Today I came across an old e-mail I had sent to a friend who was considering going to law school. At his request, I wrote down ten rules of thumb that I had learned at the end of my law school career that I wished I had known as a 1L.
I post them because, while the new board has been surprisingly free of LS types asking the LS Timmy questions, there should be a FAQ for law students asking the usual "Should I take 'Evidence' or 'The Law and Film'?" questions.
Feel free to post your own advice. It's not like there's much else happening on this particular board.
Quote:
[list=1][*]There is no such thing as a non-trick question.
[*]The Socratic Method is not an enterprise in group learning. It is a game of "Hide the Ball" that would be punished with violence if played in any self-regulating schoolyard. Don't ever be embarassed not to know the answer, because wrong answers slow the Socratic learning process down to a pace that can actually be withstood by its pupils and that actually fits the professor's secret reading schedule for the semester.
[*]Everything that seems incomprehensible will eventually be reduced down to an outline, usually just before the exam and sometimes just before The Exam. You will be forced to pay extra for this outline. This outline contains what you need to know for their purposes, so buy it. Corollary: Do not believe that this outline actually contains the law.
[*]Remember your job: Half the time you'll be looking for a reason the rule applies. The other half of the time you'll be looking for a reason the rule doesn't apply. You never know which side you're on until it's too late.
[*]Intelligence is necessary in law school, but law school does not reward it. It rewards compliance with an intellectual tradition. Intelligence gets you into law school; compliance gets you through it. (It's not as bad as it sounds, and will prepare you for the life you have chosen.)
[*]The most important class you will take is Legal Writing & Research, or whatever your school calls it. Corollary: Sadly and contrary to all reason, moot court is a ridiculous waste of time, but law review is not.
[*]When reading a case, remember that it's necessarily on appeal and what happened in the trial court matters, but was probably a close call. When in doubt, assume the trial court obtained real justice based on inadmissible evidence, and/or that the losing party or lawyer was an asshole and couldn't hide it. Assume that the appellate court always cares more about The Law than it does about the litigants or justice in the individual case. Corollary: Decisions in law school case books are almost always unjust, but produce sensible rules that are easily applied in other cases you don't have in your case book. They picked that particular case just to fuck with your mind, or because it was first, not because it's the best.
[*]There really is a difference between de novo review and the abuse of discretion review. However, the real-world application of this difference is known only to appellate justices. Corollary: Your law professor is not an appellate justice.
[*]All evidence to the contrary, the law is never intentionally dumb. If dumb, it will be construed narrowly and will naturally seek never to be applied, except by a contrarian professor who is jerking your chain.
[*]When you feel like you can't take it anymore, remember that there's nothing quite like standing in open court and introducing yourself. "Good morning, Your Honor. [Your Name Here] for the plaintiff." Corollary: Never never never never use "Esq." on your correspondence. Not even once. Not even as a joke.[/list=1]
Special bonus advice: Learn Community Property law, even if your state does not apply it. If married, live your life according to Community Property principles. Any other regime is barbarism.
|
