'Tis the Season to be Graded

Exam season is upon us yet again, which means that it is time to post advice on how to perform well on final exams, beyond just understanding the subject. I did a post a last semester that is worth reading; it is located here. It links to some other posts as well, on subjects like how law profs write exams and how to improve your grades in law school. Please check it out.

And for those who are obsessed with grades (which you shouldn't be--but more on that some other time), check out a post earlier this year about Justice Harry Blackmun's bad grades in law school.

What's to Like about Law School?

A number of my recent posts have focused on law school classroom dynamics. (See Getting Called on in Class; Reading for Class; What are Your Thoughts About Law School?; and Computers in Class).) Much of my focus, and indeed the focus of comments posted by readers, inevitably has been critical, and sometimes outright negative. This is not uncommon: when people talk about law school, they almost invariably turn to complaints and criticisms. Perhaps that is just the nature of the beast. After all, legal education focuses heavily on critical thinking, so why shouldn't those skills be turned on the institution itself?

But of course, not everything about law school is a problem, or drudgery, or pain. Or is it? In the spirit of the recent Thanksgiving holiday, and in the interest of balance, I would be interested in hearing what you might actually like or appreciate about law school.

Tony Merchant

You have got to read this article from Macleans Magazine September 4, 2006. I read it this morning over breakfast and almost lost the oatmeal in my mouth!

I had read some stuff on the internet about the Residential Schools class action lawsuit settlement, but I had no idea about the guy behind it all. I don't know whether to love or hate this man and the firm that he has built. I'm pretty sure that I lean towards the former. The man seems to be quite disgusting! I plan to rant about him in a few days, once the article has simmered in my mind a bit. In the meantime, please post your comments on this site, as I would love to hear some logical explanations for his lifestyle, his approach to the law, and his approach to Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

I look forward to your comments.

Litigation vs. Solicitation

When I first started law school (and maybe even before), I pictured myself doing a lot more corporate and commercial work. I didn't really see myself as a litigator. Over time, I have started to change my mind. I am starting to accept that in order to actually get something done - to actually affect the world around me, I am going to have to litigate. I am going to have to struggle through the rules of court and the rules of evidence and to muddle my way through trial preparation, writs of enforcement and demands for particulars. I am going to have to fight for access to justice for those who hire me on their behalf.

Actually, I feel really good today because of my successes. I feel really good that I was able to teach myself new things, and to help a client in need. That's what it is all really about.

Getting Called on in Class

This is being my blog, I of course think that everything I post about is interesting. (Modesty, where art thou?) Yet some subjects invariably generate more traction with readers.

My last post was one of those. If you have not read my post entitled "Reading for Class," please do, and please read the comments. It started out as an observation by me about how some students respond when called on, and from there--well, a lot of people had a lot to say. Which is absolutely great. Thanks to all who have commented.

Some of the comments addressed the pros and cons of how professors call on people in class. Different professors of course do it different ways. There is no one right way, but I suppose there are a number of wrong ways. So does anyone have any thoughts? Some points I'd like to see comments on are as follows (feel free to add others as you see fit):

• Is it better to know that you are going to be called on in a particular class, or is a random method preferable?
• Do you like the Socratic Method? Or, for that matter, do you really understand what it is? And if so, do you buy into learning from each other's comments and student-professor discussions in class? Why or why not?
• What method of class participation or in-class commentary is your favorite? (Or perhaps more accurately stated, which method do you least dislike?)
• Should class participation count toward your final grade?
• Does it matter if everyone is called on in class?
• Once you are called on, should you be off the hook for the rest of the semester?
• What do you think of "group projects" or "group presentations" in class?

I am looking for a general sense of what law students across the country might think about the subject of class participation, especially now that the nation's 1L students have nearly a full semester under their belts. This is helpful--helps me keep my finger on the pulse, and all that. Teaching a law school class is not a popularity contest, so the point is not that law profs always should do whatever students like. But profs who do not have a sense of where their students are coming from risk losing touch with their students. And when that happens, it's really sad, both for the students and the profs. Both lose in the bargain.

So please let me know what you think. And thanks for reading.

www.canadianlawschool.ca

If you hadn't heard, some flake stole www.canadalawstudent.ca from me. Don't even try visiting that site - it's useless drivel now. After some ranting, and raving...c'est law vie.

I present to you www.canadianlawschool.ca.

I will be posting new stuff there over the next couple of weeks, including CANS and outlines for law school and some law school surveys. I will also be filling it up with every Canadian law school resource I can get my hands on.

