Law In The Second

I have moved to a new blog:

www.lawinthesecond.blogspot.com

Step 4: Exam Acro-mony - May 5-7, 2008

Of the classes into which I was likely to enter on a pony (not quite a high horse), Civil Procedure was near the top of the list. The more structural and rule-based a class is, the better I tend to perform. I can learn and apply rules fairly well. Where the law is more fluid and pliable, the muck seems to rise.

I attempt to eat a full, nutritious meal the day before examinations. I also like to take part in an athletic activity immediately before exams. Not only do I believe that a diet full of nutrition and an abundance of energy play a major role in intellectual abilities and success, but that a physically-fit body contributes to mental acuity.

The usual “last meal” before my final includes fish (for protein), spinach (all sorts of vitamins and nutrients), brown rice (carbohydrates, fiber and protein) and other vegetables, including mushrooms and onions. The meal is usually filling and very satisfying.

As per the athletic activity, I have taken to running. I used to go running nearly every day. However, as I have before delegitimized my life because of law school, I have had little time to take part in the activity. However, I decided that I needed to straighten the flurry of thoughts in my head, and I wanted time to myself (not to mention that it would aid me in sleeping that night). I stretched, and warmed up. Then I started running. A little know fact about me drew attention on this run: when I was a third-grader, I auditioned for the part of the young Forest Gump. When I started running, I could not stop. “I was running!” I ran a few miles. Normally an acceptable act, this was a bad idea. I had not engaged in any activities that can be classified as athletic for months. I was so out of shape, that I was not even rounded. (Insert pause for giggle here.) When I got home, I was overly winded and instantly sore. The soreness did not go away for quite some time, either. I was so out-of-shape that I hobbled into the final the next morning.

I did a few uncharacteristic things during finals this year. One of them was to study with a friend the day before the test. Having tutored athletes during undergrad (great stories were yielded from that stint in college), I know that I learn quite well when teaching others. Why not apply this method to law school, especially when my recent academic life has been quite the appositive failure.

During the study session, I tendered discussion by dreaming up test-quality questions. One of the questions I posed to my friend created a lot of debate. When she was done attempting to tell me the answer, I informed her that she was wrong. Why be verbose when a few words will suffice? I explained the correct answer, how, why it was right and important cases that discussed the reasoning and holding behind the law as it applies.

When we sat down at the exam, I performed my traditional testing procedure: (1) tilt head slightly to the right to express my state of perplexity; (2) cry; (3) place reading glasses (that do not really help my vision, but make me feel smarter) on my face and insert ear plugs dangerously far into ear canal to ensure idiots are drowned out; (4) read the exam in its entirety, highlighting and making notations as they are necessitated; (5) repeat Step 2; (6) proceed with the easiest and most heavily weighted portions of the exam, followed by the rest; (7) ask myself “why?”; and (8) repeat as needed.

When I reached Step 4, I noticed something quite interesting: the hypothetical I had posed the day prior to my friend appeared in almost verbatim form. Just when I thought that the Big Guy was not bored with playing games with me, He seemed to have taken a nap. I, obviously, aced that question. However, when I asked my friend about the question after the exam, she told me that her answer represented her first answer to me during the study session. I was really upset. She was quite downtrodden when she realized that she made the same mistake. At least I got something out of the studying.

The proverbial icing on the cake was our Professor allowing the test to occur in open-note fashion. Even though everybody is allowed notes and the exam is graded with a greater difficulty, open-note exams allow for an extra element to surface in gaining ground on the grading curve. The notes used greatly contribute to a higher level of success on these tests.

I possessed what I referred to as “Civil Procedure Gold”; the notes and diagrams were, by far, the highest quality and most useful documents with which I have come into contact. Civil Procedure Gold was an immense help on the exam, yielding high quality responses to each question posed. I am indebted to the notes. Thank you, Civil Procedure Gold.

