so, can i just clarify? law school is eating my lunch. someday in a couple of years i may be able to say that i am dominating law school, but that is simply not the case now.
but i love law school. law school makes coffee nervous.
i am the one who doesn't get it, can't speak on her feet, realizes that she's never been good at finishing things, remembers and is reminded that she always wait to the last minute, has a short attention span, regrets her past study habits, realizes that it takes several steps to do anything and she usually only get as far as the first two. oh dear.
but, funny, would you know it, i absolutely love my experience. i don't wish to be anywhere else. i adore law school. the law compels me. the people inspire me. the teachers amaze me. the Lord helps me.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
i wish that reading case law was like running. you know, like all that labor of reading five pages would actually amount to something and you didn't have to think about every single thing, you just had to cover ground. in running, you don't have to back-track your path to "make sure you got it"; you just keep going on to one destination. i just read a page and a half and all i thought about was the company at tonight's dinner. sigh. i'm struggling with the focus thing tonight.
but, in case you think case law is always boring, i'll tell you that i just read a case that used the words "Not!" and "party on" in the opinion. it was awesome. another recent case of note by a very put-off judge read the following: "Plaintiff's counsel, apparently laboring under the impression that I am not dealing with a full deck and that my knowledge of diversity requirements is about equal to that of a low-grade moron, chose to disregard the directional signals posted in my memorandum." he goes on to say how counsel "brazenly, discourteously, definantly, arrongantly, insultingly and...rather obtusely threw back into my face the...allegations..." well, anyway, you get the point. and he wanted to make sure that plaintiff's counsel got the point v-e-r-y c-l-e-a-r-l-y.
and they say that legal writing isn't creative.
but, in case you think case law is always boring, i'll tell you that i just read a case that used the words "Not!" and "party on" in the opinion. it was awesome. another recent case of note by a very put-off judge read the following: "Plaintiff's counsel, apparently laboring under the impression that I am not dealing with a full deck and that my knowledge of diversity requirements is about equal to that of a low-grade moron, chose to disregard the directional signals posted in my memorandum." he goes on to say how counsel "brazenly, discourteously, definantly, arrongantly, insultingly and...rather obtusely threw back into my face the...allegations..." well, anyway, you get the point. and he wanted to make sure that plaintiff's counsel got the point v-e-r-y c-l-e-a-r-l-y.
and they say that legal writing isn't creative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)