Legal Geekery

United States v. Stevens (3d Cir. July 18, 2008) was filed today.  Stevens is an interesting case about whether a statute, 18 U.S.C. § 48 (proscribing “knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty with the intention of placing those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain”), violates the First Amendment.  A 10-3 Third Circuit, in a decision authored by Judge D. Brooks Smith, holds that it does.

As usual, the Volokh Conspiracy is out in front with a brief discussion, but First Amendment fans should take the time to read this interesting opinion.

Yeah, I know it’s a bold statement, but I swear by this program.  Microsoft OneNote allows students to organize multiple notebooks, sections, and subsections in one application, with instant, database-style save capability so you’ll never lose your notes.  You can create tables and charts, take notes in easily formatted bullet or numbered outlines, drag and drop pdfs and then take notes over them, highlight on-screen over pdf text, or take class notes in color.  You can export OneNote files into PDF or Word formats, or hit Cntl+E and OneNote will automatically add that section to your email client as an attachment.

I’ve thrown together some screenshots below, click on the image to expand.  Microsoft offers a 60 day free trial here or PSU students can spend $80 and get the full 2007 Microsoft Enterprise Package which features a poorly redesigned version of Microsoft Word (that other kids will be using).  The computer store will probably have a student software discount at your school.

I make the “Get As in Law School” boast because OneNote organizes your notes, saves time, and allows for easy file transfers.  You’ll be thanking the search function when your prof asks you what case that you’ve studied this year is analogous to this one.  The screenshots below include examples of cut-and-pasting the text of the FRCPs into OneNote (using Cornell’s great LII website), adding live links to the UCC provisions, and creating case history charts using the easy format options.

So go download yourself a competitive advantage.

Interesting Criminal Procedure Article by Professor Kit Kinports available on the Social Science Research Network.

Unfortunately, you’ll have to click it for the full size. Eventually I’ll get around to fixing that.

It wasn’t my goal to mimic xkcd (though he is awesome) — I just can’t draw.

I spent my Sunday volunteering to help out with the DuBois Harley Davidson Club’s “Dice Roll for Muscular Dystrophy.” Essentially, the guys would roll dice at various checkpoints (traveling over 100 miles), and the highest and lowest rollers won prizes.

The Harley guys always crack me up. Some absolutely huge guy with tattoos everywhere would walk over, roll, and then say, “Thank you, sir.” Mixed in among the tatoos and chaps were surgeons, attorneys, and various other people with jobs that you wouldn’t guess by looking at them. We even had an ADA come over to us and ask us how law school was going.

The event was successful even though it was a pretty terrible day. We ended up raising something on the order of $15,000. The parents that came to represent the MDA were really grateful, and their son (the spokesperson) was hilarious. There was a bike painting station in the Harley shop, and the mother asked if they could paint his name onto the chair. The boy quickly added, “And flames!”

Changing gears, I finally caught up with some law school friends the other day. It’s been a pretty hectic summer for everyone. People are working all over the country, so it can be difficult to keep in touch. The good news for my readers is my crazy-smart colleague Andrew Schnitzel — who is currently serving the Third Circuit as a judicial intern — expressed the desire to guest blog here, so expect some great substantive posts in the near future.

Well, it’s almost 9, so I should probably get to researching.

If you do a google search for BIGLAW, you’ll find quite a few blogs condemning BIGLAW attorneys and the “BIGLAW lifestyle.” I would assume that these posts usually come from jealous people, except that my research adviser was a successful Jones Day attorney and loves to warn against joining BIGLAW.

Okay, so you have a giant international firm with a seemingly infinite amount of resources. Does it necessarily follow that your employees are arrogant and the firm wants to suck all the joy out of your life? Not necessarily, it seems.

