II I.U.L 1

8 January 2008

Welcome to the 4th installment of the much anticipated law school letters. For the two of you who actually read these, you have a new dose of your favorite night-time sleep aid!

This past semester went by all too quickly. I completed five classes (appellate advocacy, remedies and equities, corporations, evidence, and constitutional law II), advanced to the second round of moot court, secured employment for the summer, and somehow managed to retain most of my sanity.

My courses break down into two categories. First are the classes I took to prepare me for the bar examination. These include corporations and con law II. I took corporations because I had no clue what was involved with a business formation, or what differences exist between different business forms. For instance, I did not know how a general partnership differed from a limited partnership (LP), a limited liability partnership (LLP), a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP), or a limited liability company (LLC). Now I know the difference, and I have enough of a basic understanding to be able to advise people never to form a general partnership.

Con Law II focused exclusively on the 1st amendment. We spent the first part of the course discussing what free speech means, followed by a discussion of freedom of religion. A slight exposition on freedom of religion will suffice to demonstrate what the class covered. In pertinent part, the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As you can see, there are two parts. First, congress cannot make a law that deals with the establishment of a religion. Second, congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The trickiest questions arise when you have an issue that falls between these two sections. For example, Oregon had a scholarship system in place that gave money to high school students for instate tuition. The money could be used at any school, including religious schools. This program did not violate the establishment prong. If the money had only been available for use in religious schools, or if religious schools were the only schools excluded from receiving the money, there would be an establishment clause problem. The issue that arose was that one of the students wanted to use the money to take courses that would allow him to become a minister. If the state allowed this, they could be seen as establishing religion because state funds would be used to educate ministers. If the state denied the funds, the student could argue that the state denied him his ability to freely exercise his religion. In essence, the state was making it harder on him to become a minister because they made receiving scholarship money dependent upon his not choosing to become a minister. For those who want to know “the rest of the story,” the Supreme Court said the state had the option of doing either thing. They could give the money to the student without violating the establishment clause, but they could also deny the student the money without offending the free exercise clause.

The second category of classes includes those I chose to take because of my own interest. My Remedies class discussed what options are available to put things as they were after there has been an injury or a wrong. Since no one is likely to be interested in assumpsit, decretal transfers, constructive trusts, or equitable liens I will forgo a detailed discussion of this class.

My other two classes, evidence and oral advocacy, coupled with moot court, show where my true interest lies. I am strongly considering pursuing a career as a litigator. This interest started last year when I wrote a brief and argued a case for my legal research and writing class. I enjoyed it enough that I decided to enter the moot court competition. As a refresher, this is a competition where a mock case has already been heard in a fictitious trial court. My job was to represent a client as he appealed his case to a federal appeals court. I was required to submit a brief and argue three times (once for the side I had supported in my brief, twice for the side I had opposed in my brief). I did well enough to receive honors in both the brief writing and argument portions. I also advanced to the second round of moot court. The second round arguments conveniently take place the week my next child will be born. With the second round, we are now arguing the case in front of the Supreme Court. There are a series of single elimination rounds until only 2 students on each issue remain. My next letter will update you on how I did.

For this summer, I will be working for the Boise City Attorney’s Office. This job ties nicely into the litigation interest that I have because I will actually be practicing in a trial court. The City of Boise hires 2-3 students each summer to represent them in misdemeanor suits. The program consists of a two week training course, two weeks of shadowing an attorney in the courtroom, two weeks of being shadowed in a courtroom, and six weeks of solo work in the courtroom. I will also being conducting my own jury trial at some point during the summer. I can think of no better (or scarier) way of figuring out if I really enjoy being a litigator than being thrown into a courtroom to represent a client.

On the home front, Jenny and Alise have been having a grand time. Jenny is kept active chasing after an almost two-year old, running our house, transcribing for a grad student, networking, and growing a baby. Alise stays busy mimicking her dad, destroying her room, learning new words, opening doors, playing with her friends, and doing everything she can to ensure she is the center of attention.

Well, I decided to make this installment about half the size of the last, so I will bring this to a close. I hope life is going well for all who get this. Feel free to respond in any way that seems appropriate.