Two days later, the Contracts examination was administered. The Professor (as duplicitously referenced previously) gave the class three sample questions. The class was told that any one of the three practice questions could, possibly, show up on the exam in part or on the whole. As has been his customary practice for years, one of the questions nearly always is the question on the exam. Even with tradition being well documented, there is always doubt that the questions will actually be used.

I split my time unevenly among the three questions. I spent what is likely 75 percent of my time on the first question, and split the remaining 25 percent on the other two questions. I put most of my “eggs in one basket.” This is equivalent to an insurance policy where the deductable may very well cost more than the repairs needed. However, should the first question be selected, I would likely make money from the policy, metaphorical speaking (this metaphor is brought to you by an actual life occurrence – a good story itself).

I noted all possible answers and cases for each question and spent a good amount of time analyzing each (as per the above-mentioned time allocation). Having studied non-stop for two weeks to that point, my brain was not operating correctly. I needed to revert to high school tactics: acronym acrimony. Creating crazy acronyms is a technique that has long served me well. For my contracts exam, “I Sparce(s) Cubic Wife Wig” was borne.

-----

Damages

Incidental

Specific Performance
Punitive
Anticipatory
Reliance
Consequential
Expectation
(S)peculative

Important Points
Conv. Recip. Inducement
Unconscionability
Breach (Induced and Contract)
Interference with Contract and Business Relations
Consideration

Warranty (Breach and Fitness)
Induced Reliance
Fraud
Equitable Estoppel

Willful Misrepresentation (… of facts)
Illusory Promise
Good Faith

-----

It worked wonderfully for my memory. However, the acronym was not the amazing occurrence as I sat down to proceed through my examination protocol. Again, Step 4 did not disappoint.

The basket with the vast majority of my eggs went to market! It was the second time I experienced an insurance pay-day. The first question, in 99 percent original form was the examination question. Winner! Coupled with the Opera experience, I feel relatively solid about the exam. There is much more I wish I had discussed in the answer, but if we were given five more hours to write an answer, I would have used the entire time, and still felt this way.

I am hesitant to feel good about exams because last semester, when I felt I did a solid job, I did the opposite (even though there was more to grading than my performance, which was an issue itself).

Having completed two examinations (with two more to go) I needed to purge my brain of all the info I stuffed within. I took the rest of the day to relax and do light studying for my property exam that was to occur in five days (the upcoming Monday).

-----

Contracts Final Question*:

Personal Hauling, Inc., is one of the largest companies in the country that rents out trucks and shipping materials for hauling. In 2005, after a lengthy search for a painting system that would give its trucks a superior paint finish at a reasonable cost, Personal contracted with Denkel Corp. to construct and install Denkel's patented paint equipment at Personal's main plant and to supply its own paint ingredients, which are specially made for use in the system.

In the negotiations between Personal and Denkel in 2005, Denkel said that its paint system was completely reliable. The contract warrants that the paint will last at least three years after each application. However, the contract also includes the following provision:

Denkel's liability under this contract for any damage whatsoever that may be caused to Personal's trucks by use of the paint or by chemicals in the paint shall be limited to full reimbursement of the cost of the paint ingredients. There shall be no other liability or damages to Denkel because of any such damage.

The system was installed late in 2005, and was immediately put to use for painting Personal's entire fleet of trucks with a large reproduction of Personal's logo and the words, "Another Happy Customer of Personal Hauling." However, the system never worked properly. Within a few months, thousands of trucks started losing substantial amounts of paint, and ultimately all of the trucks had to be taken out of active service and repainted by hand.

The installation of the system (which is now useless to Personal) cost $600,000, and the paint ingredients cost $450,000. After lengthy discussions between the two companies, Denkel has offered to settle the case for $400,000, but Peter Personal, the chief executive of Personal Hauling, is reluctant to accept that amount. He is especially incensed because he has recently learned through industry sources that Denkel had been having trouble with the mixing and spraying mechanism in its paint system at least since 2003. However, Personal is unwilling to embark on expensive litigation unless there is a reasonable chance of a substantial recovery.