I consider myself to have pretty good gut instincts. I think that it stems from a childhood growing up around shady neighborhoods and people. One of the easiest things for me to detect is when someone is being fake. That said, I arrived at my interview for the Reed Smith Fellowship really early. I got to witness some attorneys talking, people interacting with the secretaries, and just general firm life. It was nothing like I had expected. Interactions weren’t forced; there was no fake cordiality — these people genuinely like each other. Everyone was really relaxed, and I witnessed the random people walking down the stairs while reading cases at a rate of 25 stairs an hour or so. I always thought deep down that firms in general participate in pro bono for egoistic purposes (for bragging rights, mostly), but it was obvious that, at least my interviewers, are genuinely interested in the helping out where they can.

I should probably admit that I selected my law school based primarily on the students. I turned down full scholarships at two schools because I didn’t like the confrontational and hyper-formal atmosphere. At the same time, I’m a hard worker, and I need to be around other intelligent, hard workers to be happy. Penn State was a great match for me, and luckily, they offered me the scholarship that I needed. If you think that’s stupid, that’s fine. If you’d prefer to pick where to spend the next three years based on a number assigned by some magazine, more power to you.

I’d prefer to select a firm based on similar criteria, but alas, with the fleet of law students fighting for jobs, that’s probably not going to happen. Imagine my elation then, when I ended up sitting in one of the firms that would have survived my imaginary “firm cut.”

After the interview (which I think went pretty well except for the, “So, what happened in property?” question), I decided to take Kim out for some real sushi. I got her hooked on sushi here in State College, where even the best sushi place is arguably terrible. She’s never had anything better, so I thought it would be a nice treat. We found Zento on Yelp, and had an absolutely amazing sushi meal. Hopefully we’ll have reason to go back.

The relaxing period of the summer has officially ended.

In the next few weeks, this is my schedule:

• 40 hrs/week researching
• Interview for a fellowship in Philly on Friday
• Loyola Patent Job Fair in Chicago (10 interviews, maybe more)
• Write an amicus brief for a case that was just granted allocatur by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Move in with the girlfriend

I don’t foresee much fun in my future.

In other news, I see that a bunch of 0L’s have been finding my blog lately. Let me be the first to tell you that it’s not as bad as they say. Sure, you’ll read more than you’ve ever read in your life. You’ll be stuck in a classroom where, even though you’re used to being one of the smartest people in your classes, most of your classmates are just as smart as you. You’ll intellectually and verbally spar with your professors in front of the rest of your section, and your section mates will judge you. You’ll probably be sleep-deprived at certain points. Come to think of it, it is as bad as they say.

My best advice is to stick through it with a positive attitude, and try to reserve a little time each day to go to the gym, read for pleasure, play a game, or do something fun. You will be rewarded.

I’m working a bit late to get some additional material for my research adviser (read: boss) and while researching Terms of Service Agreements, I came across the case Van$ Money Pie Inc., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 1998). For some reason, I’m just not used to seeing symbols in case names. At first I thought it was a Lexis formatting error, but then I realized that it was just a character in the company name.

That got me thinking. If I ever start my own company, I should name it something to really screw with Lexis/Westlaw searches. Maybe something like:

L! L! L! Love or of atleast57(His!) /3 Pancakes

What do you think? Flows off the tongue, right? Amusingly, the proper search for that name would be “love and pancakes.” Could life be any more right than that?

I enjoy seeing how people stumble upon this blog. One of my favorite ways someone found it was by searching, “how to sell baking soda as cocaine.”

Last week, someone found their way here by searching for “case law brief-templates.” After thinking, “Awww, a 0L prepping for classes,” I thought that I should devote a post to my method of briefing. For starters, don’t think that just because we call it a “brief” that it’s some kind of new beast. I think maybe we call it a brief to feel important. It’s a bad idea though, because 0L’s think that there’s one way of briefing that they have to figure out in order to succeed. I’m certainly guilty of over-briefing for at least a while during my first semester. To be honest, we could probably call it “prepping for class” and be more accurate.

