The Law School Blog

2007-07-07T16:56:00.000-07:00

CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM OUTLINES

[link]

2006-05-12T14:44:00.000-07:00

Law Journal Bluebooking

There are three main differences between the Bluebooking you did for Legal Writing and the Bluebooking you’re expected to do for a law journal article:

formatting: Whereas for legal writing, you were forced to use one of the more annoying fonts in existence, for a law journal article, you get to use such cool things as italics and small caps. Also, your citations are in footnotes or endnotes, rather than in the text.
sources: for Legal Writing, you've only cited to cases and, possibly, statutes. For your article, you'll be citing to secondary sources as well, such as law journals and news sources.
short forms: how to cite something again after you’ve already cited it. And the last big thing is that you’ll be citing to sources other than cases.

Citing Cases

Full Citation: The first time you cite a case, you cite the case in full without italics (please note the irony):

¹Crazy Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 353 (1963).

Short Form: After you’ve cited a case initially, the next time you cite to it, you will use its short form. Use only one party name and put it in italics and insert a cite to the specific page number ("at .") You do not put the year or the initial page number.

⁴Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 342.

Use of Id. is only appropriate when the source you are citing to is contained in the previous endnote:

⁸Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 342.
⁹ Id. at 343.

TIP: Insert citations as you're writing the article, but ONLY use the short form. You won’t really know what your initial cite will be after all the editing is done -- you may end up inserting an earlier cite to the case . Once you're done, all you have to do is just change the first time you cite the case to full cite and change short forms to Ids. where appropriate. With long articles, this will save alot of time.

Citing to Law Journals

Full Citation: The first time you cite to a journal, you include the following information with the following formatting:

Author’s Name, Title of the Article, Abbreviated Name of Journal , (Year).

Note: Look to T.14 in the Blubook, starting on page 317, for how to abbreviate the names of the different journals.

Short Form: Where id. is not appropriate, you use supra. The supra lets you refer to the footnote where you initially cited the journal article—see Rule 4.2 in the Bluebook (pg. 42):

Last Name, supra note , at .

Here’s an example:

¹¹ Jody Armour, Race Ipsa Loquitor, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 781, 783 (1994). [initial cite]

¹² Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 343.

¹³ Armour, supra note 11, at 784. [short form]

¹⁴ Id. at 787-88.

TIP: As with cases, if you’re citing as you’re writing, cite to journals in the supra form. Write an “X” after “note” (e.g., Armour, supra note X, at 784) because until you’re done editing you won’t know where the initial cite will be. Once you’re done:

go to the first footnote where you cited the article and provide the full citation.
replace all the Xs with the footnote number where you just gave the full citation (it's all about Ctrl + H in Word)

Citing Other Sources

Look to the following places in the bluebook to see how to cite other sources:

The Front Cover: this gives you a “quick reference” to how any source should be formatted for a journal and it also gives you the Bluebook rule that’s associated with that type of source.

The Index: If there’s a type of source you can’t find, look in the index (e.g., Amicus Brief). It took me awhile before I realized the Bluebook actually has an index. However, I was very good at pretending like I knew it had an index all along.

Rules for Different Sources:

Legislative Materials: Rule 13 (pg. 91)
Books & Nonperiodic Materials: Rule 15 (pg. 107).
Newspapers: Rule 16.5 (pg. 120).
Internet Sources: Rule 18.2 (pg. 132).

Short Form: normally, you would use supra with these sources as you would with journals. If there’s an institutional author (i.e., not a person), you use the name of the institution. If there’s no author, you would use the title of the work where you would normally put the author’s last name.

However, occasionally, you’ll come across a source that has a really long title or institutional author name. You can then use hereinafter to designate how you will refer to the source if you ever cite to it again (pg. 43 in BB). Your short form would then be a regular supra, but instead of the actual name or title, you would use the phrase you designated. For example:

¹⁵ Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, Sourcebook on Corporation Image and Corporate Advocacy Advertising, 1149, 1157 (1978) [hereinafter FTC Memorandum].

¹⁶ See Armour, supra note 8, at 790.

¹⁷ See FTC Memorandum, supra note 11, at 1155.

Note: if you only cite to the source once throughout the , there is no need to use hereinafter.

Using Signals

Remember that the point of a law journal article is not to regurgitate what other people think (though obviously, a portion of your paper will summarize the state of the law to some extent), but rather to put together your own argument about an issue which is supported by what other people think. In turn, most of the sentences that you write are propositions and they need to be backed up by sources. You would use signals to indicate how a source supports a particular proposition (BB 1.2 on pg. 22):

[no signal]: The only time you should not have a signal is if you’re quoting directly from a source or if you basically just paraphrased what the source explicitly says.

See: use see whenever the source supports what you say but doesn’t necessarily state it directly.

See, e.g.,: use this to indicate that the source you cited to is just one of many which would support your proposition.

See generally: use this when the source would provide background info about your proposition.

You can also use signals indicating contradiction if appropriate (e.g. But, Contra).

2006-04-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

Lessons from Monday Night Mooting
by Colin MacMillan ('07)

After mooting a few of you tonight, I have a few additional thoughts for you and it seems like you weren’t given much direction on the flow of the proceedings.

THE FLOW

Stating Your Appearance
If the Judges ask you to state your appearance, simply stand up where you are (no need to go to the podium) and say something like:

“Good evening your honors, my name is Jesse Fu, counsel for the Petitioner Marie Dosman.”

“Good evening your honors, my name is Reggie Bush, counsel for the Respondent Maneely Enterprises.”

The Arguments
After this the Petitioner should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges and begin by saying:

o “Good evening your honors, Jesse Fu for the Petitioner Marie Dosman.”

o “At this time I would like to reserve one minute for rebuttal” [Wait for your request to be granted by the judges, and then begin your argument.]

o “This evening I will argue that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer…” [or whatever]

After the Petitioner has left the podium, the Respondent should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges, then begin your argument by stating:

o “Good evening your honors, Reggie Bush for the Respondent, Maneely Enterprises. The issue in this case is …”

Ending Your Argument
When you see the zero card held up, and before you run back to your seat, you need to gracefully end your argument. Think of it as a conversation with the judges. Most people don’t just end a conversation by walking away, and there are a few things you should say so that you at least look like you know what you are doing. Here’s my advice for what to do when your time expires when:

You are speaking – Finish your thought, don’t just stop speaking mid sentence or even mid thought. You may need to abbreviate your point, and limit yourself to a sentence or two, but make sure that it is a coherent statement. Then go into the Short Conclusion below.

If you are answering a question – Finish answering the judge’s question and say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired…[see Short Conclusion below]."

If a judge is asking a question – When the judge has finished asking the question, say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired, I will answer your question and briefly conclude.” Don’t bother asking permission, because it creates an awkward situation because they will always grant your request. Feel free to answer the question fully, and even turn it in to an argument point if it’s a logical transition, but don’t get too far away from the original question.

If there is silence – Say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired, [see Short Conclusion below]."

SHORT CONCLUSION: You should have a one to two sentence conclusion memorized that should be used after you acknowledge that your time has expired. It should go something like this for the Petitioner, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired. The Petitioner urges this court to overrule the action of the trial court and find that Ms. Dosman was closely related to Mr. Cosack either under a theory of exceptional circumstances, or in the alternative by logically finding that step children are close family relatives. Thank you, Your Honors.”

Rebuttal
When the Respondent is done arguing, the Petitioner should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges. Some people like to start their rebuttal with something like, “By way of rebuttal, the Petitioner would like to …” I personally don’t like that language. You are obviously the Petitioner and you are obviously on rebuttal. Since it is only a minute long, I liked to just start by saying “Your Honors…[and then jumping right into my attack of the other side, clarifying a point or two (max), or summarizing my theory of the case]. I would memorize or adlib the rebuttal and always end by making direct eye contact with the judges and saying, “Thank you, your Honors.”

On rare occasions, you may get asked a question on rebuttal. Just go with it and if there is time try to get back to your original point. If not see the section above on Ending your Argument.

ADVICE

Formality
Adding a degree of formality to your language, tone and mannerisms will go a long way in conveying a sense of confidence and presence in the court room. The graders seemed interested in this.

Cases

Since you are graded this year, be sure to distinguish or analogize between the facts of the main cases (Moon, Thing, Rodriguez, Eldon etc). Your Fellow and most likely Prof will want to see some command of those cases and the ability to base some of your legal arguments on them.

Petitioners – Talk about the trajectory of the case law, and don’t be afraid to make strong public policy arguments that favor your side. Also, pepper your arguments with favorable facts from the case.

Respondents – The existing case law is in your favor. Don’t be afraid to use it and argue that based on same your client was entitled to the Demurrer as a matter of law.

Hand Motions

Just grab the podium with both hands and don’t let go until you are done…this will solve that problem.