Personal has now come to the law firm at which you are an associate. The partner in charge of the case has asked you for a memorandum analyzing Personal's case (including an explanation of what additional information, if any, that you need from Personal), and recommending how best to proceed on its behalf.

Write the memorandum.

-----

Civil Procedure Final Questions*:

Scenario 1 (Question A): Trial and Error

Federal District Judge Virginia Emerson has just presided over a jury trial in which Plaintiff was awarded $10 million damages in a products liability action brought under the federal court’s diversity jurisdiction. A week after she entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, Judge Emerson and her law clerk Sam were discussing the trial in her chambers. Troubled by some of her rulings during the trial, Judge Emerson asked Sam to make a list of the potentially reversible errors which occurred during the trial. Later that day, Sam gave her the following list:

• The court denied Defense counsel’s request for a one-day adjournment so that he could produce a witness who had been out of the country;
• The court refused to allow the introduction of a relevant engineering report prepared by Defendant’s expert witness; and
• Plaintiff’s counsel made, during her closing argument, several improper references to matters outside the record.

After reviewing the list that same day, Judge Emerson becomes convinced that these errors were serious enough to warrant action on her part. Neither side has made any post-trial motions.

Question A: What, if anything, does Judge Emerson have power to do to address the errors? Please explain your answer.

Scenario 2 (Questions B & C): Will Swoboda Strike Out?

On May 1, 2004, Ron Swoboda was on his way from his home in Pennsylvania to a friend’s wedding in Michigan. He was driving through Ohio when his car was rear-ended by a truck traveling in the lane behind him, severely injuring Swoboda. The truck was owned and operated by Chang Products Corp., an office supply enterprise which was incorporated in Illinois and also had its principal place of business in Illinois. The truck had been en route from Illinois to make a delivery in Ohio. Chang Products regularly conducted business in several states, including Illinois and Ohio, but not Pennsylvania.

Assume that Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute conferred personal jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Assume further that Pennsylvania has a statute which requires that all out-of-state corporations wishing to transact business within its boundaries appoint a Pennsylvania agent for service of process. According to the statute, if an out-of-state corporation appoints such an agent, it will possess “within the state the same rights and privileges that a domestic corporation would possess, and shall be subject to the laws of this state.” Because Chang Products was considering expanding its business to Pennsylvania, it had appointed a Pennsylvania agent for service of process on April 15, 2004. The corporation has not yet conducted any business in Pennsylvania; indeed, it has not yet decided whether it will do so in the future.

Swoboda sued Chang Products Corp. in federal court in Pennsylvania under diversity jurisdiction. Swoboda served Chang Products in two ways: (1) he served the Pennsylvania agent Chang Products had appointed for service of process; and (2) he served the president of Chang Products while she was attending a “21st Century Office Products Symposium” in Philadelphia. Chang Products moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Chang Products argued that personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was improper because the incident did not occur in Pennsylvania, the corporation was not incorporated in that state, and it conducted no business there.

Question B: Is this case controlled by Burnham v. Superior Court? Why or why not?

Question C: What is Swoboda’s best argument for asserting personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania?

Scenario 3 (Question D): The Twisted Truth

Pretzel lives in Massachusetts; Donut lives in Arizona. Pretzel sued Donut in Massachusetts state court on a defamation claim. Donut refused to waive service of the summons, and Pretzel waited to serve Donut until Donut was changing planes in Boston’s Logan Airport (on a trip from Arizona to Nova Scotia). Pretzel then filed an affidavit of service describing personal service upon Donut at Logan Airport. Donut filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), arguing that he had missed his flight that day and never arrived at Logan Airport, and thus could not have been served. He attached an affidavit from a friend, Cookie Crumb, which stated that Crumb had witnessed the personal service in this case effectuated on a man who bore a striking physical resemblance to Donut, but was not Donut. The trial court denied Donut’s motion but Donut did not participate any further in the proceedings. Pretzel then obtained a default judgment against Donut in the defamation action. Donut did not appeal the judgment, nor did he pay the amount of the judgment.