That said, my briefing technique is a modified version of the one suggested by Law School Confidential (which is a good book that you should probably read). It’s called a book brief. Now, not everybody book briefs. Some people like to have their own thoughts down so they write all this out. The problem with that is that it takes time; I learned that the hard way. When you’re reading 12 cases a night, and you will once they break you in, if you have any hope of eating or going to the gym, or doing anything except prepping for classes, you’re probably going to have to book brief.

What is book briefing? Well, you’ll be doing all your writing and marking in your book. I use a combined note-taking and highlighting system. Don’t think that you have to use the same method, though. One of the highest ranked people in my class uses a yellow marker and a pen for her briefs. Anyway, here’s how I organize the colors:

These are the colors found in most 5-packs of highlighters. I also write in the margins as I read. I’ll bracket some lines of text and make a note about it. I especially mark anything that I think the professor might ask — don’t worry if you don’t have a feel for this yet, as each professor is different. My civ pro professor *always* asked specifically which courts were involved, while my torts professor could have cared less, but always wanted to have a discussion about the squibs. I think at least 1/4 my comments were annoyed notes like, “Dumbest argument ever.”

There are some drawbacks to this technique. The trick is to not highlight everything. Clearly almost all of the words within a case fall into one of these categories. You’ll learn what’s relevant after some trial and error. The real benefit of this technique comes when you’ve (1) memorized the color scheme; and (2) learned to highlight intelligently. So when your professor says, “Mr. Auriemma, in [previous case name] the court found that this type of case doesn’t warrant specific performance. What’s your argument?” Now you scan your book for blue highlights, and if you’re doing a good job briefing, you’ve highlighted the squib name, the facts, and made a note in the margin about what differentiates it from the present case.

When I finish the case, I go back to the beginning and draw a little picture about the case to jog my memory. When you’re reading so many cases (especially if your class lags behind and you’re reading way ahead) you can forget what the cases are about. A picture will help to remind you when you’re under pressure.

So that’s how I brief. Not everyone briefs this way, and it may not work for you. You’ll figure out what works for you, though. Try not to worry about finding the perfect way to brief. I don’t know that it’s possible to find the perfect method before the first 100 briefs.

For those of you lucky enough to be finished with 1L, how has your briefing technique changed since you began law school?

So I updated my iPhone from firmware 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 last night and found that Mail was constantly crashing, and Mail and my bookmarks wouldn’t sync to my iTunes. After some messing around, it became apparent that this is just a permissions problem arising from the upgrade.

Here’s how to fix it (assuming you’re Jailbroken):

 ssh root@192.168.1.X (or your IP address — note: default password is “alpine”)
cd /var/mobile/Library (note: I *think* that this may be /var/root/Library on iPhones prior to 1.1.3)
chmod 0777 ./*

Simple as that. Enjoy your new firmware.

I enjoyed physics research a lot: it involved a minimal amount of endlessly crawling through books. Legal research on the other hand, is a lot of “see, that guy said what I want to say, so by our combined power, my argument is strong.” I find that this procedure makes it somewhat difficult to “think outside the box.” 

Sure, this approach makes complete sense for most legal applications. It’s essentially a technique of verifying stare decisis. Does it really make sense for research, though? I find that it’s particularly annoying as a Research Assistant because my adviser is always saying, “Find me something that says X.” For the most part, we’re not looking for statistics; we’re just looking for a similar statement so we can mark it down and make a footnote. 

Sometimes we look for statistics, but it’s definitely the minority of the time. I get the impression that most legal scholars don’t collect their own data. I suppose that’s the difference. Scientists, in my experience, generate their own data at least as much as they rely on other peoples’ data. The application was always more fun, at least for me, than combing the tomography books looking for algorithms. 

I think what it comes down to is that I learned this summer that I’m really looking forward to working for a firm and being involved in real cases. In that case, this sort of research is almost analogous to experimentation in support of a hypothesis.

While it is great to see a published paper and maybe having it influence policy, I’m looking forward to the prospect of having my research have an immediate impact on clients.