Law School is like High School

Why law school is just like high school...

1. There are lockers. And, they're painted that color red that is specially made for educational institutions. I have a little lock on my law school locker just like I did in high school and I still forget the combination. I can still fit in my locker just like I did in high school. (not that I ever tried that or that anyone would have forced me to try something like that)

2. There's drama. "There was, like, this one guy, who was flirting with me and wanted to help me with my Legal Writing project. So, we went out and he really liked my evidence outline that I got from that really hot 3rd year. Well, the bastard just wanted to take me out so I'd share my outline with him. Uggh, the bastard."

3. There are dirty old men teachers. In high school, his name was Mr. Marks. Now, he's a tenured professor and holds an incredible amount of political clout in the entire state--but for the most part, he's the same. One of them stalked my friend the entire 1L year. We think he was looking for a mistress. The difference now is that we all considered that it might be a good political move for her. Then we quickly sobered up from the previous night of heavy drinking and realized we were talking out of pure lunacy and too much studying.

4. Everyone gets sick. There's less mono now than in high school--friends and I speculate that is because there is no spare time to make out like we did in high school. Heck, there is no spare time for much of anything--so abstinence is even practiced now more than it probably was in high school. However, there are other serious illnesses such as tonsilitis, laringitis, etc-itis.

5. There are intramural sports still. We just look goofier now.

6. We are given very clear instructions to use a number 2 pencil for the scantron portion of the exam. It never fails--there's still one brilliant person who fails to use a number 2 pencil and wonders why he/she failed the exam. That's the person who wants to use, not just a pen, but a GREEN ink pen. And, we all took the freaking LSAT and have Bachelor's degrees.

7. We're all still very distracted and unruly. However, instead of spitballs and love notes, everyone in law school shops online and messages each other on AIM.

8. Everyone just wants to get out of class and go get drunk. It still works pretty much the same. Drink like a madman, get sick, pass out, wake up, nurse hangover, don't get work done, waste weekend, roll back into class on Monday.

9. There are still cliques. Only now, the popular kids are just the nerdier ones--whoever can make the coolest joke about Scalia. It doesn't matter anymore if they're the ones that dress the nicest. What matters is their wit.

10. People still get upset about not getting elected President of student body leadership. They cry, they jest, they wear the silly t-shirts and buttons. It's the same craziness. There's still tearing down posters of the opponent, and all that good stuff.

So, I guess that shows that we'll never really get out of high school. We continue to grow older; now, we're just bigger kids.

Lawyer pride

T shirts for lawyers who want to show off their incredible lunacy...

Tortfeasor

Layman's legal terms

A Baby T-shirt that says...


More sayings I've seen or heard...
"I just failed the reasonable person test."

"Spank my Fee-Tail" (hahahaha! Signed: Fee-Simple absolute)

"Trust me, I'm a lawyer." (at Urban Outfitters)

Law School Funny Stuff
(I especially like the one about the carbolic smoke ball. Anyone want to go in on it for Turack?)


If anyone sees me wearing one of these, please shoot me.

Roe v. Wade

If you want to read some opinions on it....

Quite interesting. As for now, I'm leaning toward abortion being a State issue. Constitutionally, it makes a better State issue than a Federal issue. I'm thinking that even a Supreme Court decision overruling Roe isn't going to make that much of a difference--what will make an impact is the legislative initiative taken on it. That will set up the true intent behind the stance instead of using lousy rationale to meet a certain end. If Roe is overruled, the U.S. legislature probably isn't going to touch the issue--nor should they (I can already hear Beatty's high-pitched squealing). So, I think I'm going to stick with it being best handled in the states. However, that might be scary if Ohio actually does pass their uber conservative abortion bill. Everyone will be running to Michigan. Interestingly enough, go back to Gongwer and check out House Bill 239. Its language and purposes might pass under the radar in a State like Ohio, without too much opposition. This bill is like the practical version of House Bill 228. It's purpose: "to prohibit the use of public funds or facilities for nontherapeutic abortions, proscribe public employees acting in the scope of their employment from performing or inducing a nontherapeutic abortion, and to declare that it is the public policy of the state to prefer childbirth over abortion to the extent that is constitutionally permissible."