Pretzel is now seeking to sue on the defamation judgment in Arizona, where Donut owns substantial property. Donut has appeared in the Arizona enforcement proceeding to argue that the Massachusetts judgment should not be enforced because the Massachusetts court lacked jurisdiction, since Donut was never actually served in Massachusetts.

Question D: How should the Arizona court rule on Donut’s argument, and on what rationale?

Scenario 4 (Questions E & F): Anziel & Brix

Anziel and Brix are neighbors who live on adjoining farms and used to be on good terms. The breakdown in their relationship occurred on January 15, 2008, when Anziel saw Brix driving Anziel’s tractor without permission. Anziel became extremely upset and demanded a large payment from Brix. Mediation efforts failed, and Anziel sued Brix for the tort of conversion for using the tractor without permission. At trial, the parties waived a jury and Brix’s only defense was that he and Anziel had agreed that, during the year 2008, each could use any motorized vehicles belonging to the other without seeking advance permission. The court accepted this defense, rendered a verdict for Brix, and entered judgment for Brix on February 15, 2008. Anziel did not appeal.

Anziel has now filed another lawsuit against Brix. He alleges that on April 1, 2008, Brix drove Anziel’s tractor and damaged it. His complaint contained two counts: (1) conversion; and (2) property damage. Assume that Brix admits using Anziel’s tractor on that date, but claims he did not damage it:

Question E: What, if any, pre-trial motion should Brix file to seek dismissal of Count 1? In what manner will this count likely be resolved?

Question F: What, if any, pre-trial motion should Brix file to seek dismissal of Count 2? In what manner will this count likely be resolved?

Scenario 5 (Questions G, H, I, and J): No Salad Days for Meebecker

Mary Meebecker is suing the Arugula Brokerage Co. in state court, alleging fraud under the federal securities laws. In that lawsuit, she is also asserting a state law claim for fraud in connection with the same conduct as her federal claim. Assume that good faith is a defense to fraud under the federal securities laws, but is not a defense to fraud under the state law. Meebecker is seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Arugula has now filed a notice of removal.

Question G: If Meebecker argues that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because the state court did not have jurisdiction over the federal securities law claims, what will be Arugula’s best response?

Question H: Will the federal court have jurisdiction over the state law claim? Why or why not?

Question I: Will the federal court allow a good faith defense to the federal securities law claim? Why or why not?

Question J: Will the federal court allow a good faith defense to the state law claim? Why or why not?

-----

*Openly distributed by Professors without any terms regarding disclosure.

First Name Basis With The Opera - May 5, 2008

I am a conniving and ultimately resourcefully manipulative person. Let’s face it: it is a skill that I tend to unintentionally employ regularly - it seems to be an accidental fabric of my being. Perhaps this is why I love courtroom litigation. Anyhow, where an opportunity exists that I may be precluded from undertaking, I do whatever it takes, within reason, to enable myself to appreciate the occasion (usually accomplished by taking part in the opportunity, itself).

Before I get ahead of myself, I will evoke a careful chronology to keep the events clear.

In mid-March-ish, my nationally renowned contracts professor (the otherwise senile professor I often discuss) made a discussion-board posting to the larger-than-100-person class.

The post informed us that the professor “[has] an extra ticket for La Traviata at the Metropolitan Opera on Wednesday evening, March 19, at 7:30. If anyone in the class is interested in going, please let me know by email…”

I did not see the post until a few days after the notification was made. In a class as large as that, I knew that I had missed the train. To understand how glorious time with this professor can be, it must be realized that this professor rewards, quite abundantly, for participation. Basically, he uses participation to give people the grades he believes they deserve. Participation can affect a person’s grade in the class incredibly significantly. Being senile, if the man can remember your name, you are “made”. I not only wanted to go to the Metropolitan Opera and spend time with a nationally renowned professor (I will discuss him later), but I wanted to weasel my way into a good grade.