Rebuttal

We were asked if the Petitioner is required to do one. The official answer is no, but the graders seem to be looking for it, so do it.

Responding to Questions

Every time you answer a question, begin by saying, “Your Honor…” It may sound redundant to you, but it will go along way with the judges.

Ending Early

We were asked if there was ever a time that you should end early. Again the official answer is that it is up to you, and again the graders would mostly likely wonder why you couldn’t find more to talk about, so keep talking.

Silence

We heard a lot of silence tonight. If the judges stop answering questions, you should immediately have something in mind to talk about. That’s were the development of the Roadmap can be helpful part of your preparation. Or, better yet, develop a few talking points, as outlined in my original post, in order to keep the conversation flowing and give yourself the chance to speak intelligently on something you’ve prepared.

Don’t worry about this too much, since there will be a whopping total of 5 judges at your rounds next week. In all likelihood you probably didn’t spend that much time preparing for the practice round, and you will know how to do this much better by next week.

Keep Arguing

Stay composed and keep talking about the case. Even if the judges are going after you or have you cornered, don’t worry about it, argue back or move on. Remember it’s not all about the merits of the case, and you will be given significant style points for transitioning gracefully out of a tight spot.

Try to get mooted once or twice before next week and you’ll start to feel more comfortable with the process and your arguments.

Roadmap: A few people have asked about the infamous Roadmap. Click here for a sample. See my original post for my thoughts on its use.

Good luck!

2006-04-01T01:28:00.000-08:00

THE ART OF MOOT
by Colin MacMillan ('07)

As usual, Mr. Bleweiss did an excellent job describing the 1L Moot Court ("MC") rounds, so I will mainly give you my perspective as a participant. Keep in mind that I have no idea how you are being graded for your writing class and these are just my thoughts at succeeding in MC. I think the only change that has been made since he wrote the original blog entry is that in your qualifying rounds (the second time you argue) there will be five judges (3 from MC, 1 Writing Fellow, and your writing Prof.).

RANKING THE HONORS PROGRAMS

By now you have probably caught on to the fact that the ranking process for the honors programs is much like the mysterious black box of the 1L curve. You will never find out how you were scored for MC or the write on. There is some strategy as to how you rank the programs, since you will be invited to participate in the program that you ranked the highest and that you qualify for, assuming it is not already full. Keep in mind that if your preferences change (i.e. during the write on), you do have a short period of time to email Kyle Jones with an updated list.

THE PRESTIGE FACTOR: Since conventional wisdom says that Law Review is the most prestigious program, the question for many 1Ls is whether MC is more prestigious than the other two journals. My take is that it is probably a wash, but you might get more mileage out of MC if you make at least one cut.

I personally ranked MC first, but I did the write on as insurance. I thought MC would be more interesting and practical. Blue booking and cite checking did not sound appealing to me, but props to everyone who just finished their notes.

MOOT COURT ADVICE

MC is what it is…a game. It is not decided on the merits of the case, but rather the subjective criteria of the judges – whoever they happen to be. My advice is to view it as a game, and play along.

STYLE: If the instructions you are given are anything like the ones we received, you will quickly be turned into a Moot Court robot – try to avoid that. You will be most effective playing the game with your own style. To get to USC you must have been doing something right, so just keep that up.

I found that a very informal/conversational style worked best for me. I viewed oral arguments as a time to chat with the judges about the case and fill them in on my perspective.

THEORY: I found it helpful to develop a theory/theme for the case I was arguing in order to set the tone for the judges. If you can, try to tell a story through your opening and subsequent arguments, such that at the end of your round the Judges will be able to summarize your position back to you in a sentence or two.

THE GAME: The game is to try to tell your story of the case while thoughtfully but strategically answering the judges’ questions. Keep in mind that questions from MC judges (especially in the 1L rounds) are probably not the result of thoughtful preparation, but rather an attempt to trip you up, a question just for the sake of asking a question, or possibly a means of clarifying a point that is unclear in the case.

Cases - You know this case better than most of us judging you for MC. I will be judging some of you in less than five days and I have yet to receive any information on the case. How much prep do you think your 2L judges will be doing over the weekend? That said, you will have 2 judges in the qualifying round (your writing Prof. and Fellow) who will know the cases better than you, so it will be a bit different from the practice round and you will need to have a solid command of the leading cases.

TO SUCCEED AT THE GAME:

Confidence – Even if you don’t know what you’re talking about, pretend that you do, or quickly get to something you do know about. The ability to project confidence will go a long way even if you don’t feel like you have (or can recall) the most ingenious arguments.

Composure – Don’t let yourself get flustered. Try to keep a consistent composure throughout. Most MC cases will have compelling arguments on both sides. Play along with the judges’ questions. Don’t be afraid to concede small points in order to deflect tough questions, but don’t give away the store.

Strength of Argument – This is listed last because I think it can often take a subordinated role in MC evaluation. Since the cases are written with equality of arguments in mind, scores often come down to the delivery and not the content. That said, creative arguments can often score you easy points and save you from some tough questions. But be careful that your arguments are not too complicated or attenuated such that the judges get confused and take you off topic. Try to keep them fact specific – just using the facts in creative new ways.

THE ROADMAP: You will hear from most people that you should make a MC roadmap, and I think you should as well, but mostly for the process of organizing and articulating your thoughts. Chances are that you won’t use it much, if at all, during oral arguments, but constantly revising my roadmap was my main preparation for oral arguments.

Use Notes & Annotations – I would caution you against writing out the roadmap word for word, and rather just list your key points and key phrases to trigger your memory so that you engage in a conversation with the judges and not a lecture

Introduction – Some people say to memorize it. Some say you don’t need to. I memorized a couple of quick sentences in order to make a good first impression on the judges, but you don’t have to.

TALKING POINTS: I found it helpful to develop 3 – 4 interesting thoughts about the case that the judges probably won’t pick up on. At times these were only tangentially related, but they were designed to direct attention away from a particularly difficult line of questioning from the Judges or to make me appear articulate and knowledgeable about the case while running out the clock on stuff I felt comfortable talking about.

REBUTTAL: This will be different every time. Don’t be afraid to point out weaknesses or contradictions in your opponent’s argument. If the judges cornered the other side into making concessions that are quite favorable to your position, don’t hesitate to highlight them in your rebuttal.

I never had a scripted rebuttal – I just made notes while the other side was arguing and tried to pick up on the direction that the judges were headed or any opportunities presented by my opponents’ arguments. If you are at a loss for what to say, put yourself in the shoes of the judges – after the case is argued, they would have to go back and make an actual decision. With this in mind, unless it directly related to a concession made by my opponent, I found the most success in keeping my rebuttals broad since at that point the judges would be in the mindset of summing up the case.

NEXT YEAR...

If you are selected for MC, you will have a busy fall, but you do get 3 units out of it. You are basically on your own to research and write an appellate brief (it’s back!), which for us was conveniently due during OCI. You do have a MC Board member as your editor, but like your writing profs, they don’t want to give any particular person an advantage. Our record was very well written and contained most of the information we needed for the brief, so there wasn’t too much outside research necessary. The brief will also count as your upper division writing requirement.

ARGUMENTS: There are two practice rounds. The first round is “On Brief,” where you argue the side of the case that you wrote your brief on. The second round is “Off Brief,” where you argue the other side. There are two preliminary rounds that are structured the same way, which take place a week or two after the practice rounds. All 40 participants are required to argue in the practice and preliminary rounds. The judges are usually local attorneys and alums, so the questions are usually predictable and very factually based.

SECOND SEMESTER: After the two preliminary rounds, the field is cut to 16 participants for the Quarterfinal Round, 8 for the Semifinal Round, and 4 for the Final Round. The oral arguments (as opposed to the briefs) increase in weight for advancement purposes. I think the arguments are weighted 67% to get to the quarterfinal round, 75% to get to the semifinal round, 90% to get to the final round. The MC champion is selected solely based on oral arguments in the final round.

IN SUM

Try to get mooted a couple of times – the MC Board or participants are always willing to help, just let us know. 10 minutes will fly by, and you’ll only get to half of what you’ve prepared. Stay calm and focus on the strengths of your case. Remember it’s all moot!

