The final Barristers Ball of Law Law Stud's student years has come and gone. The Stud went stag again, but joined up with a group. However, he was also a member of the Student Bar Association (SBA), so he did pitch in a little bit of time to help out. This year, the Stud will jump right into the pictures.
The pre-party.
Some members of the SBA board making sure the party went off without a hitch:
Pictures of the party proper.
Thanks to Gracey Facey for helping out with pictures while the Stud was off, apparently dancing or boogeying.
The court the Stud was in today held three preliminary hearings, on three separate cases involving the same person for the same type of offense. Before the judge could even call the first of the cases, the defendant began yelling, being disruptive, demanding to be let go, and then letting loose a volley of obscenities aimed at the court, startling the court somewhat.
The defendant was remanded to lock-up, and there followed much discussion as to what to do next. The prosecution and defense had different ideas, but all agreed that the defendant's conduct was most improper. Upon further review of the histories of the cases, it was found that the defendant had previously been sent to a special court to determine his competence to stand trial; and that court had ruled that he was competent. Then, off the record, the prosecutor revealed that a sheriff's deputy who was also a witness in one of the cases had commented to him about "playing the game", about his desire to delay the court because the system was never going to be fair to him to begin with.
Eventually, it was decided that the defense attorney would be permitted to admonish the defendant once more, including giving a warning that any further disruption would result in a limitation of his statutory right to be present at his own preliminary hearing. Although California law does provide defendants in felony cases the right to be present at their own preliminary hearings, it is statutory law, and under California Penal Code § 1043.5:
(b) The absence of the defendant in a preliminary hearing after the hearing has commenced in his presence shall not prevent continuing the hearing to, and including, holding to answer, filing an information, or discharging the defendant in any of the following cases: (1) Any case in which the defendant, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continued his disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that the hearing cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom.
It is apparent this sort of behavior is not so uncommon after all. It certainly made for an interesting--and long!--Friday afternoon!
While observing prelims today, the Stud came across an interesting objection by the defense attorney. The victim-witness was testifying to the underlying facts, including how the defendant had struck her with a vehicle and kept driving on.
Witness: Then she hit her gas and her car hit me--
Defense: Objection! Speculation! Lacks foundation! Witness is not qualified to give her opinion!
The judge gave the defense attorney an incredulous look, and the witness had this terrific look on her face as if to say, "You've got to be kidding me!"
For those who are taking evidence, the reason for this is that, while normally opinion testimony is reserved for experts, there are various things for which a lay witness can form an opinion. For example, if someone appeared drunk, it is within the ambit of lay experience. The examining attorney may have to rephrase the question so that the witness can testify that the person "appeared drunk" rather than "was drunk", but most judges are not going to insist on meticulous form, especially where the objection does nothing but slow down the proceeding, particularly on a Friday afternoon.
In this case, because the witness had already testified that the defendant drove her car into her, and because cars tend not to move except by someone stepping on the gas pedal, and because this is obviously within the everyday experience of a lay witness, particularly one in Southern California, it was clearly permissible lay opinion.
As you begin to do more prelims, you will discover that the elements are the most important thing, especially if you're on the prosecution. The Stud has not spoken at length to defense attorneys, but has noticed that they frequently go to the most insignificant details of the facts that would make more sense in a full trial. The Stud's best guess is that what the attorneys are doing is preserving issues in the record. You will find that defense attorneys, after putting on such a rigorous cross-examination, will then answer that there is no affirmative defense, but simply a motion to dismiss for lack of sufficiency of the evidence.
In a prelim that the Stud conducted today, the issue was possession for sale of marijuana. What complicated the case included the following facts: (1) there was no transaction observed involving the defendant; (2) there was another person in the residence (who is a co-defendant); and (3) the residence belonged to a third party, who has not yet been apprehended. However, the Stud focused on the establishment of probable cause through surveillance two weeks prior to the warranted search, and on the fact that the defendant was observed with what appeared to be a green leafy substance resembling marijuana (which the defendant threw upon the knock and announce by the police, and which was later recovered and confirmed to be marijuana) as well as a large amount of US currency consistent, in the opinion of the testifying officer based on his background, training and expertise, with possession for sale.
