On Being a 1.5L

It's hard to believe that after last semester and the humbling and breathtaking success that it brought has come and gone, I'm nearly 1/3 done with a subsequent semester. On-campus interviewing has been going well. Getting the chance to get to know other attorneys in Baton Rouge who can joke about the "a fortiori" argument from Traditions class and to actually understand what they're talking about when they say they're trying to leap over the federal subject matter jurisdiction amount in question requirement for a case ...these things are rewarding.

Prof. Obligations is a favorite of mine. He expects you to be able to recite the facts of the cases in class; yet, he's a genuinely kind man, rewarding you with a smile and a nod of affirmation when you perform. Obligations, thus far, seems just to be a more cranial approach to the theory of contracts. The notable difference seems to be that we can make Great Uncle Fred's promise to give a gift enforceable, unlike the other 49 states, as long as Uncle Fred got a notary and two witnesses to sign the donation document.

Prof. Con Law runs a tight ship. Involving "stand and deliver" case recitation, it really is a class that makes you think on your feet. It's a class that squeezes the apathy out and replaces concern over such previously unthought-of questions as whether or not the Article III "case or controversy requirements" necessarily demand that the Supreme Court never issue an advisory opinion. Con Law is a class that has grown on me, a growth that is analgous to some point on a continuum between the growth of a young seed into a beautiful tree and the growth of an ingrown toenail. [pause for polite chuckling and other forms of laughter] All humour[s] aside, when I think of the democractic process and think of the power of the people to have created and later amend the Constitution, I cannot help but subscribe to the "Who's Ya Daddy" theory of law.

Prof. CivPro has become a legend in my book. 'Nuff said. And, of course, he teaches on such wonderful subject matter [jurisdiction]. It's no secret that all law students aspire to one day practice in the area of Civil Procedure.

Prof. L.R.&W. is teaching us how to write appellate briefs and conduct appellate oral arguments. My assignment this semester is to destroy a noncompetition agreement that my "client" signed, claiming that public policy, statutory construction and jurisprudential rulings demand that this agreement be nullified.

Prof. ACJ is teaching us about the police function and Constitutional limits on police behavior. We get to ponder on such questions as whether it violates a defendant's 4th Amendment rights for a policeman in a chopper to hover at 400 feet and look into the defendant's greenhouse, to obtain probable cause for issuance of a warrant to search aforementioned weedhouse...I mean greenhouse...for Mari J. This is probably my favorite class to read for. The recurring question becomes, "Should the criminal go free [and the evidence obtained unconstitutionally be suppressed] just because the constable has blundered?" Surprisingly, I find myself answering yes a few times, though I remain unyieldingly conservative in many cases.

Prof. Property, who called on me the first day of class, is probably the fastest talker in the Southeast. But she is also passionate about her area of knowledge and gives thorough lectures. Property is a very interesting area of law that involves study of a lot of "technical" rules and fact scenarios with regard to, for example, the navigability of lakes and rivers and whether or not a chandelier is a component part of a building such that under the Civil Code it must be included in the sale of a home. If there was ever a course that made me want to get my civil code autographed, it's this one. By Prof. Carroll. And of course, Prof. Yiannopoulous.

With that said, hopefully I'll be back before the end of the semester to blog again.
And hopefully it will be something actually interesting to the masses of humanity.