Colin MacMillan was a Finalist in the Hale Moot Court Honors Competition this year. Feel free to contact Colin with any questions at cmacmillan@sbcglobal.net

2006-03-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

SBA PRESIDENT

Candidate: Terry Steen ('07)

PRESIDENTIAL GOALS:

--Open the lines of communication between SBA and the Student Body

You deserve to know how YOUR money is being spent
Keep you apprised of SBA activities through regular meetings and postings while providing a forum for you to share your ideas
Provide opportunities for you to voice your concerns and actively pursue desired outcomes

--Proactively address issues with administration that affect current and future USC Law students

--Develop programming for the school as a whole

Coordinate a variety of on- and off-campus social events
Encourage more interaction between alumni and students so we can take better advantage of the famed Trojan network

--Continue efforts with GPSS

Advocating for more of our student fees being returned to the law school

LEADERSHIP ROLES:

--GPSS Senator

Finance Committee – I’ve helped secure GPSS funding for every law school org that requested it
Judiciary Committee – pushed to have ALL grad students pay fees so we can get more of OUR $ back at the law school

--MESALA Co-Social Chair

Organized several events open to all and raised funds so they would be free

--APALSA Mentor & Section C 2L Representative

OTHER INVOLVEMENT:
I have consistently been involved even when I haven’t had a title. I believe in fostering a sense of community at USC Law and toward that end, I have 1) always tried to support all of the student organizations by attending their events (often volunteering) and participating in their fundraisers, 2) shared outlines and prior exam answers with my classmates as they are made available to me, and shared my own outlines whenever asked, 3) addressed concerns with the administration, which has ranged from schedule conflicts (mentor lunch scheduled when ½ the 1L class was in Con Law) to sanitation issues (more janitorial services during finals studying).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Candidate: Yem Mai ('07)

First off, I would like to thank everyone for allowing me to serve the last two years on the SBA. It has been a pleasure.

For those of you who are interested in my qualifications (otherwise skip this §):

2005-2006 SBA Vice-President

2005-2006 APALSA President

2005-2006 GPSS Senator

2004-2005 SBA 1L Representative (A-D)

I have also been President of Sigma Pi and an Order of Omega President.

WHY I WANT TO RUN:
I serve the student body because I am dedicated to it. During my 1st year, I organized a sweatshirt fundraiser that raised enough money for the 1Ls to have the 1L End-of-the-Pear party at the swanky Pearl and doubled the funds available to the 2L Class of 2007 for its End-of-the-Year Party. Also for this party, Pearl required a $3500 bar tab guarantee. The school refused to do this, so I personally guaranteed it because I wanted the 1L year to end with a bang. Imagine what I will do as SBA President.

MORE THINGS I HAVE DONE:
Organized the Students’ Activities Fair -- Organized the Pre-PILF Auction Mixer -- Organized Community Week with the different student organizations and came up with the Dunk Tank idea -- Assisted in securing funding for KLAP from GPSS -- Obtained funding for the 3L Class Dinner from GPSS -- Assisted in obtaining funding for JLSA’s Conference from GPSS -- Organized the SBA Softball Tournament -- Organized the APALSA Bone Marrow Donor Drive -- Organized the APALSA/BLSA/LA RAZA/MESALA/PAD Homecoming Tailgate -- Organized the APALSA/BLSA/LA RAZA Back to School Beach Party

WHAT I WILL DO:

Bar Reviews from the South Bay to Silverlake – not just the Westside & West Hollywood
A Kegger @ the Law School Every Other Week
More Transparency from the SBA

Know Where Your Money is Going

Giving Back More Money to the Student Organizations

Cheaper Law Prom Tickets
More Inter-Student Organization Events

I am currently working with JLSA, Christian Legal Society, and J. Reuben Clark Law Society to put together a Community Day community service event.

Law School is my life. You’ll find me at bar reviews, law prom, and all the big student organization events like the PILF Auction.

Lastly, I’m a friendly guy and accessible (I check my e-mail constantly) -- easy to say hi to and easy to get in touch with. Please feel free to contact me at ymai@usc.edu if you have any further questions.

2006-03-25T19:15:00.000-08:00

SBA VICE PRESIDENT

Candidate: Bobby Roshan ('08)

WHY?

The S.B.A. Vice President needs to be on the Graduate and Professional Schools Senate (GPSS). As GPSS Senator, I am already familiar with the ins and outs of the GPSS, and will make for a very effective go-between the law school and the GPSS at large. How?

JUST A FEW IDEAS:

I will create greater alumni networking opportunities, such as an alumni mixer and more alumni mentoring lunches. It’s time we took greater advantage of the Trojan family.

I will do everything in my power to bring better food and drinks to our cafeteria. Anyone who’s been in the business school cafeteria knows what the law school cafeteria needs to be like.

I will organize more brownbag lunches with professors. Shouldn’t we be able to get to know all our professors, not just the ones from our first semester of our first year?

I will organize more intra-school and inter-graduate school sporting competitions. Nothing like a healthy body to compliment our healthy minds.

----------------------------------------------

Candidate: Marc Berman ('08)

ADVOCATE

As a 1L Rep I worked with the administration to get benches in the downstairs bathrooms to make changing easier for OCI and other interviews.
I procured $2,200 for APALSA and the KLAP trip at a recent GPSS meeting.
I introduced the idea of professors emailing students the first homework assignments of the semester so we don’t have to come to school over our summer and winter breaks just to write them down.

INNOVATIVE

I am currently working with the administration and the PILF groups of UCLA and USC to create an annual USC vs. UCLA law school basketball game to raise thousands of dollars for the PILF organizations of both schools.

ACCESSIBLE

Have a question about a social event or student group? Not sure when that meeting is? There’s a good chance I don’t know either, but I promise to find out and get back to you quickly. I will be accessible via either e-mail or phone.

FRIENDLY

Having a rough week? Want me to make an ass of myself in class…again? If that’s what it will take to put a smile on your face, consider it done. We’re all in this mess together, and I promise to take seriously my responsibility to make life as easy for you as possible so that you can focus on school…and having fun.

2006-03-25T00:52:00.000-08:00

ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVE

Candidate: Elizabeth Kimmelman ('07)

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Kimmelman and I am running to be your SBA Admissions Committee Representative. I would like to be your admissions committee rep for three reasons. First, I feel that USC Law is the best place to go to law school and want to make sure that the next class of students contributes to our warm and friendly environment. Second, I have enthusiasm for and experience in the admissions process. Third, I would be a great member of the SBA.

Coming to law school from Philadelphia and not having any family or friends in Los Angeles, the law school really became my home away from home. One of the main reasons that I decided to come to USC is that when I visited I was struck by how friendly and happy the students were. I really think that the student body is what makes USC such a special place and I hope to help admit students who will contribute to our fun (for law school) and comfortable environment. I also hope to work towards convincing these students to attend USC once admitted.

Furthermore, I have a lot of experience in the admissions process, both as an undergrad at Penn and at USC. At Penn, I gave tours for three years, was a tour guide coordinator, and spent a summer working in the Admissions office where I led information sessions and talked on the phone to nervous applicants and their parents. At USC I gave tours last year and will do it again this year and attended lunches with admitted students. I really love the admissions process and feel that I would be very happy working in admissions one day.

Finally, I am an enthusiastic, dedicated, reliable and organized person and I think I would be a great addition to the SBA. I have already worked with the SBA this year in my position as JLSA President and PAD VP of Academics and have a good idea of how the organization operates. I know that along with my own duties I will support other members of the SBA with their projects.

Please vote for me as your SBA Admissions Committee Representative! I would be honored to serve the student body in this position!

---------------------------------------------

Candidate: Aanand Mehtani ('07)
2Ls- check your mail boxes before you vote.

1Ls- vote for me even though I didnt bribe you.

I didnt really want to win because I payed more than my opponent for candy, so what I did for the 2Ls is write them a personal note. I dont know many of you, so all I could have said to you in my personal note is read what I have to say.

Here is what I have to say - -

A couple people have told me that If I expect to have a fighting chance in this election, I have to show that I can be serious. I am not really sure what that means. Should I copy and paste my resume?

I am a second year juris doctor candidate at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Currently, I am about two hundred thousand dollars in debt, and I a pray everyday that after I graduate I can reconcile paying off that debt, so I can support my family, and at the same time do something which doesnt give me nightmares. I can be serious. We can all be serious. If you cant be serious, get the hell out of this law school and forget about this profession. Make room for someone who deserves to be here.

Some people that apply to law school next year will break the upper 160s on their LSATs and have 3.7s or above. Those people are going to get in unless they write something completely inappropriate in their personal statements. Others will have really low scores, and will have to have cured cancer or something close to it to have a chance. There is nothing I can do about either of these situations, and there is nothing I want to do about them.

What I want to do -- what I want you to vote for me to do is to read the applications of the people in the middle again and again and again until I can remember every theme, every emotion, every plea, every contention, every indication of intellectual curiousity, compassion, and promise. I want you to vote for me because after I do that, I want to take these thoughts I have gathered about these people and share them with others on the admissions committee who are generations older than us. I want them to hear what our generation has to say about these applicatants.

But this is all general bullshit in a sense, so what else would I look for?