The rest, including where the other marijuana and other paraphernalia were discovered, were interesting and will probably be used at trial to establish a totality of the circumstances, but were not significant for the purposes of a preliminary hearing.
This past week, the Stud has been extremely exhausted. On Friday, I skipped work so as to be able to study for the Patent Registration Exam (also known as the Patent Bar), and to be able to participate in Wit of Mandamus IV. (Unfortunately, the Stud did not pass ... again.) Then, this week, the Stud was up until about 4am for the first few nights just to process video from Wit of Mandamus IV. On Wednesday morning, the Stud woke up with a bloody nose at the time he was supposed to be in the Criminal Courts Building. Needless to say, the Stud called in sick.
This weekend, the Stud has to attend Barristers Ball, the "law school prom", as well as memorize his submission for the competition to become the Student Commencement Speaker. Further, the Stud has both an opening statement and a closing argument to prepare and memorize for next Thursday's Advanced Trial Advocacy class.
In fact, the Stud has been so exhausted, he forgot tonight's bar review.
When they say that in third year, they "bore you to death", they failed to disclose that they never stop with the first year ("scare you to death") and second year ("work you to death") treatments. A third year student simply stops noticing those two treatments because the boredom is so intense.
The consolation is, this will all be over in about five months.
On Friday 29 February 2008, at 8pm in the Student Lounge at Loyola Law School, the latest installment of a tradition at the school took place: Wit of Mandamus IV. Law Law Stud proudly reported from both Wit of Mandamus III (which he also produced and performed in) and Wit of Mandamus II (which he assisted in producing and performed in), and now, with the aid of a Canon Elura 85 DV camcorder, as well as the trusty but soon-to-be-retired Canon PowerShot S70, the Stud brings you reportage from the leading edge of LLS social life.
The show began with an introduction from Professor John Nockleby, the inspiration for the first show. This was followed by the introduction of the Master of Ceremonies, SBA Vice President Mike Hanna, and then the House Band, who played a cover for D.R. Harris' "You Will Always Get Your Way".
Next up was Sri Panchalam and Cameron Fredman. First, Cameron, one of the founders of Wit of Mandamus, paid homage to Professor Nockleby:
Cameron has a transcript of the dedication on his blog.
Sri and Cameron then brought a musical conversation to the evening with Frank Loesser's "Baby, It's Cold Outside":
For Cameron's take, and a video from a different angle, see Cameron's blog.
Next was Sheri Guerami with a flute solo, playing a piece from Handel. Well, it started as a solo anyway. Check it out:
The House Band, joined by Eric Newman on acoustic guitar and lead vocals, then performed a cover of the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want:
Taking a pause from all the music, Seth Weiner performed spoken word in an act that had the audience hollering in support. When Seth began, many thought it nice; but about half a minute into the act, Seth's skills really began to show:
Seth's act led to an opening for more spoken word, including a performance from first-year student Daniel Ediger (shown here rehearsing before the show) ...
... to an enactment of an avant garde poem performed by Todd Feldman:
Returning to a musical milieu, Andrew Walsh, accompanied by Music Director Zack Domb, performed on his piccolo bass:
Returning from his performance in Wit of Mandamus III was Dennis Martin, who performed a piece.
The top half of the program was rounded out by Professor Stan Goldman, who related the circumstances of "a tragic indiscretion in [his] youth" which led him to pursue a career as a law professor.
Opening the bottom half was Jonathan Stout, who appeared "live via satellite" playing a duet with Producer John Given.
Following the duet, for something very different, was a "secret act" by a first-year student, who will remain anonymous, with an audacious act:
After the thrills, Meryl Chambers brought some of that Southern charm by channeling Bonnie Raitt's "Angel from Montgomery:
Zack has a different video with a closeup of Meryl here.
Following Meryl's angelic offering was Greg Strausberg, Vice President of the Entertainment and Sports Law Society, performing "Wild Deed" (to the tune of "Wild Thing"):
Bridging heaven and hell was Adrian Rodriguez, performing "Samba Pa Ti", with all of Carlos Santana's mannerisms:
Following that brilliant performance, Professor Jay Dougherty reminded the audience of the importance of maintaining interests and hobbies outside the field of law, then proceeded to wow them with a blues number:
Zack Domb and the House Band, joined again by Eric Newman, then performed the Domb hit "Melanie".
