Day one

Today was the first day of orientation at school. Lots of speeches, a luncheon, a ginormous textbook bill ($888+ and I have at least one more book to purchase), and scurrying to and fro to complete a laundry list of chores: take photo for yearbook, obtain student ID, buy books, etc. My schedule looks pretty good. I mean, I knew the classes I was going to be taking because they are the same classes pretty much every one L takes the first year of law school - Civil Procedure (Civ Pro), Criminal Law (Crim Law), Torts, Contracts, and Legal Research and Writing (LR&W). My first class starts at 9:10am and my last class ends at 2:40pm. The plan is to get to school around 8am or so. The time I leave on a daily basis will depend on traffic and will probably take me a few days to figure out. Sometimes even a ten/fifteen minute early start or delay can make the difference between a relatively smooth drive home and hitting bumper-to-bumper traffic.

It's late and I should be sleeping.

Professional attire

The arrival of our pre-registration packet mid-summer put me on notice that we'd, meaning the first year students, be expected to wear semi-professional dress during the three days of orientation. Yeah, I haven't worn much except comfy pants and tee-shirts since the kid was born so that meant today, my final day of freedom, was spent shopping for something to wear. Lord knows, I still have twelve pounds from the pregnancy that I am still lugging around, and an additional 15 that I've managed to acquire since I got married in 2005. All of the super cute professional clothes I used to be able to wear that are still cluttering up my closet because I refuse to throw them out and admit defeat don't really fit right now. Luckily, I was able to snag two shirts and a skirt, which I can coordinate with a few pieces in the old wardrobe that I can wear and I've already got a great pair of sensible yet stylish black shoes. Phew. Law school orientation, here I come.

Oyez

This site might come in handy. I haven't had time to review it and I don't know how thorough it is or how much information it has that is pertinent to a first year law student but it seems impressive. I was reading an article on Slate.com and there was a case referenced with a link. The link brought me to Oyez, U.S. Supreme Court Media. The specific case was Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The info this site gives me includes: docket, citation, petitioner, respondent, advocates (who argued for what), the dates for the argument and decision, the facts of the case, the legal question raised, the conclusion, the decision, the legal provision, and which justices voted for/against along with notes on if they wrote a full opinion, co-authored an opinion, wrote a special concurrence, etc. Did I mention it has audio files so you can hear the court at work?

It's too soon to tell but this just might be awesome.

My first Latin

expressio unius (a.k.a. expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - to express one thing, at least in a statute, is to exclude other things that have not been mentioned

ejusdem generis - of the same genus or class, applies to catch-all words after an enumerated list

Book Four: The Verdict

Took me a bit to get into this book and I think it's most notably known as the book that became the movie in which Paul Newman plays the underdog attorney. Fast-paced. Deals with an alcoholic, unscrupulous attorney who manages to hold his own against a vastly superior counsel and an unfriendly judge. Worth a read if only to behold the fortuitous luck this guy encounters along the way. Perhaps this one is meant to teach us that all hope is not lost even if it appears to be so.

Book Three: One L

It is Monday morning, and when I walk into the central building, I can feel my stomach clench. For the next five days I will assume that I am somewhat less intelligent than anyone around me. At most moments I'll suspect that the privilege I enjoy was conferred as some kind of peculiar hoax. I will be certain that no matter what I do, I will not do it well enough; and when I fail, I know that I will burn with shame. By Friday my nerves will be so brittle from sleeplessness and pressure and intellectual fatigue that I will not be certain I can make it through the day...Lately, I seem to be drinking a little every night. I do not have the time to read a novel or a magazine, and I am so far removed from the news of world events that I often feel as if I've fallen off the dark side of the planet. I am distracted at most times and have difficulty keeping up a conversation...At random instants, I am likely to be stricken with acute feelings of panic, depression, indefinite need, and the pep talks and irony I practice on myself only seem to make it worse.

I am a law student in my first year at the law, and there are many moments when I am simply a mess.

Great. I'm very happy to be attending a school that is known to have somewhat of a cooperative atmosphere. Sure, we'll have those kids that would be willing to string up their grandmothers for an A, there always are, but the competition aspect of law school will be less. At least that's what I've been told. Won't know for sure until I get there.

Virtually every American law school adheres to the "case-study method," which requires students to learn the law by reading and discussing in class a steady diet of case reports. Most of these are the decisions of appellate courts, designated higher courts to which lawyers carry their objections to some point of law ruled on by a trial judge. Because they deal with closely defined legal questions, appellate opinions are considered especially apt tools for teaching students the kind of precise reasoning considered instrumental to a lawyer's work.

Common law is the system of judges making law case by case. When the judge decides the law on his own by looking at what other judges have done in similar cases, he is following precedent.

Socratic method scares the bejesus out of me. I will determine early on, once the professors are introduced, whether or not I'll risk the embarrassment of offering wrong or incomplete answers or just sit quietly until my name is called.

Cases sited:
Hadley v. Baxendale, established limit on kinds of damages a winning plaintiff in a contract suit could collect
(result is not to punish to deter breach in the first place, damages are awarded to compensate for the loss)

Definitions:
Assault: intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or apprehension of that
(hmmm, "apprehension"...where does that leave us?)

Basic triad of contract law -- offer, acceptance, and considerations -- three elements required to form a binding obligation.

--I lent this book to a friend who knows someone currently working to get into law school. Will have to revisit it when it is returned to complete this post.