Well-

1. Diversity
What does this mean? Does diversity mean that we have different shades of skin? Different ways that our bodies pee, experience erotic pleasure, and contribute to procreation? Different sexual orientations? Maybe different national origins? Hell, maybe different international origins? We're raised to believe in The Bible, or the Koran, or maybe the Bhagavad Gita, or maybe all of the above, or none of the above?
Yes. It means all of these things.
But thats not all it means.
Diversity entails celebrated difference.
I celebrate difference in opinion, difference in ideology, difference in aspirations, difference in experiences, difference in lifestyle.
All these differences are what make this country, this state, this city, and this school what it is.

2. Intellectual Curiousity.
If an applicant can demonstrate that he or she has a real interest in learning the law, be it a practical or purely academic interest, that applicant gets in over someone with similar scores who cannot demonstrate this.

3. Passion
A friend of mine has a quote on her profile - more or less it goes something like this--

"The Ancient Greeks didnt write obituaries. When a man died, they asked only one question- did this man have passion?!?"

I will be looking for passion in personal statements. I want the statements to reach out, grab me by the chest, and suck me into the stories they represent through the passion inherent in those stories. Perhaps much of this passion will have roots in youthful idealogy, but I firmly believe that it is that youthful idealogy that separates us from the rocks and the trees.

Please consider giving me your support for admissions chair. Much love and respect to anyone who is running against me, but I dont give a flying blank about my resume in an SBA context, I dont care about the popularity contest. I want to do this because USC has changed my life, and I feel like whoever does this has to take it very seriously, and do his or her job very passionately. I am ready to do that.

Aanand

2006-03-25T00:47:00.000-08:00

3L VICE PRESIDENT

Candidate: Reed Glyer ('07)

I would like to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy for the position of 3L Vice-President. I believe I am qualified for this position and would like your support because:

I have had several leadership responsibilities in the past
I know the 3L class well enough to represent your interests both as a class and as unique individuals
I have good relations with everybody running for leadership positions, so I will be able to work smoothly and efficiently with the other officers and the administration
I will have a lot of free time next year to help the president plan graduation and social events

I would like to thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to a riveting campaign with catchy slogans and intense debate on the issues.

2006-03-24T10:46:00.000-08:00

ACADEMIC CHAIR

Candidate: Marc F. Bauer ('07)

"I Make it Happen."

2006-03-23T23:33:00.000-08:00

FACULTY SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE

--------------------------------------

Candidate: Regan Forester ('08)

Hi everybody! Just wanted to let you know I feel I am uniquely qualified to represent our law school as the faculty selection representative because of my background and my goals. I spent my last 2 years in an involved leadership position -one which put me in charge of 125 women and a quarter-million dollar budget. As executive vice president of a sorority, I was responsible for the hiring and firing of not only appointed positions within the house, but also of the eight salaried members of the house staff. My skills as an interviewer were critical in picking the best candidate for each spot, and I honed those skills by carefully refining the criteria for each individual position. I plan to do the same for law faculty candidates by looking at open positions, then refining questions for each candidate (while still concentrating on their commitment to us and the university). I want to hear your concerns and comments so I can pass them along to the candidates, letting you know their responses to your questions. As for my goals, I want to practice labor law. I plan to spend a lot of my time and energy developing skills in the business of hirings and firings - this interest and commitment can only serve to make me more effective as faculty rep.

I know many of the election choices you make will be difficult, but I hope one of your choices will be for me!

Best,
Regan Forester

--------------------------------------

Candidate: An-Yen Hu (‘07)

I would like to represent you on the Faculty Selection Committee. Having a student on the Committee is vitally important to insure that student interests are considered when hiring their professors. A representative should be in touch with and receptive of the sentiments of the student body. I can accomplish these goals because for the first two years at law school, I have not only developed and maintained relationships with students through class, but I have extended my student interactions through my involvement with PILF (Vice-President and 1L Representative), APALSA, and the 2L Mentor Program. The relationships I have cultivated with fellow students and student organizations will allow me to better represent their preferences in the Faculty Selection Committee.

However, more importantly, the Faculty Selection Committee Representative cannot be afraid to speak up to other professors and administrators on the committee to fight for the concerns of the students. This can be a very daunting challenge for any student, however, working as the PILF Vice-President this year, I have had ample practice at interacting with professors and administrators. I have learned the delicate balance between being firm yet respectful to administrators and professors in order to get my point across while maintaining a friendly relationship.

If I am elected as the Faculty Selection Committee Representative, I will look for professors that will fit in well in the USC community. I will advocate for professors who not only excel in their research, but who are engaging teachers that students will want to go to class and listen to. I will have no problem going to the weekly 8:00 am faculty selection meetings as evidenced by my attendance at 8:00 classes three days a week this semester.

I have been involved with the law school during my time here, and would very much like to continue to do so in my third year as your SBA Faculty Committee Representative. I know I will be able to represent your interests effectively in the very important process of finding qualified professors to join our community.

Thank you for your support.

2006-03-23T22:47:00.000-08:00

With the upcoming USC Law SBA Executive Board elections, the Law School Blog has invited the candidates to put up statements about their candidacy.

SBA TREASURER

Candidate: Larisa Mortazavi ('07)

POSITIONS I HAVE HELD & ACTIVITIES I HAVE BEEN A PART OF:

SBA Communications Chair
My position included acting as the liaison between the student organizations and the student body through weekly (often more frequent) emails. I also helped plan and run various SBA events, including the Student Activities Fair, Community Week, and Bagels during Finals for the 1L’s. I’ve also participated in weekly meetings and budgeting meetings.

MESALA President
I helped plan and run the Outlining Workshop for 1L’s, the Finals Preparation Panel for 1L’s, the Bar Review pre-party, finals dinner in the library, and hookah night. I have also assisted in providing our 1L’s with outlines and advice/guidance throughout the year.

WLA Speaker Co-chair
I helped plan the speaker panels, and been a WLA Mentor to a number of our 1L members.

2L Advisor
Along with the other advisors, I’ve just had fun getting to know Section C and hanging out with them.

WHAT I THINK SBA NEEDS TO DO:

There should be more communication between SBA and the students. There could be more accountability for what SBA members are doing, and this could be done through more frequent general meetings and more disclosure. Students should know how their money is being spent.

As SBA Treasurer, I would take everything I learned from a year of working with (and running) student organizations, and apply it to properly allocating funds to student organizations and advising SBA on the best way to spend our funds.

Having served on SBA, I have seen what the current treasurer does, and I’m well prepared to take over.

2006-03-07T21:44:00.000-08:00

OUTLINES

I'm starting to build up an online outline database -- if you need some outlines, click on the link above or click here.

Also, if you have any outlines that you made or updated last semester for ANY class, please e-mail them to me at bleiweis@usc.edu so I can keep the database up-to-date.

2006-03-03T14:50:00.000-08:00

So You Want To Be A JD/MBA?
by Marc F. Bauer ('07)
[marcbaue@usc.edu]

THINGS TO CONSIDER

The following is a list of reasons that motivate some people to pursue the program. In my opinion, some reasons are better than others:

Somewhere down the line, you want to get into business.
There is a glass ceiling in business that people without an MBA will not rise above. If you want to be a C-level (CEO, CFO, etc.) in the future, you will need an MBA.

You know you want an MBA but you want to take as little time as possible to get it.
As a JD/MBA, you will only need to get 45 units of business instead of the 63 full-time MBA students. It will be only one additional year instead of two.

You get a 3^rd Summer.
Being a summer associate at a law firm is awesome. If you play your cards right, you can do it 3 times. This also gives you the opportunity to try a non law internship for one of the summers. However, this does mean you'll have to do four years of school instead of three. So, if you're eager to graduate and get out into the working world, being a 4L may not be the best way to do that.

You hate the law and never want to practice in your life
Business School offers a wide variety of opportunities in finance, business, retail, real estate, etc. that you would not be able to qualify for with only a JD. There are many opportunities for lawyers in the business world and business school is a great way to discover them.

You want “a year off” from Law School
Business School is no doubt easier than Law School, but by no means is it a year off. It's not like you spend your entire day yebbing it up; rather, I would even contend that it is busier than Law School. There are group projects all the time. There are midterms and tests that occur about once every 3 weeks. For example, this semester I had a string of 5 weeks where I had a test in each week. They require much less preparation for than law school exams, but they still require time and attention. All these little things definitely add up

You just want to learn business
In my opinion, it’s really easy to learn business, and it may be more effective to learn it “on the job.” There is no need to pay an extra $30K plus and take an extra year in school, just to learn business. However,

It will help you get a better law job
The majority of the big firms do not care about whether you have an MBA to go with your JD. This is especially true if you want to do litigation, where the MBA adds very little value. If you are interested in transactional work, it may add value to the firm because you have a deeper understanding of business transactions. Also, you bring along your own network of potential clients consisting of your Business School classmates. If you’re looking to work for a small firm, the JD/MBA may add more value to them. There is a lot of value in being the “business know how” person at a small firm.