In a semi-musical exposition of great skill, Mike Hanna then performed an extended encore to the amazing beatbox of Wit of Mandamus III.
Following Mike Hanna was the incomparable Craig Kirkwood, who performed an original piece, "Every Day":
That was one tough act to follow! Fortunately, the Stud had in reserve a song that neatly closed out the night, with a reminder to the audience of where they were and why they were taking a break, in "Law School Musical".
The piece was originally written by Owen Jarvis, whose original YouTube video can be found here. The piece has become a popular law school anthem since its release in September 2007; indeed, a large portion of the audience applauded upon recognition of the song after the first line, and even sang along happily to the chorus of "one-L life is hell".
Finally, Mike Hanna closed out the night with thank yous.
This has truly been the most wonderful Wit of Mandamus the Stud has had the opportunity to participate in, and amazing props go to John Given and Zack Domb for pulling it together, and to Mike Hanna for being Master of Ceremonies. Thanks to Zack's friends Terry Miller on drums and Eric Newman on sound and on acoustic guitar, and to Cameron Fredman for coming back to contribute. The turnout was between 120-140 people, almost or about twice last year's turnout, and was facilitated in great part by the popularity of the principal members of the production and performance teams, as well as to Facebook, which made promotion much easier. Thanks also to the members of the audience who came to watch and gave the show that unique vibe it needed to roll the way it did.
The Stud hopes to continue attending these shows, and invites all readers in the Los Angeles area next year about this time to look into attending!
Note: Not all acts described herein were accompanied by images, still or moving, out of respect to requests by particular performers.
It took me a while to finally sit down and record this. I should be studying for the Patent Bar, but instead, with Wit of Mandamus IV coming up, where I'll be playing this number live, I've decided to record myself on this song. Owen, I hope you don't mind, I made some slight tweaks to it!
The Stud conducted his second preliminary hearing today. In fact, the judge specifically requested that the supervising Deputy District Attorney let the Stud conduct one. The testifying officer is actually a partner of the officer who testified at the Stud's first preliminary hearing.
This one involved a combination of Cal. Penal Code § 664 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11350. In other words, "attempted possession", specifically of rock cocaine in the form of cocaine base. This is a little different from straight possession, possession for sale, or sale, because no actual drug was transacted.
Now, at a preliminary hearing, typically the law is very much on the side of the prosecutor. All that is required at a preliminary hearing is for the prosecution to establish "probable cause", which is a lower standard than "reasonable doubt", the standard in effect in a criminal jury trial. This is similar to the lowered standard by which Federal grand juries indict federal criminal defendants.
Still, the Deputy Public Defender is tasked with the unenviable job of doing his best to win. Some DPDs, especially "green" ones, tend to object to everything in trying to be obstructionist (although there are rumors that this tactic has been adopted by many DPDs in the County of Los Angeles because that is how one of their trainers advocate their job), and even pursue lines of questioning at the preliminary hearing that would perhaps be more appropriate at trial.
In this case, the DPD argued that because the ersatz "nickel" of rock was never recovered from the defendant, there was no possession, and that in any case because the dope was fake, there could not have been possession. (First year students will recall this to be "impossibility", a point raised when the Stud chatted with Professor Goldman.)
Nevertheless, the charge was "attempted possession", so it was sufficient to show that the defendant actually paid money in exchange for the item (which the Stud established by a follow-on question in redirect), as it showed intent to possess and an overt act or substantial step. (First year students, look back to the "attempt" section of your Criminal Law outline.)
The result: The defendant was held to answer.
Track record: 2-0.
Note: The reason the prosecution referred to this as "the peanut case" is an exercise left to the law student.
The Stud does not yet have a job lined up, and his grades are not the best, so he decided to do something practical and get some trial experience. So he got a gig volunteering at the office of the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, with the Preliminary Hearings Unit.
In order to qualify to present before a judge, a law student must be certified by the State Bar of California.
On Friday 22 February 2008, the Stud performed his first preliminary hearing. It was a simple possession for sale case, so it was fairly straightforward. Result: Held to answer. The Stud is now 1-0 in preliminary hearings.
If you're interested in being certified in the State of California, check out the FAQ.