Understanding that my natural gifts are limited to humor, writing and resourceful manipulation, I decided to use what my mother gave me. Playing dumb is something I can be good at, but I tend to be an amateur. Judge for yourself:

-----

From: H
To: Professor
Subject: Opera

Dear Professor,

Not only am I interested in attending, but I am enthralled at the prospect of accompanying you to the Opera. Raised on the West Coast, the Met is only discussed in fleeting moments of dream, whereas now, living on the east coast, it is a possible reality.

Regardless of your decision, thank you for the opportunity!

Respectfully,

H

-----

Remember, I knew he had already found a student with whom he would be accompanied. It was unscrupulous, I know, but how could I not try?

I received the following reply:

-----

From: Professor
To: H
Subject: Re: Opera

Would you be able to go to Fille du Regiment (Dessay & Florez) on
Monday, May 5?

- Professor

-----

From: H
To: Professor
Subject: Re: Re: Opera

Professor,

I would be absolutely delighted to attend. I shall keep clear my schedule.

Thank you!

-H

-----

Success! Triumphantly, I accepted the invitation. My excitement grew over the next month-and-a-half. However, it was not until much later that I realized the date of the Opera would be a positive and negative packaged in a nice box with a bow (very environmentally unfriendly). As finals approached, time became more precious. My calendar of events was relied upon to budget my days properly. Waste was wanted, not.

As it turned out, May 5 was the day of my first final: Civil Procedure II. Contracts final examination was two days later, on May 7. The negative was that I would lose almost an entire day of studying. The positive was that I would be making an impression on my contracts professor two days prior to our examination.

I, of course, believed the Opera to be an investment in my future. I was overly excited for the occasion. I was not able to think about it for too long in the days leading up to the excursion because finals required all the brain-power I possessed (a limited quantity to begin-with).

Immediately following the Civil Procedure Final, I had to begin readying myself. I would meet the Professor at the Metropolitan Opera in the City. Travel time and getting ready would allow me an hour or two to spend getting lost.

I boarded the Long Island Railroad (the scourge of the first year tort law classes – you would understand if you have engaged in law school and know a Ms. Palsgraf) and made my way into Manhattan. I brought the notes I had prepared for the Wednesday final with me for study time on the train and wherever else I could fit them in. When I closed in on Penn Station, I remembered that I had a friend who was working and living in the City. I had not seen him in a few years, and we had been trying to coordinate a meeting. I called him up, and, luckily, he was about to go on his lunch break. I met him in Chelsea, by the dance theater by which he is employed, and we went for some deli sandwiches. He is originally from Arizona, and was a leader – the same level as I was - in the youth organization I have been active with since I was young.

I nearly walked right past my old friend. While I am no fan of New York the fact that I nearly missed him spoke to the positive effects of the locale: my otherwise fluffy (when my high school wrestling co-captain and I would tell our coach that he was fat, he would respond, “I am not fat, I am fluffy”) friend was half his width. I looked at him and said, “J: Do not perceive this the wrong way, but you look amazing! You have lost a ton of weight. What did you do or change?”

“I started working out, changed my eating habits and the City. I walk everywhere. It is an effect of the city,” he stated.

Well, I guess New York is only 99.5 percent horrible. As if.

After catching up with J and his life, we parted ways. I headed towards the Lincoln Center – home of the Met, the New York Philharmonic and the New York City Ballet, and Juilliard among others. My stroll by Central Park and the sights of the City renewed my belief that New York is a nice place to visit but not to live. I expect that it would be nicer to live in NY if you have a good amount of disposable income and an appreciation for the arts in general.