GETTING IN

In order to get in to Business School, you need to apply separately to Marshall and meet all its requirements. But, there is a huge advantage to being a Law Student and applying for the JD/MBA program. While I had work experience before entering Law School, there are others in the JD/MBA program that did not, and they still got in even though work experience is highly encouraged for applicants to the MBA program.

GMAT: You need to take it if you want to get into the Business School. The median score for the Class of 2007 is 680. I don’t know what percentile that is, but if you test well enough to get into the Law School, then you probably will test well enough to get into the Business School.

Information about applying to Marshall can be found at HERE.

ADVICE

It is probably best to seek advice from those of us who are currently in the JD/MBA program. Also, professors can be a great resource in sharing their thoughs about the JD/MBA program. Professor Chasalow’s advice really helped me decide whether or not the program would be right for me.

If you have any questions or want to learn more, please feel free to contact Marc at marcbaue@usc.edu . Also, please encourage Marc to run for SBA Treasurer next year, making him the only person in existence to (a) hold the office for three consecutive years and (b) hold the office as a 4L.

2006-02-24T23:19:00.000-08:00

Hatin On Dead-Hand Control

This is the first of a three-part series on Future Interests. This part deals with the application of the Rule Against Perpetuities, a real law school treat.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a hater. It seeks to ensure that the dead cannot control their property in perpetuity. It does so by imposing a time limit (the "perpetuities period") on any conditions placed in a will or grant which creates a future interest. So, for example, if A has a future interest, that interest must vest or it must terminate within this time limit.

The difficult parts of applying the Rule are (1) figuring out the time period and (2) figuring out whether the condition expires within this time period.

THE RULE:

No future interest is valid unless it can be shown that it will necessarily vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

KEEP IN MIND...

"No future interest...": The Rule only applies to future interests. Moreover, it only applies to future interests which are contingent upon some condition.

"...is valid...": if a conveyance violates the Rule, that particular conveyance is void. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole grant is void -- only the part that violates the law is invalid.

"...necessarily vests, if at all...": this just means that the interest has to vest or terminate within the perpetuities period. Essentially, the condition, which determines whether the future interest vests, needs to have a time limit – i.e., a point in time where exactly one of the following is true: (1) the condition is met and the interest vests* or (2) the condition is not met and the interest is terminated. And this point in time has to come before the perpetuities period ends.

If the condition X is “to B, if B graduates law school before 27” and B is 17, we know that in 10 years, we will certainly know whether or not the condition has been met.

If the condition X is “to B, if Starbucks stops selling coffee” -- we don’t really know if this condition will ever be met.

*A future interest vests when it becomes "present possessory," this means that future interest holder takes actual possession of the estate. This occurs when the condition imposed by the conveyance is met.

"...later than 21 years yadda yadda.": this part establishes the perpetuities period. The interest has to vest or terminate within 21 years of the deaths of all the so-called lives in being.

THE [Very Broad] ANALYSIS:

For every conveyance in a grant, in order,** figure out the following:

what type of future interest has been conveyed?
does the Rule Against Perpetuities (“RAP”) applies and, if so, has it been violated?

** A single grant may have multiple conveyances. For example, take the grant "O to A for life, then to B if she has children, and if not then to C." You would assess the following conveyances in the order that the property would pass (left to right): (1) the direct conveyance to A, (2) B's future interest and then (3) C's future interest.

THE [slightly less broad] ANALYSIS:

A. Figure Out the Type of Future Interest

KEY: Is the future interest reserved in the grantor or conveyed to a grantee?

If the future interest is reserved in the grantor…

Step 1: Is the entire estate conveyed?

if NO -- the grantor has a reversion. RAP does not apply.

If YES, Step 2: is fee simple determinable conveyed?

if YES -- grantor has a possibility of reverter. RAP does not apply.

If NO, Step 3: Is fee simple subject to condition subsequent conveyed?

if YES -- grantor has a right of entry. RAP does not apply.

If the future interest is conveyed to a grantee…

Step 1: Does the future interest cut short the preceding estate?

YES -- executory interest. RAP applies.

If No, Step 2: Is grantee identified?

NO -- contingent remainder. RAP applies.

If Yes, Step 3: Is grant conditional on something?

YES -- contingent remainder. RAP applies.

If No, Step 4: Is the class of recipients clearly defined?

YES -- vested remainder. RAP does not apply
NO -- vested remainder subject to open. RAP applies.

B. Applying The Rule Against Perpetuities

Step 1: Determine “Lives in Being”

The "lives in being" are all people who satisfy the following two conditions:

associated with the grant, i.e., those who stand to benefit from the grant
alive at the time of the grant

Step 2: Determine The End of the Perpetuities Period

The perpetuities period is the time within which the interest must vest or terminate. If the interest does not vest or terminate within this period, the Rule is violated.
To determine the end of the perpetuities period:

First, pretend that all the lives in being are dead.
Then, add 21 years to when the last one died

This point is the end of the perpetuities period: the grant has to vest before this point.

Step 3: Is the Interest Certain to Vest?

Analysis: does a scenario exist (regardless of how improbable) where the interest vests at any point after the end of the perpetuities period (determined in Step 2)?

if YES -- the Rule is violated and the conveyance is invalid.
if NO -- the Rule is not violated and the grant cannot be invalidated on RAP grounds.

Step 4: Figure Out the Valid Grant

If all the conveyances are RAP-friendly, the entire grant is valid.
Any conveyances that violate the RAP, are invalid.

THE [in-depth] ANALYSIS:

Step 1: Determining Lives in Being

This part is actually fairly easy—the so called lives in being are all the people who are:

associated with the grant; and
alive at the time of the grant

The people associated with the grant includes EVERY person in the entire grant, not just in a specific conveyance.

Example: O --> A for life, then B for life, and then to C and his heirs.

Assuming that they are all alive at the time of the grant: O, A, B, and C are the lives in being.

Example: O --> A for life, the to the children of B (B has 2 kids)

Assuming that they are all alive at the time of the grant: O, A, B and B’s two living children are the lives in being. If B has more children, they are not lives in being, but they still stand to gain from the conveyance. This called an open class – a class of grantees that has not been completely defined.

Being alive at the time of the grant is fairly straight forward, but there is a slight twist to this calculation. There is a difference in determining the lives in being when the conveyance is by grant versus by will.

Grant: lives in being are those alive at the time of the grant.
Will: lives in being are those alive at the testator’s death.

This is because a conveyance occurs when a grant is made. But, if a testator puts a conveyance in her will, it won’t occur until the testator dies. The rule requires that the lives in being be alive “at the creation of the interest.”

Step 2: Determining the End of the Perpetuities Period

This step is fairly simple, but depends heavily on step 1 being accurate. So make sure you’ve found all the lives in being. Once you do, add 21 years to the death of the last life in being.

Step 3: Is the Interest Certain To Vest?

It might appear that this step doesn’t really guarantee accuracy in applying the Rule. You might think “Just because I couldn’t come up with a scenario, doesn’t mean that one couldn’t exist. Maybe I just couldn’t think up of one.” Well, I would say, “That is true, young 1L, but that is why you have to do this in a methodical manner, thereby ensuring accuracy.” In other words, this whole “coming up with a scenario” step should be done in a systematic way.

You usually don't have to worry about the lives in being violating the rule. Instead, you should figure out all the people who stand to gain from the conveyance (i.e., are associated with the grant), but weren't alive at the time the grant was made. Once you determine all the people associated with the grant, you check if the condition can expire for each of them beyond the perpetuities period.

Example: O --> A for life, then to B’s children. Assume that B has two children. B’s two children are lives in being. But the conveyance is made to all of B’s children, which, until B dies, is an open class (because B can keep having children until he’s dead***). So, if B has children after the grant, they are not lives in being, but they are associated with the conveyance, i.e., they stand to benefit from it.

In this case, the condition is an open class one – the recipients must be the children of B. This class closes as a matter of definition when B dies. Therefore, the condition expires upon B’s death. Since B is a life in being, his death occurs within the perpetuities period. Therefore, regardless of how many kids B has, the condition expires within the perpetuities period.

*** Given the Rules origins lie with a case adjudicated in the 1600s, the Rule does not account for the possibility of cryogenically frozen sperm used to create after-born lives in being...

Given that the rule is one of logical proof, your goal is to see if there is any possibility that the interest will vest after the perpetuities period is over. The point is to be as random as you can be and make arguments which are a complete stretch (e.g., 80 year olds having kids, 80 year olds marrying people that haven’t been born yet, and other fun things with octogenarians)

Practical Sidenote: conditions may not always be explicit – they may be implied by the grant. I would recommend making a short checklist of known conditions that you should look out for with each particular future interest. Or maybe I'll just make one and post it on here.