MCT held her annual 21st birthday on Saturday 26 January 2008. The dinner was at New Capital Seafood Restaurant in Focus Fashion Plaza in San Gabriel. After a long dinner filled with laughs, the group found its way through the rain to 1020 Lounge in Arcadia. Then the good times began.
The Stud and MCT:
The Stud was handling another camera at the time, which is why the frame of this picture is skewed, and some of the ladies were left out. Sorry about that!
Happy 21st Birthday again, MCT! May you have many, many more!
The first APALSA social of the Spring Semester took place on Thursday 24 January 2008 at Seven Grand, a whiskey bar in downtown Los Angeles. Despite somewhat rainy weather, APALSA members, past and present, poured into the whiskey bar. Some of them came out even though they had things to do early the next morning. Thanks, you guys!
Thanks to Chiznarles, who borrowed the Stud's camera to bring you most of these pictures.
The Spring Semester Welcome Back Party was held at Boulevard 3. The venue was not exclusively open to Loyola Law School students, but those with LLS IDs were able to get a jump on the line. At first the crowd was predominantly Asian, but diversified throughout the night.
This year, the celebration was at the Redwood Bar & Grill in downtown Los Angeles. Despite the pouring rain, friends came out to celebrate. Thanks, everybody!
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, the Stud attended the After Finals Party, hosted by Beatbox and Baxter at Ritual. Among the surprises of the night included Baxter's idea of putting together a slide show of pictures taken throughout law school, and to play that slide show on the screens in the dancing area. This humble blog was mined for pictures (2014-10-11: most of the pictures have now been removed, as many of us are now growing up!), a fact discovered when la Principessa di Padova commented to the Stud that his face was all over the place. Perhaps that helped encourage people to sit for pictures as the Stud made his rounds (2014-10-11: again, all now removed from this post).
The Stud gives a big shout out to Beatbox and Baxter for putting this party together, and wishes everyone the happiest of holidays!
This semester, the Stud's had a slightly different schedule. The Stud had five classes:
Trial Advocacy wrapped up with a final trial before the test period, although it was the last of the many Trial Advocacy sections to finish up.
Trademark Law was the first final, and was multiple choice. It was fairly easy, but there were significant ambiguities, such that all the students were talking about it.
Law of Sales was rather difficult, even though the class was fairly engaging. Professor Hull is one of those that can make you feel like you understand during class, only to go back to your notes and scratch your head wondering what the heck happened. The test was multiple choice, and involved much international matters.
Marital Property was the last and shortest of the Stud's three sit-down finals, and was also multiple choice. The test was more difficult than the sample questions would have let on.
Law of War was a seminar paper class. This class kept the Stud busy until the evening of Thursday 20 December 2007.
For the entire week before the week of Christmas, the Stud was essentially working on the Law of War paper, with an eye toward finishing the paper by the time the After Finals Party, hosted by Beatbox and Baxter at Ritual. The Stud figured, if there was a possibility of getting nice and drunk at the party, there would not be enough time for both substantive writing and cite-checking the next day, when the paper was due.
By the week of the 17th, the flood of students had dissipated from the library. The first year students were having their Criminal Law final, and the third year students were having their Remedies final. Tuesday would be the Evidence final, which really got the second year students ready for the party. And Wednesday would be the California Civil Procedure final.
On the 17th, after the Stud said goodbye to Aloha Princess, he hunkered down at the library, and worked on that Law of War paper. There was some good work done. And before the Stud knew it, it was past midnight, and time to go home.
The Stud's schedule was thus spread out, so the stress was more of a long simmer than a relentless barrage. Except for one minor episode of freaking out over the Law of Sales final (which is hard to avoid when one realizes there were so many "gunners" in that class), the Stud sailed through this finals season at a relatively leisurely pace. Only one more semester to go.
In the spirit of last year's evidence discussion, I am starting this discussion for Law of Sales, Fall 2007. Please feel free to post your questions here, and if you see one that nobody has answered, please feel free to jump in.
To kick things off, here are the notes from the last day of class:
The final exam
70 questions, 3 hours, closed book
Select best answer, may explain answer in bluebook if you wish (you don’t have to). If you explain answers, please tell me the answer you chose and why it was the best, or explain the ambiguity or typographical error, if any.