Book Two: A Civil Action

This thing reads like a piece of pulp fiction. It doesn't help that I vaguely recall catching the movie version of it so that I'm constantly plagued with images of John Travolta as Jan Schlichtmann. What I learned from reading this? It sucks to have to be in front of a judge who dislikes you. It's even worse when said judge greatly admires the men of opposing counsel. Schlichtmann is consumed by this case - Woburn families and poisoned drinking water. Being a lawyer is clearly about who can present the best argument. Doesn't matter who has the best experts or what the evidence implies, it's how well you can spin that information to fit your idea of the facts. It's all about the spin.

As much as I want to be an agent for change and to do good works, I do not want to be consumed by it nor sacrifice myself for it.

Book One: High Albania, A Victorian Traveller's Balkan Odyssey

Well, had you shoved me into a library and ordered me by gunpoint to pick the one book that would start my career as a law student, I would not have picked this one out if it were the only book on the shelves. Within the first three pages, I had to consult the dictionary twice - once to confirm what I suspected, the second 'cuz even the context didn't illuminate. Great. Perhaps this is the lesson to be learned - get used to consulting a dictionary, girlie.

The words: "suzerainty" and "colporteur".

Anyway, this book is a surprisingly good read. At five o'clock one morning in May 1908, Mary Edith Durham left the northern Albanian town of Scutari to seek the Albanian highlanders. This book is a recounting of her trials as a traveler in the region. A woman. Mountain tribes who were guided by their own laws and customs "handed down over the centuries in the unwritten 'Canon of Lek Dukagjin'.

I thought I was in trouble when I read this:

Dukaghini - the tribes who accept the Canon, though a more restricted district is now called Dukaghini - includes Pulati proper, that is, Kiri, Plani, Mgula, and Ghoanni; Upper Pulati - that is, Shala, Shoshi, Nikaj, Berisha, Merturi, and Toplana; and Postripa - that is, Ura Strengit, Mazredu, Drishti, Shlaku, Suma, and Dushmani. Also all Puka. The Canon is, however, much more widely spread. It is the law also in Mirdita, and Kthela, and Luria. It has been carried by branches of many of the above-named tribes into the plains of Metoja and Kosovo. [Kosovo! Finally something I recognize.] It prevails also, I believe, in all the large Moslem tribes, but details of the usages among them I have not yet obtained.

The most important fact in North Albania is blood-vengeance, which is indeed the old, old idea of purification by blood. It is spread throughout the land. All else is subservient to it.

Reading this passage again, it does not seem as daunting as the first time. It is merely explaining which regions/lands accept and follow the Canon. But seriously, the first read-through had me a touch worried. Turns out there was nothing to be worried about. The book is truly an accounting of this lady's travels.

Blood feuds make for great stories. Here's one:

We sat roung, while the Man-that-claimed-blood told his tale. His only son had wished to marry a certain widow, and gave her in token thereof a ring...But her parents, whose property she was, would not recognize this betrothal, and sold her to another.
"My son," said the man, "would have paid for her fully, and she wished to marry him. Then was he very angry, and would shoot her husband. But he bethought him, the husband was not guilty, for perhaps he knew not of her betrothal. The guilty ones were the men of her family who sold her. To clear his honour, he shot one of her brothers. Then another brother shot my son, and I have no other. I want blood for my son's blood. They are to blame. They first put shame on him, and then they killed him."

It's all about shame and retribution. Oh, and women are chattel.

She is allowed to see a primitive system [my word, not hers] of justice and law in transition. As evidenced by the following passage:

By recent legislation some tribes not restrict blood-guiltiness to the actual offender... A Shala man said that Ghoanni case was a bad one. He would not like to have to kill a child, but "if it is the law to kill one of the same house, and the murderer has fled and left no male but a child, then you must. It is a pity, but it is the law."

Could he not wait the return of the offender, or till the child was of age to bear arms? "No; you could not wait because of your honour. Only blood can clean it."

I can't imagine living in a land where this might occur:

Then, pointing to a certain star, one said: "That is the biggest," and another said: "No, that one there is bigger." A fierce dispute took place; some took one side, some the other; rifles cracked, bullets sang. When the smoke cleared and the first excitement was over, there lay seventeen dead men--slain for a star--and eleven wounded. Their comrades buried the dead where they fell--for they died in sin--sine sacramento.

Here's a response of one mountain man upon learning the king would send gendarmes after a perpetrator in the event a crime was committed. This guy's got a point.

"Why spend all this time when it is far more convenient and satisfactory to shoot your enemy yourself?"

Another change she witnesses is the evolution of their own code when they are confronted with a situation previously not considered.

The subject of the debate was the case of the child who had been shot at Ghoanni by the Shoshi man. Shoshi, to its credit be it said, was violently indignant over the affair, and public opinion ran so high that the ghaksur had not dared to remain in the tribe...The medjliss now was held to decide whether his house should be burnt as punishment...
The difficulty was that there was no law under which this could be done. The blood had been taken outside the tribe, therefore was not a crime against the tribe, and not punishable by it...[The wronged family was incapable of executing justice.]
The burning of the house would entail passing a new law to punish a man for a crime against another tribe. This would mean an entire reconstruction of the code, and nothing less than considering themselves as a nation, and not as detached tribes.

I thought this was clever and may try this argument myself one day:

"Do you know," he asked, "about the maltsori (mountain man) who was dying? He said to the Blessed Virgin: 'I know that I am much too bad to go to Paradise, but I pray you to put me there just to spite the devil; it will annoy him extremely.'"

And then the Constitution comes. "Mon dieu, under a decent government, what a people this would be!"

For two whole days and nights over two thousand heavily-armed men were loose in the town--nor was there either military or police force sufficient to have coped with an outbreak,--but not one incident occurred to mar the general joy.