Law Movies: 12 Angry Men

STARRING: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber

DIRECTOR: Sidney Lumet

STUDIO: United Artists

RATING: NR

GENRE: Drama / Crime

RELEASE DATE: April 13, 1957

You might wonder why I have been posting law movie commentary lately. Well, I have been exploring these various movies for a reason. I am wondering why I became a lawyer. I'll tell you a bit of a secret. Some days, being a lawyer is really, really boring. It's mundane work sometimes. Sometimes it's hard to get up in the morning, because I know that I am going to have to relegate my time towards filling in template contracts, template real estate documents, template wills. There's not a whole lot of thought that goes into this work sometimes. Every once in a while, I will become surprised by a genuine challenge - a legal twist that requires real thought. A problem that requires a unique solution. But, more often, it's little different than an assembly line job.

Sounds terrible, but it's better to fact the truth than to lie to myself. Here's the conundrum. I have spent 10 years in university, and 1 1/2 years training myself for this particular career - that of a lawyer. So, I'm not willing to give up on this choice just yet. In the past, when I have faced a wall (think long-distance running), I often have taken stock of the reasons I am doing what I am doing. In watching movies, amongst other exercises, I am looking deeper within myself to find the real reasons that I wanted, or want to become a lawyer. And, once that answer is found, I want to answer the question as to how to become a really good lawyer.

Some will argue that law movies are overtly fictitious accounts of life and the law. But, I counter that with the position that movies appeal to us so much because they reflect real life in more ways than we choose to accept or realize.

Colleagues have posited that lawyers don't act like Tom Cruise or Andy Griffeth or John Travolta. Courtroom antics on LA Law do not reflect real-life, every-day, nitty gritty, legislative and rule-based litigation or criminal matters. This might be true. But, there is something that we see on the big screen, something that continues to drive the massive market of law movies (and law novels, for that matter). We all seek after justice, we all want to see the underdog win. We all want fairness. And, some of us like to see the darker side of life. We like to conduct a forensic analysis of a situation, and feel like we can come out on top, to solve the issue, to see through the mist and bring light to the situation.

By probing these thoughts and questions, after watching a legal themed movie, it helps me to understand a little bit better what attracted me to law. It helps me to look at my own practice, and to tweak things a little bit. Realize that I am not looking to DVD's for legal theory or courtroom etiquette. I am looking at character, at ethics and morals, at treatment of real human beings, and at difficult situations that pose really deep questions.

Many legal stories are not written by real lawyers. Although John Grisham was a lawyer, he does not currently practice. Whether formally educated in the law or not, legal authors choose to look beyond the procedural aspects of the law to the drama involved. There is a reason for the incredible volume of legally-themed fiction in America. We are all fascinated by this subject matter. Many of us seem to secretly long to fulfill the role of the attorney, or for some of us, the judge.

I loved legal-themed movies, and TV (I don't watch TV anymore) before law school. I still love them. They inspire me, and they help me to look within myself to explore my identity as a servant of the people.

I watched 12 Angry Men again on Saturday. Great movie. A must-see if you are at all interested in justice. It is an interesting film, made in 1957. It stars 12 actors who, except for a brief moment at the beginning of the film, and for a brief moment at the conclusion, never leave the jury room. An entire movie filmed in one room seemed impossible to me, until I saw this movie. There is little action, other than men getting up and moving around the room. Once in a while, they will go to the attached washroom. You watch this movie more with your auditory senses than with your eyes (although the acting and facial expressions are quite good, especially for this period).

The film stars Henry Fonda (think On Golden Pond). He plays the devil's advocate. He causes the other 11 jurors to question the seemingly clear-cut conclusion as to a death-penalty murder case. He teaches the other jurors about the concept of reasonable doubt, and about the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Although somewhat melodramatic compared to modern dramas, the issues and dilemmas are genuine. The characterizations are quite superb.

It is a black and white film, and all of the extras that we see in movies today are stripped away. The only props are a few exhibits from the murder case, and some hats, jackets and handkerchiefs. Otherwise, it's just you and the jury. I found this interesting because with a real jury case, it's just the lawyer, the judge and the jury. You can use evidence, although on a limited basis. Otherwise, it's up to you as the lawyer to paint the picture of what happened at the time of the crime, or the incident. You have to act. You have to create drama. You have to pull at the heartstrings of everyday people. You have to make them question their preconceptions about many things. You have to suspend belief, and sometimes cause a paradigm shift. You have to act as psychologist, analyst, social commentator, and more, all while staying within the confines of evidential rules. It is no doubt, a grand challenge.

I love teaching people about the law. I love meeting with a client, face to face, and changing their mind about their response to a situation or to someone else. I love looking at the person's challenge and helping them to see many possible outcomes, and helping them to choose the path that will lead to the most satisfaction. I love help the person to predict what the other side will do or say, what a judge will do or say, and to help them to avoid potential pitfalls or mistakes.

There are many things that I do love about the practice of law. There are many things that I want to do with the knowledge that I have absorbed and gathered over the years. I hope that you too can find inspiration in the movies, in novels and in the world around you, to help you to reach your potential as an attorney, as a servant of the people.