Here’s an example of how unlikely something can be and still violate the Rule (it’s also an example of the open class condition):

Hypothetical: The Unborn Widow

Grant: O --> A for life, then to A’s widow ("W") for life, then to A’s children who are then living.

Analysis for grant from A’s widow to A’s “children who are then living”

Step 1: Lives in being. A is the life in being. W, A’s widow, was not yet born at the time of the grant so she cannot be a life in being.

Step 2: The end of the perpetuities period is 21 years after the last life in being (A) dies.

Step 3: Is there chance the interest vests after the perpetuities period?

YES. Take the following factual timeline:

O makes the grant described above
W is born
A marries W
W has a kid.
A dies
25 years pass (note: more than 21 years)
W dies

The grant to A’s children cannot vest until A’s widow dies because she has a life estate. The condition is that the children need to be alive when A’s widow dies (“A’s children who are then living”). We can’t tell what children are going to be “then living” until we know when the widow dies. In the above case, the widow doesn’t die till after this period. Therefore, there is a chance that it won’t vest until after the period expired.

Compare with this Grant: O-->A for life, then to A’s widow for life, then to A’s children.

Here, RAP is not violated. Because we don’t have the requirement that the children be alive when the widow dies. This is essentially a gift to the class of “A’s children.” The class has vested by the time A dies, because once he dies he can no longer have children (the Rule assumes cryogenically freezing sperm is not an option).

Step 4: Figure out the Valid Grant

If you’ve determined that a particular conveyance is valid, it doesn’t necessarily void the whole grant. Instead, you just cross out the invalid conveyance until the remaining valid conveyance(s) no longer violate the rule.

Compare the following two grants:

Grant #1

O-->A and his heirs, but if the land is not farmed, then to B and his heirs.

becomes…

O-->A and his heirs, ~~but if the land is not farmed, then to B and his heirs~~.

Essentially: A gets a fee simple.

Grant #2

O-->A and his heirs as long as the land is farmed, then to B and his heirs.

becomes…

O-->A and his heirs as long as the land is farmed, ~~then to B and his heirs~~.

Essentially: A has a fee simple determinable.

2006-02-22T11:47:00.000-08:00

The Intellectual Property Clinic
by Anne DePree ('06)
[depree@usc.edu]

(1) Description of the Clinic:

The Intellectual Property Clinic has a very broad, potential client base (e.g. from starving artists to non-profit organizations to universities). The binding factor in all of our work is that the projects serve the public interest. The purpose of the IP Clinic is to engage students in the dynamics of the field of intellectual property, to allow students to strategize about how to go about best serving their clients' interests, and to assist students in developing client-related skills.

(2) How to Participate in the Clinic:

There are a few ways to participate in the IP Clinic. First, the clinic runs through the summer and accepts applicaitons each spring. In the summer of 2005, there were three participants in the clinic (two current 3Ls and one current 2L). Second, the IP Clinic runs through the school semesters. Currently, the IP Clinic operates on a per-semester basis (whereas other clinics run on a yearly commitment basis), but Professor Urban has spoken about potentially changing the IP Clinic to run on a year-long commitment basis.

(3) What You Do:

The IP Clinic is different from some of the other clinics because each project is usually different from all of the other projects that came before it. This means that the upstart on a project is highly research intensive and generally presents a high learning curve. You also begin dealing with your clients very early on in your involvement. By establishing a relationship with your client you will be able to make decisions about potential strategies for dealing with the project. In this way you will receive training and experience that you may not otherwise experience until you've been practicing for a few years.

This past summer I was able to travel to hearings held by the Copyright Office in both Washington, DC and Berkeley, CA to support my clients' interests at the proceedings. Not only did we strategize ways of making their statements as effective as possible, but we also compiled information summarizing the proceedings for the clients.

Other projects that I have worked on in the Clinic include drafting a generous patent license (to be released to the public sometime this year), filing an amicus curiae brief in the United States v. Martignon with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and strategizing clients' interests and talking points for Orphan Works hearings. All of the clinics require alot of dedication, but the rewards are well-worth the effort and the quality of work and your ability to deal with clients will undoubtedly improve ten-fold.

2006-02-21T22:43:00.000-08:00

summer job opportunity:
PUBLIC COUNSEL

If you're looking for a summer job:

Public Counsel, the nation's largest pro bono law firm, is seeking summer clerks. The position runs from May 30th, after the Write-On, to August 4th. The position is unpaid, unless you're able to get subsidized by an organization such as PILF.

Applications are due by WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006.

For more information about Public Counsel, the clerk positions and for an application, click here.

2006-02-20T23:07:00.000-08:00

The Post-Conviction Clinic
by Oscar Medellin ('06)
[omedelli@usc.edu]

Overview

The clinic provides legal services to prisoners in need of representation in post-conviction matters. What this means is the clinic only represents clients who have had a criminal trial, were convicted, and have exhausted all their available state appeals. Post-conviction legal issues can range from parole hearings to state and federal habeas petition relief. Two Supervising Attorneys oversee the clinic, Professors Carrie Hempel and Mike Brennan.

Certification

In order to represent clients, students will undergo a certification process from the California State Bar to work as Certified Student Attorneys. As part of this certification, students will participate in clinic training seminars, which include overviews in Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Trial Advocacy, and Evidence. Students may find it useful during the Fall and Spring semesters of the clinic to enroll in an Evidence or Criminal Procedure class for a better understanding of this area of the law.

Supervisor Position

The Supervisor position is a paid summer position with the clinic, which includes a two-semester commitment during the 2L year. Summer supervisors will receive relevant legal training and will be assigned a number of clients for the summer. It is very likely that you will even represent a client in a legal matter during your first summer.

The position provides a lot of opportunities for valuable legal experience in one’s early legal education. Students will meet one on one with clients, conduct interviews, and do intake for prospective clients of the clinic. Students will also have the opportunity to represent a client in a parole hearing and prepare a habeas petition in their first summer. You will also continue to hone your legal research and writing skills in preparing work for clients, and develop crucial client interaction skills as well.

Perhaps the most important thing about the supervisor position is the amount of responsibility that students are charged with. In essence, you are an actual attorney. All the obligations of the attorney-client relationship apply to you, and you will be expected to represent your clients to the best of your ability. Clients depend on you and place a great deal of trust in your representation. I can’t imagine another first-year summer job that gives you this kind of experience.

How do you get in?

Interviews begin in the spring semester. Students will undergo a first and second round of interviews. During the first round, the applicant interviews with a panel of current clinic supervisors (i.e., 2Ls). The final round of interviews is with the clinic Supervising Attorneys.

What does the clinic look for in prospective applicants? Most importantly, the clinic looks for students who are genuinely interested in the field of criminal law. The student should be able to manage a great deal of responsibility and be able to work independently when necessary. In addition, the applicant should have good writing and research skills. Good interpersonal skills are just as important since you will be dealing with clients on a frequent basis.

My advice is that if you really want to be a summer supervisor, you have to convey your interests in your interviews. You should be able to point out how your particular skills make you a good fit for the position. If you have career experiences within the field of criminal law, then you should draw on those experiences as well. If you have chosen criminal defense as a career or are contemplating it, then talk about that.

What if I can’t get into the summer program?

If you are unable to work as a summer supervisor, but are still interested in the clinic experience, you have the option of signing up for the clinic in the fall semester before your 2L year. The commitment is two semesters. Students who sign up take a seminar class in the fall alongside the clinic supervisors for course credit. In the spring, they receive a grade for their work. Students will undergo the same training as summer supervisors and represent clients as well.

Seats are limited for the fall and spring. Interested students should speak to one of the supervising attorneys prior to registration to find out how they can enroll in the clinic.

Feel free to contact Oscar at omedeilli@usc.edu or Sylvia Hwang ('07) at sylviahw@usc.edu for more information about the clinic.

2006-02-18T19:26:00.000-08:00

The USC Immigration Clinic

by Sam Yebri (3L)

[yebri@usc.edu]

(1) Description of the Clinic:

In a city shaped by immigrants, the USC Immigration Clinic offers students an unparalleled opportunity to help members of the community and gain first-hand legal experience. The Immigration Clinic provides representation to clients in a variety of different types of cases, ranging from asylum claims by people who fear persecution if returned to their homes to claims for relief from deportation filed by people held at regional INS detention centers. You also have the opportunity to represent clients seeking relief under the Violence Against Women Act, which enables male and female immigrants to file their own claims for permanent immigration status if they are being abused by a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Many of the Clinic's clients are victims of torture, including rape, or other forms of severe violence. In some of the cases the client's life or freedom is at stake.