Prohibition on Abortion

Ohio House Bill 228: Introduced by Representatives Brinkman, Hood, Buehrer, Bubp, Faber, Fessler, Gilb, Hoops, Kearns, Raussen, Reidelbach, Schaffer, Schneider, Seaver, Taylor, Uecker, Wagner, Widowfield

Purpose: "to prohibit abortions in this state, to increase the penalties for the offenses of unlawful abortion, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, and abortion trafficking, to enact the offense of facilitating an abortion, and to make conforming changes in related provisions."

I'm guessing Ohio is not the only state proposing such a law. This proposed law was purposely introduced as a very strong ban on abortion to try to garner ACLU-type opposition. The definition of non-therapeutic (for the life of the mother) abortions is eliminated in this proposal. These Representatives are hoping to pass a law that will be challenged and taken to the U.S. Supreme Court to give the Court the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade. The timing is impeccable.

This raises a whole myriad of issues in my mind, but I won't put in any opinion here. Educate yourself--read the very lengthy proposed House Bill 228 at Gongwer. It is currently in committee.

Now, back to listening in Evidence. Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Women are not Chattels

Damn, am I glad of that. (Trammel v. U.S. 445 U.S. 40--spousal testimony privilege)

Imagine with me the complications...

If you're the man:

Wife is your Chattel. First of all, if your wife cheats on you, you have a bigger mess than just a possible divorce on your hands. Man can press charges against the "other man" for, at least trespass of Chattel, if not possible full on Conversion of Chattel, which, depending on her life insurance value, would be a felony because of the value of the Chattel. (grand larceny)

Also, think of the tort responsibility. I'm thinking along the lines of vicarious liability/landowner liability. What if Wife/Chattel decides to go out and hit someone because they make her angry. Does a "one hit" rule apply to creating a duty for the man kind of like the "one bite" rule creating a duty for owners of dangerous animals? Or, would she just be like an employee and fall under the vicarious liability standards--but then, she would always be on the job, so I'm thinking more along the lines of the "one hit" duty rule. What about treating Wife/Chattel like a child--split jurisdictions on parental responsibility because it's such a tough issue. So, some states would become incredibly populated because everyone would move to the jurisdictions where the Man was not vicariously liable for his Wife/Chattel. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks!!!!!! Think about the liability insurance a Man would have to take out on his Chattel.

If you're the woman:

Right to privacy might be a TINY issue. Scalito's issue over spousal consent to adoption would definitely not be a problem. (at least for the man) (we think we have privacy issues now?)

No legal redress for domestic violence (or anything else for that matter). How can property sue a person? Individual property is not an entity like an estate or a corporation, so Woman would have no standing in any court of law or equity.

Where would all the feminists go?

Going back to my tort liability theory above, Woman could control man by amount of liability she creates for him. hehe, funny thought. "Honey, I'll cook dinner for you if you let me steal that Gucci purse. Just use the liability insurance as a tax write off." oh, what fun.

I could go on, but you get the point. Aren't we all glad Women are not Chattels?

Law, Morality, and Justice (mixed with fever and headache)

I took a legal philosophy class over the summer and have to wonder, as I rot away in my boring procedural and rules classes this semester, is law more and more about just plain law and less and less about morality and justice? I drew my pretty little vin diagram this summer of circles (one representing each Law, Morality, and Justice) all intertwined. In my diagram, law and justice were intertwined greater than with morality.