--

An Aside: in the car, on the way to the train station, Roommate turned slightly to the right and said, “Beside the fact that you will be given an “A” because of tonight, do you really want to go to the opera?” I responded that, “I am more excited about the opera than I am about the prospect of the good grade.” She possessed a picturesque dumbfounded look. “Anybody who has an appreciation for the arts will have an appreciation for opera,” I said in response to her dumbfoundedness.

“How does having an appreciation for the arts correlate to liking opera,” she retorted, questioningly.

“Well,” I said. “How many people do you know who can sing opera?”

“None. But, I do not know anybody who wants to,” said my Roommate emphatically.

“That is my point, exactly,” I said with my trademarked smirk. “As somebody who cannot draw a stick figure, I have an immense appreciation for paintings and drawings. The same appreciation extends to all forms of artistic expression.”

She quickly changed the subject.

--

While my parents were very careful with their spending of money, and tried their very best to shield their children from any knowledge of their very tight budget – my mother had the same pair of shoes for longer than is socially acceptable – they also sought to share their love of and expose us to every form of the arts possible. I am, quite possibly, one of a handful of the male gender (an important designation) who, at the completion of my 18^th year of life, had seen more ballets than I have fingers, been to greater than five museums of art in at least three countries and numerous states, seen plays and musical productions with great regularity and seen the performances of philharmonics and orchestras on multiple occasions. As a great number of persons designated as “they” say, like death and taxes, an appreciation and desire to experience the arts is a sure thing.

That said, I was more excited than the average heterosexual male in his 20s would – or, to some, should – be. As the time to meet the professor in the lobby neared, I began to experience a good level of anxiety.

I was scared. Actually, literally, in the flesh scared out of my flesh. How in the world would I entertain and carry on eloquent conversation with a legal legend?

I realized that I had not researched the Opera I would be seeing, nor did I know how I would keep the Professor’s brilliant-self entertained for multiple hours. Technology saved me, in part. I looked up the Opera on my phone’s internet, and quickly memorized every fact my brain could hold on such short notice. I was hoping that the interesting nuggets of operatic insight would not become inter-twined with something contract-based. For example, thoughts of expressing that this opera is considered by the critics as the “Mount Everest of operas” because the male lead was to hit nine high-C’s in quick succession during the first act, usually before his voice could warm-up, instead coming out of my mouth as “I read that Judges have held that this Opera is unconscionably difficult for the Male lead, and, under the Everest Doctrine in the Restatement (Third) of Performance, must warrant that he will deliver nine high trees estoppels in the first provision of the contract.”

Luckily, my notoriously great brown-nosing skills were perfectly delivered throughout the night, which lasted from 7:00PM until 12:30. It was a long, late night with the Professor!

The whole experience was quite overwhelming. This was a significant event, to date, in my life, marked with excitement, a grandiose, larger-than-life environment and a quite unique feeling of being very special. The Professor, known as the "Father of Modern Legal Ethics," a man with more stories than Theodor Geisel, and a greater wealth of experience and knowledge than I could ever wish to possess. The Metropolitan Opera House is a great metaphor for this professor: world-renowned, host to a great many legends, and, quite frankly, one of the most amazing venues for performance. I, factually, was no less than 30 years younger than the next youngest opera-goer; it is not surprising either. What kind of young male (wants to) attend the opera, especially when his date is a greater-than-80 year old man (I only wish this was spent with my grandfather). As far as great choices made during finals, this easily tops the list.

The Professors seats were Orchestra level, and only a few rows from the stage. It could not have been much better. Needless to say, the vantage point was expensive, and I was lucky.

