From Shelley’s Case:
Last year, a few of my classmates dropped out of law school and went to do something else. Rumor has it that one guy failed out of school, but that may very well be another myth.
Law school has not lost its appeal to me. I know that I am stressed out from time to time by the fact that law professors seem to have a knack at synching deadlines; however, I think it is more probable than not (HA! Language from Evidence) that the schedule of conflict were merely coincidental in nature and not deliberately planned. With each appendix of legal knowledge, I find legal questions more and more intriguing.
I like law school. I may not always like the schedule and I may disagree with certain people’s attitudes, but I am happy to be here. An interesting transformation I have observed is that I am better at picking up patterns. Another thing I have noticed is that I am much more assertive and more confident about my analytical ability than I were before entering law school.
This is all rather new to me, though I can see myself growing into this new skin. I hope that law school means something positive to you too.
From May It Please the Court:
The fine folks over at Courthouse News bring us this tidbit from their files: A Complaint filed by the Seminole Indians against the Secretary of the Interior.
By law the Secretary of the Interior has 60 days to act on an Indian tribe’s application for a gaming license. The Seminole Tribe of Florida claims several secretaries of the Interior have failed to act on their application for over 13 years.
That’s a lot longer than 60 days, even if your office doesn’t come furnished with a calendar. Apparently, the Secretary of Interior lacked the funding to purchase not only the paper to write back to the Tribe, but also the means to track the days and years that were ticking by.
That’s the government for you.
From Legal Underground:
–I enjoyed spending a few minutes this morning with the case of Redwood v. Dodson, in which Judge Easterbrook lays down the law on bad behavior by lawyers at depositions. I did a quick post about the case on the Illinois Trial Practice Weblog. If nothing else, you can read the opinion to learn the difference between being “admonished” and being “censured.” Which would you prefer?
–Is the debate over a silly cartoon in a Kentucky bar journal for real? Take a look at the cartoon in the linked post. That lawyer sitting on the sidewalk with the “Will Sue for Food” sign — supposedly, that’s a plaintiffs’ lawyer. But from what I know about the effects of tort reform, it could just as easily be a defense lawyer. Okay, perhaps not, but it’s still just a cartoon. Not offensive, in my opinion.
–Lawyer Daniel A. Olivas, author of Devil Talk and other works, has an essay about writing a (literary) novel despite his “busy schedule as a full-time litigator with the California Department of Justice.” Here’s the link: “Moving from Tight Little Machines to the Novel.” It makes me want to do more posts of the type that used to be in the “Between the Covers” category of this weblog.
–Hey, I like White Castles. And I’m from Missouri!
–There are some interesting comments about blogging and legal scholarship, soon to be published in the Yale Law Report, at Balkinization. Link from Jeremy Blachman.
–Is this weblogging lawyer really the “typical overworked, frazzled public defender“? I don’t think so. Most lawyers of any type aren’t so perceptively introspective. It’s another joy of reading good weblogs.