So, as more and more reality sets in, the less and less I see morality. For example, is there really any moral purpose to what law a federal district court chooses to use in a diversity situation? (because there are a lot of damn Supreme Court decisions on venue, so it's an important issue of law suposedly with no moral purpose) Another example--Rape shield laws: there's the "moral" purpose of protecting the victim and privacy rights, but there are so many exceptions that apply to most circumstances of rape that, in the interest of justice, the rape shield law doesn't even apply to evidence about the victim. So, justice trumps morality? Or is it more moral to get the criminal than to protect the victim? Hmmmm, my rose colored glasses are quickly being replaced with cynicism. Morality is slowly being weeded out of my view of the justice system. So, now it's mostly about law and justice--with morality fitting in the very definition of justice, but that's about it. Is it safe to say that true morality does not stand alone as a contender in our system of justice? I'm beginning to believe so.

So, where are you in your view of law, morality, and justice? Has it changed as you've gained experience. Should it? Or should we be strong and stick with our moral ideals, regardless of whether or not we see them being able to be applied to realistic situations? Am I rambling? Well, yes I am.

Moving on, so what do you believe? (All you people who have been reading this and telling me you did, you better comment!) If you had to draw your own diagram--assigning Law, Morality, and Justice different values of what should be in our justice system, what would you do? Would they relate at all? Does one encompass all? Or are they all completely separate, with only one or two belonging in our justice system? Does this even make sense because my brain is all foggy because I've had a fever for a couple days. So, forgive me if it doesn't make sense. But, if it does, let me know what you think.

DeWine Funding

Some Colleagues and I have been holding our breaths for the news on this funding. Senator DeWine had made appropriations proposals to the U.S. Congress for funding for many projects, including a model submitted by the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy for post-placement adoptive services and programs. These services would include respite care (post-placement, organized child-care for parents who adopt needy children), support services, counseling, parenting classes, etc. for children and families after a child services adoption. We, as a society, work so hard to get these children out of abusive homes, then out of foster care, and into a permanent home. However, they still carry the same problems when they are placed in a permanent home that they developed by being abused and/or shifted around from home to home, but our "social" programs seem to end at the point of adoption. That's really not good for safe, stable families.

So, when the proposal went to committee (Labor/HHS/Education), the committee excluded the earmarks to fund this specific program. (about $1 billion worth) HOWEVER, here's what's interesting and rare--When the House received the Conference Committee's report, the House DEFEATED the committee report. That's like really unheard of! So, there's still a chance for the DeWine Funding. Keep your fingers crossed!

One More Dead Guy

Well, I learned that B is dead as well, and his executor just likes to litigate. So, from now on people, it would be helpful if you just quit dying!

On the bright side--aside from needless litigation, this was the Jurisdiction professor's greatest dream. If I just rewrite the entry on my exam, the professor would love it. I could start with a general Jurisdiction analysis; however, this is really a venue/choice of law issue. The Conflict of Laws rears its ugly head into this case, and the answer by way of Forum Non Conveniens--choice of law would be Ohio within the Constitutional framework, falling within the plenary powers generally provided in the ORC. Yay for OH--IO!!!!! It's interesting to see how attorneys try to fit absolutely every argument into their memos--Forum non, minimum contacts, situs of assets...and they don't have to write 10 pages folks. They get it all in like 4 pages. Legal Writing Professor would never have allowed that.

Too Many Dead Guys

Hypo:

Dead guy A dies testate in Dade County Florida in 1979. Estate is administered in Florida from 1979 to 1981. A leaves a testamentary trust in which B is named Trustee and C is named as having a life estate interest in the trust. A leaves the remainder of the trust to be distributed to C's children D and E after C dies. C dies in 2000. E dies and leaves three children F, G, and H.

H dies in Ohio in 2002. B had already moved all estate assets to Ohio from Florida. The Ohio Supreme Court has earlier ruled that the jurisdiction (venue) of a testamentary trust is where the trust originated. Ohio declined jurisdiction to close this trust in order to make distributions to H's estate so that the estate can close. Florida statute says proper venue for trusts is where the trustee is domiciled. Florida declined jurisdiction to close the trust and make final distributive shares. D brings it back to Ohio and begs "I just want my share of the $333,000."

So, obvious conflict of law between the two states. Constitutionally acceptable in either state, but no legislative authority? Forum non conveniens in favor of jurisdiction in Ohio?