No questions on amended Article 2. Applicable law is law we studied in class (i.e., Revised Article 1, CISG where applicable, consumer protection law where applicable)
Scoring – 3 points for right answer, minus 1 for answers incorrectly marked. Answers left blank are worth 0. It makes sense to guess if you can narrow to 3 or fewer choices.
Skeletal outline
Is the transaction one for the sale of goods?
Is the governing law the UCC, CISG, or some other body of law?
Has a contract been formed?
What are the terms of the contract?
Has the contract been performed? Excuse?
If not, and there is no excuse, what are the injured parties’ options?
Sample exam questions
There’s a sufficient agreement as to the quantity and price, a promise to ship, and so on. There’s no minimum requirement of $500; that’s for the statute of frauds. There’s also no requirement that the parties be merchants. The correct answer is D.
Under the CISG, nations may opt out of the CISG’s non-requirement of a written contract. The facts don’t specify that either nation has opted out; therefore we must assume that either has opted out. Further, enforceability is not the same thing as inapplicability; under the CISG, even if a contract is not covered, it can still be covered under domestic law, which the CISG allows. There is no statute of frauds under the CISG, and neither nation has opted out of that. The correct answer is D.
We now deal with the battle of the forms.
There is no mirror image rule in the UCC. UCC 2-207 really deals with dicker terms, not fundamental terms (esp. price, quantity). As between merchants, an arbitration provision is automatically included unless the offer was expressly limited to its terms. Some courts think that arbitration provisions are always material; others think that arbitration is a provision that needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for materiality, using the test of surprise or hardship. The facts don’t tell us enough about whether or not the arbitration provision would be enforceable. The correct answer is B.
The CISG will allow for minor variations to be included. Unlike the UCC, the CISG defines more clearly what is defined by material terms that would make a proposed term a rejection/counteroffer, and among such material terms are included provisions about conflict resolution. Thus, there is no enforceable contract formed yet. The correct answer is A.
There is no "last shot approach" in the UCC, so acceptance of the goods does not imply acceptance of the last terms (here, the arbitration terms). Express agreement is not required unless the facts specify that the jurisdiction views arbitration provisions as per se material. Surprise and hardship are still part of the analysis. The correct answer is C.
Both the UCC and the CISG allow a fair bit of autonomy in dictating the terms of a contract.
The warranty of fitness applies in situations where the buyer relies on the seller to select goods appropriate for the buyer’s purpose. Professor has not relied on Marvelous, nor does Marvelous appear aware of Professor’s purpose. Normally, to have a right to reject goods, you have to be able to point to a breach of warranty. This is especially true where you’ve accepted the goods. Here, however, Marvelous has said that Professor can bring it back. Normally, acceptance can preclude rejection. The correct answer is B.
If anything, the CISG is more liberal than the UCC in allowing parties to contract around its provisions. Fundamental breach is sufficient for rejection; there is no perfect tender rule in the CISG. Whether there is a fundamental breach or a breach of contract is irrelevant here because of the promise to take the car back. The correct answer is B.
We now move on to the question of performance under the contract.
The UCC does not use the term “material breach” anywhere. In one-shot deals, the perfect tender rule applies, which allows the buyer to reject even for minor non-conformities. However, the seller does have a reasonable opportunity to cure. In long-term contracts, the substantial impairment rule applies; "substantial impairment" is like "material breach". So, avoid "material breach" answers when dealing with the UCC. Here, the buyer was within his rights to cancel the contract, and has not repudiated his obligations thereby. The correct answer is C.
"Time is of the essence" means "you have to deliver on that day", and this matters even more under the CISG than under the UCC. This obviates the usual allowance of nachfrist provisions. Article 8 deals with interpreting the contract, and talks about what each party reasonably understands as to the terms. There is no absolute right to cure. A 3-day delay may be fundamental; the facts don’t really tell us one way or the other. Good faith is something we can take into account in determining fundamental breach, but is not a prerequisite for finding fundamental breach. The correct answer is A.
The CISG rejects the doctrine of election of damages, so a buyer can still get damages despite avoidance, if he can show sufficient proof. The CISG indicates that even if the seller cures, the buyer can recover damages, because it’s possible that the delay while the seller cures may result in damages. The correct answer is C.
These questions deal with contract formation and filling in terms.