The Clinic has also established a pilot project to provide immigration legal advice to migrant farmworkers in northern San Diego County, where some Clinic students can choose to travel to northern San Diego County once or twice a month on a Saturday or on a Wednesday evening. Client availability, DHS (USCIS, ICE, CBP) and Immigration Court logistics, and, to the extent possible, the individual student's area of interest, will determine the type and number of cases on which a student will work. Students will represent clients before the Immigration Court, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (formerly the “INS”), and possibly the federal courts. Student representation is provided pursuant to DHS and Justice Department student practice rules under the supervision of Professor Frenzen.

Client referral relationships exist between the Clinic and several other organizations including:

(2) What You Do:

The Immigration Clinic is a full year course, requiring enrollment in both Fall and Spring semesters (keep in mind that this may pose a scheduling conflict with a second semester class or externship).

The Clinic meets in a classroom setting once per week. Students also meet on a weekly basis with Professor Frenzen for case review. Attendance at class and other meetings is mandatory. Additionally, there is a mandatory four-hour Orientation Session that will occur during the first week of the Fall semester that will provide information on office procedures, the case management program, and other introductory material.

The classroom component of the Clinic provides students with an understanding of the relevant substantive law and with the skills necessary to represent a client. In addition to the weekly class, Clinic students will need to commit approximately 20 hours per week to client work, Clinic office duties, and weekly case review meetings with Professor Frenzen.

Enrollment in the Clinic is limited to eight students. Prior or concurrent enrollment in Immigration Law would be helpful, but Immigration Law is not a prerequisite. Students who are not U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents should discuss their immigration status with Professor Frenzen before enrolling in the Clinic.

The Clinic is four units per semester. The Fall Semester of the Clinic is graded on a CR/D/F basis, while the Spring Semester of the Clinic may be taken for a letter grade or on a CR/D/F basis. There is no final examination either semester. Feel free to contact Professor Frenzen if you have additional questions about the Clinic. He can be reached at nfrenzen@law.usc.edu or 213-740-8933.

Finally, the Immigration Clinic is a truly great way to make a real impact in the lives of immigrants who want to live in the United States by honing the skills you are developing in law school with the help of one of USC’s most patient and gifted professors. And like anything else in life, the Clinic is what you make of it and what you want to do with it. From arguing a case on its merits in Immigration Court to writing a Ninth Circuit appellate brief to interviewing clients, Professor Frenzen will encourage you to challenge yourself and will help you along every step of the way.

2006-02-15T13:56:00.000-08:00

HONORS PROGRAMS

The school has four honors programs which 2Ls and 3Ls can participate in:

Southern California Law Review
Interdisciplinary Law Journal ("ILJ")
Review of Law and Women's Studies ("RLAWS")
Hale Moot Court

Towards the end of the spring semester, you will be asked to rank the honors programs in the order you would like to participate in them. Based on this ranking and the respective factors considered by each Honors Program (qualifying mock trial round and your brief for Moot Court and the Write-On competition and grades for the journals), you'll be assigned to a particular honors program. You will be assigned to the highest-ranked program for which you are eligible.

Your chances: Each program is open to roughly 35-40 2Ls. So anywhere from 140 to 160 students could potentially participate in an honors program during their second-year. Given that there will be many students who will choose not to participate in any program, virtually any student will have the chance to be in one of the programs regardless of grades. Therefore, I would not let grades dissuade you from trying to join an honors program. Granted, if you don't do so well, you probably won't make Law Review, but there are three other programs that you'll have a good shot at.

MOOT COURT

It is mandatory to participate in the qualifying rounds for the Moot Court Honors Program -- it is a part of the Legal Writing course.

There are two rounds which you must participate in: The first round is a practice round which has no value in determining whether you make the program -- but you do get feedback from the judges from the following round. The second round is the qualifying round in which your performance is evaluated by the judges for admission into the program.

For each round, you need to be ready for about 15 minutes of oral argument. The majority of the round will be spent responding to judges' questions rather than reciting your pre-planned argument. The oral argument and the judges' questions will be based on the brief you have to write this semester for Legal Writing. Also, there is a closed universe of cases for the rounds -- so there's only a particular number of cases you need to know.

The judges are current members of the Moot Court and take great joy in grilling first-years during their qualifying rounds. The quality of your brief (for Legal Writing) is also considered in your evaluation.

If you are interested in doing Moot Court, here are a few tips for the qualifying rounds:

dress up for the qualifying rounds
practice: have 2Ls and 3Ls in the program right now "moot" you, i.e., put you through an actual practice round.
know the case law: the better you know the cases the more you'll be able to handle the judge's questions.
deference: address everyone as "your honor" and direct your answers to ALL the judges, not just the one who asked the question. And always answer whatever questions the judges ask, whether you think it's relevant or not.
transition smoothly: the judges will interject with questions at will and won't give you any indication that they're done questioning, you'll just find that things get really quiet. At that point, you need to transition back into your prepared argument, but, ideally, do so coherently.

Basically, what you want to do is (a) convey a commanding knowledge of the relevant case law, (b) present a convincing argument for your client (try to get across your key points when you're not being questioned and in answering the judges (i.e., have an agenda and get it across one way or another)) and (c) not get trapped by the judges (i.e., allow them to make you contradict an argument you made earlier in the round)

If you make it to the Moot Court honors program, the bulk of the work is done in the Fall. You will be given the case or the fact pattern for the year's competition. The first step is to write a brief for one of the sides.

Units: for Moot Court you get 3 units during the Fall and 0 units during the Spring.

If you would like to be put in touch with a current member of Moot Court, either for more information or to set up a practice "moot" round, you can contact me at: bleiweis@usc.edu

THE JOURNALS

The journals are usually ranked as follows in terms of prestige:

Law Review
ILJ
RLAWS

I would say that, from an employer's perspective, Law Review is most prestigious and the other two are equal.

The Write-On: There is a write-on competition to get on the journals -- unlike moot court, this competition is optional. After your last final (Thursday, May 11, 2006), the Law Review Executive Notes Editor will be waiting for all interested participants with 100-plus page packet which will (a) explain the competition, (b) explain each journal's admission criteria and (c) contain all the sources for the write-on.

Basically, you will be given a fact pattern and be asked to write a 10-page law-journalesque article, with blue-booked endnotes, in response to a particular question based on a closed universe of sources which will include cases, law review articles and popular media pieces. You will be judged on coherence and quality of your argument, your use of the available sources and your bluebooking. You have two weeks to complete the write-on (it'll usually be due on a Friday (you can either turn it in by a certain hour or have it post-marked by this day)-- I'm guessing May 26).

Note: blue-booking for the Write-On, and law journals generally, is substantially different than the blue-booking done for briefs and memos. So, a portion of the two weeks will be dedicated to learning how to bluebook for journals. Closer to the date, I will post up the key differences that you should worry about.

Once you turn in the write-on, it will be reviewed by the relevant editors of all the journals you have ranked on your preference form. In conjunction with the write-on, the editors will look at your grades. The further up you go on the "prestige" rankings, the more grades matter. So, for Law Review, grades matter alot. But it is not the case that someone with excellent grades (e.g., top 10% is guaranteed a spot on Law Review). In other words, you still need to turn in a solid write-on even if you're at the top of the class. But, at the same time, if you're in the middle of the class, it is much much harder to get on Law Review.

If you make it to a journal, during your 2L year you will be part of the general staff. You'll have the following responsibilities:

Editing Articles: for each assignment, you will be given a number of footnotes to check (Law Review staff can get up to 50 footnotes an assignment whereas the staff on other journals usually get around 5). You're responsible for

checking the blue-booking of the footnotes,
editing the content or text of the article for grammar, wording, etc.
you have to check that any proposition cited in a source actually exists in that source as it is cited (this is called cite-checking).

for example: if the author quotes a portion of an opinion, you need to look up the opinion and make sure that the quote was reproduced accurately.

Collections: in order to facilitate cite-checking, it helps to have all the sources cited by a particular article in the law journal office. For a collection, you'll be given particular sources (cases, articles, books, etc.) to bring back to the office. Sometimes the sources are already in the office, sometimes they're at the law library, sometimes somewhere else on campus and sometimes you'll have to trek out to UCLA or some other place to find the source. In short, collections are alot of fun.
Article Evaluation: to help the editors pick the best articles to publish, the staff occasionally gets to review articles submitted by authors for publication in the journal. This usually involves reading over the article and filling out an evaluation form.

Also, every staff member has to write a Note during the spring semester of their 2L year. A Note is simply a student-written law journal article. You can write about anything you want, as long as you can find a faculty advisor willing to sign off on it (and you'll get to come up with cool titles for your Note, such as Cars and Effect: Affective Forecasting in California Litigation). Your advisor will (theoretically) guide you through the research and writing process and eventually give you a grade on your note.

Units: You get 3 graded units (based on your Note) and 2 ungraded units. On a law journal you get 2 units in the Fall and 3 in the Spring.