I cannot fully interpret my experience into cognizable words. Opera is believed to be without any emotion. The performers are thought to stand still, with their arms at their sides during some very intense scenes. This misconception is, actually, only partially misconceived. Some of the most amazing vocally renowned opera performers have been referred to as an “arm-chair” on stage. While acting skills were not important in yester-years, this Opera (La Fille Du Regiment) put the ever-existent notion of boredom to rest. Not only were the voices amazing, but the Principle performers acted as well as any stage actor I have viewed in the past. The Professor later told me, on our drive home, that while acting was not seen as important in years past, acting was becoming far-more recognized as a part of performances, and a necessary skill to be recognized. The acting was, in short: fantastic.

My professor, an opera attendee for the last 30 years, and subscriber to the Metropolitan Opera (and, at times to the New York Opera concurrently) has seen and experienced much of what Opera has to offer. Of the performance I watched, he said that there were a lot of firsts. The male Principle hit the nine High C’s with perfection, and was given the longest ovation my professor had ever witnessed. The lead (Florez) kept his pose for a great portion of that time, and then broke character to bow a few times, and like a giddy school-boy, giggled at the audience’s display of appreciation. After a few minutes, he looked down, into the orchestra pit, at the Conductor. He gave a questioning look to Conductor, who nodded in affirmation, raised his hands to signal the orchestra, and played the music to aide Florez in an encore. In 30 years, my Professor had not seen an encore performed. It was that outstanding.

Most people wonder how an opera can be enjoyable if in a foreign language. The response is that each seat is equipped with a translation device to any of a great many languages. The audience would often laugh before the French line was delivered. The performance was obviously tweaked for its audience. The pretentious potential mother-in-law for the female lead (Dessay) was American, and the prospective groom was a member of the Olympic Bobsled Team. At one point, the French mother got caught up in the English and French that was being exchanged on stage, and seemingly, by accident, responded in English when it should have been in French. It made the performance all the much more enjoyable. There was quite a bit of humor infused into the Opera. The composer and writer wrote such a great Opera, that the humor transcended over a century, and was received with laudable comedy.

The amazing experience of the Opera was complimented by amazing conversation and priceless insight. I learned a great deal about the man and his legendary life. Having spent is practical career as a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, the Professor explained that the reason he teaches first-year contracts is because he believes the class to be the best medium in which to teach practical lawyering skills. His true intent is clear: the Professor with the greatest tenure of any person at the law school chooses to teach where he can help students become the best attorneys possible. His altruism is admirable.

On the drive home, my dissociation with New York became apparent when he asked me to direct him to my house on our drive home. I was not too great a help.

I really cannot express just how impactful the night was on me. Not only have I garnered an addiction to opera, but I have obtained insight and retained a great deal of advice that will not go to waste.

I now refer to the professor by his first name, except when I am communicating with him. My friends and I figure I have earned the right to do so when he is not around.

Finals... 2 DOWN.

UPDATED THROUGH APRIL 28!

OH JOY!

Thank You, Dad - April 25-28, 2008

The landlord is relentless. Either the attorney is not very good at giving directions, or our landlord is not go at following them. Landlord thought it a good idea to call Roommate on Friday. This was after I spoke with his attorney, establishing the fact that Landlord should be directed not to speak with Roommate or I because he has retained legal counsel.

Roommate did not pick up the call, instead allowing it to go to voicemail. The message that was left consisted of the Landlord wanting to “sit down and discuss the problems we are all having.” He said that he understands that we may have some problems with his partner, but that he did not want this to become a big issue. The problem with his message is that Roommate and I are not as dense as we apparently have come across. We know that Landlord was the one who went to an attorney, and directed said attorney to draft and send a letter to Roommate and I. He is the one who elevated the whole issue.

In response to the call, and because I had told Attorney that we would no longer communicate with he or his client orally unless it was in court, the only option we had was to send an email to Attorney regarding his client’s contact with us.

-----

From: Tennants

To: Mr. Bad Attorney

Subject: Re: Landlord

Mr. Bad Attorney,

We wish to inform you that your client, Landlord, has contacted us. Inasmuch as we would like to solve the problems that have been presented, we cannot ethically engage in conversation with your client or his agents. As was discussed during our telephone conversation, in order for us to have any interaction with Mr. Landlord or his agents, we need a signed document, from you, stating that you give permission for direct communication to occur.

