the end... it turns out to be the butler. Everyone will walk out shaking their heads, like man, I never saw it coming. I was expecting this huge surprise and it was the butler all along. Awesome. He can probably get away with that... exactly once.

I think I'll go to sleep now. If I can.

April!

How did it get to be April?

How did that happen? I have my first exam THIS MONTH, not next month in far far away May... this month!!

. : panic : .

My crack

I gave up Scrabulous for a while because it was affecting my ability to even pretend to be a law student -- for a while last semester, I could more accurately be described as a random lump sitting in a law school classroom that had wireless access. Well, it was most notable in two classes.

I was jonesing for a QUIZ on a triple word score though, and I came back with a vengence in the last week.

My Bingos in the last 7 days:

OXYGENS (for 135)
SoNGBIRD (for 89)
DELIMIT (for 84)
TIRELESs (for 74)

Sure, its no 200 point SeQUOIAs, nor is it a Super-Bingo like SINGHIOZZEREBBE, neither of which have I managed in my brief Scrabulous career.

But I'll take it.

_______________________________________
(For those out of the loop, Scrabulous is the Facebook Scrabble application. I am not as good at Scrab in real life anymore... I've gotten used to planning my moves on the board.)

Avoiding my civic duty

I have jury duty in May.

No postponing it ... I did that already.

Do you think the first words out of my mouth should be "law student," "summer associate at local law firm," or "mother to young child?"

Which one is most likely to get me sent home fastest?

Edited to add: No offense to Cee, who I am sure is answering tongue-in-cheek, but I really don't want to give any answers that will raise questions on the character and fitness section of my bar application. So, no, I am not going to advocate the death penalty for petty theft, nor will I launch into a profanity laden tirade as my own mother helpfully suggested.

Edited again to add: I was actually looking forward to jury duty in principle... until I realized how much it would mess with my summer job to get on a panel.

WWJSD?

My Administative Law class has an unspoken theme: What Would Justice Scalia Do?


I'm thinking of having rubber bracelets made up with WWJSD printed on them to distribute before the exam. Of course I won't do this because it requires more initiative than I have right now.


Also, I read a case today that could fairly be boiled down to "We're deferring to the agency cuz this stuff is too hard."


Scalia got cranky in the dissent.

So I am a law student sometimes

Overheard in law school:

Professor Awesome: It’s a narrow exception? Yeah, and nuclear weapons are a narrow category of weapons.

Random law school moment:

Professor was going on about a student he once taught who was very pregnant by semester's end and how he was petrified that she'd give birth in class.

He couldn't remember which class it was . . . but he teaches Family Law and Labor Law, so I can't help but think either would have been appropriate for a birth.

Classmate, regarding not having it all figured out as a 2L:

You know, in Battleship, its just as important to know where the ships aren't.

Not sure how I feel about this...

Remember that law review article that I was working on, the last 12 pages of which I thought were complete dreck?

Remember when I said I was pretty sure I wasn't going to be published? That's because our Law Review typically chooses only three or four to be certified for publication. I don't know how its done elsewhere, but am curious if anyone wants to comment.

Anyway, this year, three were chosen.

*Gulp*

I was picked.

This means "the Note that will not die" is back with a vengence -- I am going to have to do some serious work on this thing to feel remotely good about it being seen by anyone.

But until then, yippee? I guess?

Random story from the interview trenches

In an interivew, I was asked:

"Which modern Supreme Court decision would you change, and why?"

("Modern" means no fair picking something about segregation or slavery that has been since overruled.)

Apparently it was meant to be a trick question . . . they didn't expect an answer, just wanted to see how I'd react to a stress question. Some people stammer, others politely ask for a moment to think it over and as likely as not come up with a response, and others ramble on about the judiciary or stare decisis.

Wish you could have seen the look of shock when I actually flat-out answered.

(I never did understand why the Court granted cert. in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Are there better answers? Definitely. But it made for a good discussion.)

Quick! Answer!! No fair actually thinking!!

Notice and Comment

When we first covered the section on challenges to sufficiency of notice in 'notice and comment' rule making in Administrative Law, this exchange from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (by Douglas Adams) popped into my head.