The UCC allows parties to contract with an open price term, if they so choose; in such a case, the price is what is reasonable at the time of signing. But the fact that the price on the written contract was left blank doesn’t mean it was an open price. In situations like this, courts will typically admit parol evidence to show what the price was that had been agreed to. The correct answer is C.
There is no requirement of a writing. The correct answer is D.
These questions deal with remedies.
The buyer can either cover, or sue for the contract/market difference. To cover, the buyer has to make a reasonable substitute purchase within a reasonable time. It’s not necessary that the substitute purchase be exactly the same; however, there should be some substantial similarity. Here, Carla bought a better boat the very next day, so it doesn’t look like there was a legitimate cover. Even if there was a legitimate cover, she would get both the difference and what she’s already paid, so it would be $13,000, an option not available. Here, she’s only entitled to what she’s already put down. The correct answer is C.
Here, Bill is a lost volume seller. Normally he can recover the difference between contract and market. As a volume seller, however, he can recover the lost profit. This is the difference between the contract price ($23,000) and the seller’s cost ($15,000), and any incidental damages (there are none here), less what the buyer already paid ($1000). The correct answer is B.
"Open price" contracts under the CISG
There is an inconsistency between Articles 14 and 55. For the purposes of the exam, we don’t have to know these particulars; we only have to know that the inconsistency exists.
Such a contract is not enforceable if the relevant nation (under choice of law rules) has adopted Article 14, such as many Scandinavian countries, which have opted out of Part II of the CISG.
Such a contract is not enforceable if the relevant nation does not enforce open price contracts (i.e., in the relevant nation such contracts are “invalid”).
Such a contract is enforceable if the parties intend to be bound to the open price term contract (Article 14 does not express exclusive ways of making “offer”). (Hull prefers this interpretation.)
Such a contract is enforceable if the parties contract other than by offer and acceptance (e.g., they sign one document).
Tonight was the final trial for Judge Stephen Hillman's Trial Advocacy class at Loyola Law School. The trial was a civil trial, where the plaintiff sued his public defender for legal malpractice due to an alleged lack of due care during the plaintiff's criminal trial for assault with a deadly weapon. Representing the plaintiff were Jonathan Starre, Katherine Coman, Stacey Toyoaki, Swathi Narra, Roger Steinbeck, and Brian Varghese. Representing the defendant were Michael Storti, Bruce Chang, Carlos Chait, Lilian Mazian, Katharine Goodenow, and David Yang.
The trial, including recess and jury deliberation, ran almost 4 hours. The facts leaned slightly in the plaintiff's favor, and the verdict tended to reflect that. On the issue of actual innocence of the plaintiff when he was a criminal defendant, the jury was unanimous that he had been actually innocent. On the issue of the performance of the defendant as the plaintiff's defense counsel in the criminal trial, the jury split, 4-2 in favor of the plaintiff. The outcome showed that both teams performed capably.
Before the jury returned its verdict, the future attorneys, and Judge Hillman, posed for a picture taken by one of the LLS students who participated as a witness in tonight's trial.
As the semester wound down, and stressed out law students prepared for Thanksgiving, members of APALSA from Loyola Law school, UCLA, and USC got together at Barney's Beanery in Santa Monica for a little mixer.
The Stud has been spending several hours at the LLS Library lately, trying to get in the groove of writing a substantial draft for his Law of War class to satisfy his upper division writing requirement. (Loyola Law School requires that each student take a class that satisfies this requirement in order to graduate.)
This morning, the Stud, with faithful companion Aloha Princess, skipped Law of Sales to make one last stab at their papers before turning them in and speaking before the Law of War class about them. They managed to get this done. Aloha Princess was terrified she would be obviously nervous, but did a great job of presenting her paper. The Stud was a bit more scatter-brained in front of the class, but both managed to survive the experience.
The moral of the story is, if you're taking a class to satisfy your upper division writing requirement, get at least your outline done within a couple of weeks of turning in your paper topic, so you can get some feedback from your professor. Or, failing that, stock up on Red Bull.
This semester, the Stud was surprised to find himself with an offer for a callback interview at a large intellectual property firm. The callback was the result of a recommendation from the firm's California managing partner, whom the Stud had met during on-campus interviews (OCI). The Stud was quite surprised even to have obtained the OCI appointment to begin with, as he is not exactly in the top 10% of the Class of 2008. The callback was to be at the firm's New York City offices. It is an exciting office to be in, situated in the Second Circuit, a major player in the development of intellectual property law.