We would also like to reiterate that the plethora of needless and bothersome contacts from your client need to cease immediately. As we have previously stated, we are attempting to study for finals and need an atmosphere that is without any extraneous and undue influences. The sheer number of calls and contacts, alone, when we have requested that they desist, are bordering on harassment. We hope that your client and your client's agents will respect our right to the quiet enjoyment of our residence and lives.The level of anxiety and aggravation that your clients have caused, as well as the time we have superfluously spent, are already far too much. We trust that you will counsel them as to the results of their actions.

We look forward to resolving this matter in full, in a way that is agreeable to your client as well as ourselves.

I thank you for your time and effort on these and all other issues.

Very respectfully,

TENNANTS

-----

We received no response to the email Friday.

When Sunday came around, I was fairly certain that the Landlord or his agents would show up to carry out their open house. Having become rather adept at legal research, I quickly oriented myself as to the state statutes for criminal and civil trespassing. I realized that in order to prove criminal trespassing, it must be shown that the accused trespasser knew they were entering property on which they were not allowed. Civil trespass, on the other hand, does not demand knowledge of actions, the action itself suffices. I did not want them to skate on the fun criminal trespass would yield, so I took measures to ensure the trespassers knew they were entering a restricted area. I took one measure, to be exact: I posted a rather conspicuous sign on the front door of my home that said the following in large, bold type:

-----

NO TRESPASSING

Under New York Penal Law §10.03, §140.00(5) and §140.05, Entering or Remaining In or Upon the Premises Without Permission Constitutes Criminal and Civil Trespass, and is a Violation of the Law.

Violators Will be Prosecuted

-----

Roommate and I disagreed about the posting of a sign with the above printed on it. She thought it would make things worse. I told her that the law basically required such a move be made by us. She also was not planning on being home during that time, so I was on my own. The sign went on the door.

No open house was held.

This was a positively great occurrence. I had to study for my first finals (Civil Procedure II and Contracts), and wanted no distractions. Calling the police and dealing with dumb people was not really on my to-do list for the day.

I studied. And studied. And Studied. This process will continue for nearly three weeks more. The stress, and cabin fever build up to be quite immense.

On Monday, an email response from Bad Attorney arrived in my inbox.

-----

To: Tennants

From: Mr. Bad Attorney

Tennants,

It appears that you had a lot of time to spend on letters and e-mails to me that could have better been spent on studying for final exams, and they probably took longer than the two hours it would have taken for Mr. Landlord to have his open house. Your research indicates that you are more interested in going after me and Mr. Landlord, rather than to explain any legal basis for your opinions on real estate law.

Mr. Landlord is the landlord and the owner of the property. He has every right to contact you.

Nonetheless, as I stated in the Fed Ex letter you should be receiving today, I am going to be discussing the situation with Mr. Landlord this week to determine his future course in this matter. We both agree that this should be resolved-- you do not need a dispute with me and my client and I don't need one with you.

- Mr. Bad Attorney

-----

Where Roommate was once the pacifist in this situation and I was the bull, Roommate grew horns upon receiving this response. I, on the other hand, wanted to give peace a chance. We had instantly switched placed in this whole dance.

Monday brought forth my final Property Law class. It seems the Professor had grown quite attached to the class and the students. This was not overly surprising, as she regularly revealed her enthusiasm for this class during her lectures. As the class began, the professor started giving a speech about how she loved the class and hopes we will all stay in contact with her as time passes. During her speech, she started tearing up. It was very touching.

In other interesting news (literally), I was appointed the Editor of the Law School newspaper by the current, outgoing editorial board. I was caught very off-guard by the selection, as I had forgotten about the student run organization. As I told one of my buddies, when it pours, my life becomes cats and dogs. Should be quite interesting running the First Amendment publication.