"But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

-- Arthur Dent on plans for demolition of his house


Not quite an "obscure misplaced footnote" (see MCI v. FCC 57 F.3d 1136 D.C. Cir. 1995), but I'd say Arthur had a case. Too bad the Earth was blown up shortly thereafter.

I may not be 7 diamonds but I also didn't just wander off the bus from Jersey

Forgive the Spitzer reference, but I've just engaged in an email exchange I find hilarious:

Subj: Interested in a link on your website

Hi,

I was interested in placing a text ad onto your site for the site that I am working on -[website with legal sounding name redacted].

Please let me know if this is possible when you receive this.

Thanks!

Kristin

Reply, Butterflyfish, after I checked out the link:

Interesting... what's it pay?

Reply, Kristin:

I was hoping it was just a link? I have to pay?

Reply, Butterflyfish:

Well, unlike many bloggers, I currently don't have advertising on my site. Your email said "text ad" -- anyone who has ever solicited a "text ad" on my site has offerred some money. So I was curious what you were offering.


I am sure you understand the concept as your website is basically an attorney advertising site that promises its customers increased exposure and web traffic, charges a hefty premium for such exposure, and is operated by a "search engine marketing company."

I am pretty sure I won't be hearing from Kristin again, though if I do, I'll keep you posted.

The whole thing just makes me feel . . . dirty, like I'll never be clean again.

Spring break?

I'm on "spring break." You know, that week where I planned to catch up on being behind for the last month to six weeks depending on the class?

Weekend: Clownfish time

Monday: Did my taxes and some laundry.

Tuesday: Internship

Wednesday: A little trusts and estates, a little work for the public interest auction. Not nearly as productive as it needed to be. Playdate at 3:00 with Clownfish and his best friend (not one from preschool, so he doesn't see her a lot.)

Thursday: Internship

Friday: apparently, everything else!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sigh.

Temporary mortification?

I started this blog post on March 4:

I had one of those moments today -- you know the ones -- where I was publicly mortified and just wanted to crawl into a black hole and disappear in such a way that no one would ever remember I was born.

It's March 10 now. I have no idea what I was talking about. Clearly, it was short-lived.

Spent the weekend, just me and Clownfish. Went to a children's museum for about 5 hours.

F-i-v-e hours in a museum filled with gloppy messy loud yelling crying mewling running crashing rude other people's children and my angellic good-tempered kind sharing friendly upbeat fabulous pre-schooler who missed his nap.

Maybe that was such a healing experience it caused me to forget why I was so embarassed last Tuesday.

Job update

I got one.

Mid-sized firm that does exactly the kind of law I hope to practice. I anticipate a really good summer. And on the off chance I'm miserable, I have learned something else about what I don't want to do, which is important in itself. So either way, I win.

I got my resume read by reaching out to a recent-ish alum, who it turned out was on the hiring committee. The alum did some checking up on me -- calling friends of his who are friends of mine and my externship. I guess it helped.

And because I don't talk about Work Club, you probably won't hear more details than that.

But I am happy.

Your lack of planning should not create an emergency for me

Except it does when I have to rely on the input of several people to get something done.

. : frustrated muttering : .

Way law school has ruined me #212

#212. Causes me to make distinctions, even in lawyer jokes.

My sister sent me one of those emails filled with quotes of things people actually said in court, taken down and now published by court reporters. Its supposed to be funny as examples of the stupidity or arrogance of lawyers. However, I find that the comments can be fairly categorized in three ways, two of which cause me to feel a degree of sympathy for the lawyer, rather than scorn.

Category 1: dumb (or to be charitable, confused) witnesses.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.

Sometimes, no matter how much pre-trial prep you do with someone, they just cannot answer appropriately on the stand. I have a good deal of sympathy for the lawyer here.

Category 2: poorly worded question the answer to which is necessary to lay an evidentiary foundation or for similar such reasons:

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh.... I was getting laid!

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!

I have some sympathy for lapses like these, if lapses they are. Were there better ways to handle these questions? Absolutely. But I can imagine spacing out for a second, going into auto-pilot and asking an asinine question. Probably why I don't want to be a trial attorney.

Category 3: idiot lawyer trying to make a point and gets comeuppance

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

No sympathy. Attorney was being a jerk and possibly trying to make some point about either the doctor's competance or the time of death, not really sure and it doesn't matter.


It's official. Law school has ruined me.