Beer Powered Bicycle

REPORT 3

I need to come up with a catchy name for posts related to BC Law school, or maybe even start a new blog with its own cool name. But for now, y'all get "Report 1", "Report 2", &c.

Today I got called on in Property. For those of you keeping track, my property professor is going through everyone in some kind of random order. When he calls on you, he sticks with you for the day. But so far, from what I have seen, after he calls on you, you're off the hook for the rest of the semester. This presents a problem. I have little incentive to read anymore.

My Civ Pro teacher has the same pattern as my property teacher: call on people at random, stick with that student for the class, and don't call on them again for the rest of the semester. Each of these two teachers actually mark your name off of a list or seating chart while they are calling on you. The civ pro guy hasn't called on my yet, so I still have to be ready each day, in that class. BUT, he's a real softy. He (Brodin) asks the easiest questions, and if you don't get it right, he works with you patiently, in a non-embarassing way, until he gets out to the classroom the point that he wants to work with.

Property (Findley, a visiting professor from Loyola in L.A.) was my most inimidating class. He cold calls on kids, and sticks with you, and if you're not on point, he will show you up.

So last night was bar review. I went down to The Pour House on Boylston and got some free drink tickets courtesy of the LSA. I drank a ton of beer and hung out with a bunch of 2Ls and even some mythical 3Ls (3Ls are the ceolocanth of BCLS campus life) and rode the T home at almost midnight. I woke up at 8 and didn't shave and barely showered and drank room-temperature coffee from the carafe on the maker, and went to class.

Before I go on with my story, here is a warning to prospective law students. If you don't have assigned seating on your first day of class, you may sit where you want (obviously). But, a number of law professors will then--on the first, second, or third day of class--pass around a seating chart and make you write your name on your own seat, and there you are stuck for the semester. On my first and second day to property, I was late. I actually sat up front, because I am old, and I can't see or hear from the back row. So on day two of property, I was sitting in the front row, in the center, when Findley assigned us to our "chosen" seats.

Mind you, I am not a front row-center sitter, but now I must sit there for all of property.

So this morning, I am sitting there, nursing a hangover, and wishing that I had six aspirin (that is my normal dose for anything that causes pain) and staring at this fucking nalgene water bottle that I had managed to bring to class empty. I made niceties with Emily Jackson to my left, Rebecca Ingleson to my right, and my friend Karl behind me.

I'm shuffling papers, as is everyone else, when Findley comes in and opens his folder and says, "Zack..." This got my attention.

"Give the class, in two sentences, what happened in Adrian v. Rabinowitz that made a legal case."

I got out of the gate strong on this one (but don't worry, I definitely floundered soon!) and said, nice and loud, "So this guy Adrian rented a property so that he could run a shoe store, and he signed a lease saying that he could have it starting June 15th."

Findley is holding one finger up in the air, and he makes a gesture with his other hand as if he is counting things, and he says to the class, "I said two sentences. Give me one more."

I said, "But there's this other tenant who doesn't get out until July 7th."

In retrospect, I see just how fucking crappy my answer was. Findley was pretty nice. He said to the class, "This is what we call a 'holdover tenant'."

Findley turned back to me, "Why did this case go to court? What did plaintiff say was wrong?"

And here I shined, "Oh, I, uh... sort-of, uh... like, uh..." I did this crap for minutes. Finally I stammered out, "He wanted to run a shoe store out of there, to sell shoes, and because an old tenant was in there, he couldn't, and he lost profit?" (Notice that like all scared and lost law students, I ended my statment on a question mark. Because I was under-prepared, and unsure of myself, and cowed by the moment, and un-shaven. Not the kind of guy you want to represent you when your shit goes on the line.)

Findley was quick, "Adrian sued only for his 'lost profits'?" and his gestures indicated that these last profits were some amorphous thing that no mind could respect.

I managed, "No, he wanted two things. He didn't want to pay rent for 6/15 to 7/7, and he wanted damages for his lost profits."

If you are a newly admitted student to BCLS, see if you can find at least six things wrong with what I just said.

Without getting into the legal nuances, Findley asked me for the distinction between the English and the American common law understanding of covenants with leases, and why the court chose what they did in this case, and then he asked me, "Is there any support for a court's decision that Adrian doesn't have to evict the holdover tenant?"

And in my moment of glory in all of lawschool, I said, wrongly, "uh, no?"

Findley said, "But the landlord instigated eviction proceedings!" He said this incredulously, at my answer, and he is right. If you'd like to focus on this detail, I got my ass handed to me. But I would like to focus on some other details.

First, I am likely "off the hook" in my property class for the rest of my life. Of course, I have learned from my nascent relationship with Micah Stolowitz (et al.) that anyone might read your blog, and what you say there might feed back into your ongoing relationship with that party. But at this point, if Findley says, "Zack, I read on your blog that you were 'off the hook' for getting called on in this class, so let's talk about Commonwealth v. Hirschfield," I can probably get enough laughs from the class to help me live through it, whatever happens.

Second, Adrian's claimed damages were based on the fact that he was selling shoes that are seasonal, and when Findley was trying to explain this to the class, I made everyone laugh by saying "flip-flops." Findley stuck with it, too. He thought it was a fine example, and said, "sure, no one is buying flip-flops in Natik today." (The New England sky has abused us with wet, cold, fall rain all day today, slapping it's wet rainy tongue against the window pain every incessant moment during class this morning.)

Third, I did get the basic facts of the case right. I misstated a detail about evidence of the landlord's intent. But I correctly recited the difference between the English common law implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and the American common law standards.

And finally, I got called on in property today. which means I now only have to read Civ Pro. I am officially done reading cases in my first year of law school. I'm done reading! Woo-hoo. From here on out, I will book-brief Civ Pro, in the classroom, starting five minutes before class. I will write more about this later. I will write about two things: why, for me, book briefing is the only way to marshal the facts of the case so that you are ready when you get called on, and why reading longer than immediately before class is a waste of time.