When the Stud called to make an appointment, the firm scheduled the interview for a month out, on Thursday, November 1, 2007. For the entire month of October, the Stud could scarcely think of anything else.
The attorneys who interviewed the Stud were a friendly group, and the Stud began to be really comfortable with the idea of moving to another state. On the flight back to California, the Stud started thinking of how to resolve a number of clerical and administrative issues in preparation for a possible move.
Alas, it was not to be. Yesterday afternoon, when the Stud returned home to change into a suit for the closing arguments exercise for Trial Advocacy, he saw a small envelope in the mail from the firm. He hoped it was simply a reimbursement check for cab fare, yet knew from the weight of the envelope that it could not be a check.
The rejection letter was dated Friday, November 2, 2007. This would seem to imply that the firm had already decided that it would not be extending an offer to the Stud even before he set foot in the office.
Fortunately, the last bar review is tonight. The Stud will drown his sorrows in alcohol among friends, and hope to be clear-headed enough to tackle the remainder of this semester.
The law school likely will emphasize areas that are particularly important in Orange County, such as intellectual property, law and technology, environmental law, law and medicine, and public interest law. My hope is to begin immediately to create fellowships for students in each of these areas.
It will certainly be interesting to watch the development of the new school over the years!
On a warm Saturday evening, as the Santa Ana winds began the 2007 season, student, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends and family of Loyola Law School gathered at the school to be entertained, wined and dined for the sake of giving to the Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF).
Word on the street has it that this was an even better PILF Auction than the last two years. So if you missed out this year, be sure to come out next year!
Late this past summer, the Stud received a request for an interview with one Amir Efrati of the Wall Street Journal regarding job prospects for those of us in the middle of the pack at a law school that's not in the top 25. The conversation led off with a side discussion of the trials and tribulations of a commenter at the WSJ Law Blog, in a very public fashion. (Note: It was not the Stud.) At the heart of this commenter's laments lie the obstacles that face people like the Stud in the job market. To wit, without being in the top 15%, it is very difficult to secure a big law firm offer, or virtually any other job, without a serious amount of pounding the pavement. Even for those of us that have found jobs before graduation, they are typically clerking jobs that may or may not translate into real offers come graduation.
Two weeks ago, Amir Efrati's finished article made it to the Journal, and immediately caused a stir in the law school community.
For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.
The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.
"Unfortunately, some find the practice of law is not for them," Seton Hall's associate dean, Kathleen Boozang, said through a spokeswoman. "However, it is our experience that a legal education is a tremendous asset for a variety of professional paths."
The Stud spoke to Graham, our Dean of Career Services, casually after hours about this state of affairs, and came away with no different perception than before: While the Office of Career Services does justifiably expend considerable energy helping those at the top, it does do quite a bit for those in the middle of the pack, but many of us will still have to do the heavy lifting ourselves. All that OCS can do for us is show us the door; we are the ones who must knock on the door, force it open if possible, and walk on through. Even those at the top have to bust their behinds doing well on interviews. The Stud knew many in his section that secured so many first round interviews that they had to miss class for several weeks--and yet never wound up with more than handful of call backs, if that.
Now that's a bit depressing, and evokes memories of "Law School Musical". Now, we at LLS are fortunate in that we're the largest law school in the region, if not the state and nation. This does mean that there will be more of us who are initially disappointed, to be sure; but it also means that we have a very large alumni network.
What does this very large alumni network mean? It means, as the Stud noted in "Welcome and Welcome Back":
Here at Loyola, no matter the trials and travails in the days to come, look to your left, and look to your right. That is your brother. That is your sister. They will have bunked down in the trenches with us. They will have shared their joys and sorrows. And most will still be with us.
Look at them now. Go to them. Say anything, if only "hello". Or, if you're shy, smile or wave. They have shared with you what few other human beings will have gone through. And in the future, they may just be your "in", not only in your career, but perhaps in your personal relationships.
Be mindful of all this, and don't give up. Most of all, don't stop doing the hard work you'll need to do to make your investment in these three years a worthwhile one.