2006-02-12T01:38:00.000-08:00

SUBSCRIBING TO THE BLOG

Per request, you can now subscribe to the Law School Blog and be notified whenever a new entry is posted.

Click here to subscribe.

2006-02-11T13:19:00.000-08:00

GUERILLA TACTICS FOR SPRING OCI

1. BE PREPARED

Make sure to have extra copies of everything. This includes:

resume
RAP sheet
writing sample
references

Most likely, your interviewers will only want your RAP sheet. They will already have your resume. Rarely, do interviewers for firms ask for a writing sample, and it's even more rare for them to ask for references. Ususally, the firm will indicate what they would like you to bring prior to the interview. However, you should always have everything on hand just in cases.

The Writing Sample: Your writing sample should definitely be a sample of your legal writing -- usually, people use a paper they wrote during their first semester of legal writing. If you choose to do so, I recommend going over the paper prior to the interview(s) and making any changes and edits indicated by your instructor.

2. KNOW THY RESUME

If there's something on your resume, you should know everything about it. You should be able to speak intelligently about anything you put on your resume. For example, if you detail a particular work experience you should know when you worked there, specifically what you did (i.e., the details of the projects you worked on), the people you worked with, your supervisors, etc. Think of it as a review sheet for a test: everything on your resume is fair game and may be asked about it more detail than appears on the resume.

The Interest Line: Ideally, you have an interest line. There's a good chance that at least half of your 20 minute interview will be spent talking about your interests. So make sure it's something you actually are interested in and can talk about. Don't put stuff on there that you think will make you look intelligent (e.g., postmodern literature), but that you know nothing about.

Sidenote: it extremely important that your resume be meticulously edited and reviewed. I have heard of a few stories about people who lose jobs because of a misspelled word or bad grammar. I even heard one story about a guy who lost an offer after a successful callback because only some of his sentences ended in a period and others did not.

3. KNOW THE INTERVIEWER

It's good to know who you'll be meeting with. Usually, this will be posted up on the web prior to your interview or you'll see their name up on the door before you go in. Look up the interviewer and learn a few things about them. Where they went to school, what type of law they practice and anything else of interest. This will not only show the interviewer that you took the time to learn, i.e. are interested in the firm, but it will also make it much easier to build rapport with the interviewer.

4. KNOW THE FIRM

Get to know the firm you're interviewing with really well. While many firms appear to be the same, each firm believes it's unique. Before going into the interview, figure out what the firm thinks is unique about itself. The following sites are a good start:

the Firm's website
Martindale
Vault
Greedy Associates

Also, understand who you are and what the firm's incentives are. A firm doesn't really want to hire someone merely for a summer -- they want to invest in someone who will stay with them in the long run. And most firms invest a lot of money in summer associates.

So, if you're a 1L, a firm may be hesitant to hire you because they will be investing massive amounts of cash in someone who may not come back the following year. For this reason, firm's are much more likely to hire a 2L than a 1L -- and, in turn, that's why fewer 1Ls get firm jobs. For example, if you did really well your first semester, a small or medium-size firm might hesitate to hire you if they suspect that you're just in it for the cash and will likely find a job with a larger firm the following summer. The same is also true with larger firms, who are equally scared of losing a summer associate to a rival. Therefore, you may need to be more enthusiastic about working for a particular firm during these Spring OCIs, especially the smaller ones.

5. BE READY WITH QUESTIONS

At the end of each interview, the interviewer will smile and ask you something to the effect of: "Sooooo, do you have any questions for me?" The quickest way to deflate the interviewer is to say: "Naw, I'm good. Thanks." Even if it's the seventh interview of your callback and you literally know everything about the firm, throw out a question.

The issue: you never know when the "end" of the interview will be. Some interviewers will ask you questions for about 18 minutes before dropping the request for questions. In that case, you'll probably only have time for 1 or 2 questions. Some interviewers even start off with this expecting to see if you can control the interview. So, I think it's good to have a few questions prepared prior to the interview -- I would recommend having 5 questions or so. The interview will probably inspire a couple of questions and then you'll have your prepared ones to fall back on.

Here are some sample questions:

What projects are you currently working on? OR What projects have you worked on? (this one is better for younger associates--so they can tell you what type of responsibilities they have earlier on)
What do you value in a working environment and how does [FIRM] accomodate those values?
What's the partnership track like at your firm?
What are the relationships like between partners and associates?
What's the deal with Oprah? She's fat, she's thin, she's fat, she's thin. I mean, come on, pick a body and go with it.

Sidenote: Partner questions vs. Associate questions -- there are certain questions which might be more appropriate for partners than associates. For example, asking about whether people at the firm hang out outside the firm is more appropriate for an associate than a partner. Asking about the vision of the firm, where the firm is headed/growing, is more appropriate for a partner.

6. HAVE AN AGENDA

If there's something you want the firm to know about you, make sure you have a chance to bring it up during the interview. Have a specific agenda as to what you want to get across prior to the interview and then follow through on that agenda at the interview. For example, if there's a particular work experience that you would like your interviewer to know about, or perhaps a project that you did, that you are not asked about, you should find a way to bring it up. You don't want it to come across as forced or pompous, but it's usually fairly easy to find a good way to transition.

But the main thing that firms look for is what's called "fit." Which is basically an answer to the question: "Would my colleagues and I like to work with this person?" Regardless of what you say or don't say about your experience, you need to prove to the interviewer that the answer to this question is yes.

Fit has nothing to do with whether you can actually do legal work -- that determination is made based on your resume and GPA. Firms usually have a certain cut-off GPA below which they do not hire people, but for the vast majority of firms this is a soft cut-off. In other words, they are willing to look deeper into the class if they think the person would fit well with the firm or has something else the firm is looking for.

Note: There are a few firms that have a hard cut-off (i.e., they won't take anyone below a certain GPA) and there are some firms which really have no cut-off (i.e., they don't rely on GPA as a proxy for being able to do lawyer work).

2006-02-09T16:13:00.000-08:00

THE 1L SUMMER

Editor's Note: this entry is mainly aimed at people who are looking to work at a firm during their 2L summer and, most likely, after graduation.

First off, I prefer not to call it a summer job hunt because it really doesn't necessarily have to be that: you don't have to look for a job, per se. I'm sure the CSO has harped on this enough, but as long as you're doing something law-related for a good part of the summer, you should be good to go for Fall OCIs. This includes externships, public interest work, volunteer work, or even studying abroad. In fact, the vast majority of first-year students will not work at a firm during their first summer. For example, the breakdown for the Class of 2007 was as follows:

Judicial Externships -- 27%
Government -- 21%
Public Interest -- 12%
Small Law Firm -- 11%
Academic Position -- 10%
Large Law Firm -- 10%
Business -- 9%

But, that doesn't really tell you all that much. I think what's important to note is that even though a slim minority of first-years do not have a firm job during their first summer, the vast majority of second-year students do get a firm job. Which obviously means that getting a firm job during your second summer does not require that you have one during your first summer.

For example, for the class of 2006, there were 116 people who worked at a firm during their 2L summer. Of these people, only 30 worked at a firm during their 1L summer. Many students externed for a judge (29), did academic research (13) or did public interest work (12). Others worked ih-house, studied abroad or found government positions. And many students combined two positions, such as externing and academic research, or did something else.

The point is this: don't put pressure on yourself to get a firm job this summer on the theory that failing to do so will affect your chances of working at a firm in 2007. If that's your reason, find a better one. This applies across the board regardless of where you want to be at after your second year -- top firm, mediocre firm, big firm, small firm. Someone who externs their first summer does not hurt their chances of working at even the biggest law firm.

Coming Soon: Guerilla Tactics -- Spring OCI Tips

2006-02-03T14:35:00.000-08:00

Questions?

If you have any questions about anything related to second semester -- classes, job searching, moot court, law review write-on, etc. (or need some outlines) -- comment on one of the posts or e-mail me at bleiweis@usc.edu

2006-02-03T14:21:00.000-08:00

PROPERTY

GENERALLY

Property is often said to be the hardest class during first-year. I think it gets this reputation primarily because the class covers a lot of crap. Usually, professors gloss over many of the concepts but expect you to know them in-depth. And this is why I didn’t find that attending class was that useful.

Cases are not important to the class because, like Torts and Contracts, they are unique to a particular jurisdiction—they’re merely illustrative, and you should focus on the black-letter law.
Exception: There are a few Supreme Court cases which matter but those are all at the very end when you study Takings.
Future Interests and the Rule Against Perpetuities. This is some fun stuff. Unfortunately, most people don’t see it as fun, but rather as horribly excruciating. It will definitely be one of the most annoying things you’ll study. Though it’s not covered too extensively on the test (usually just in the multiple choice section), it does take awhile to understand it.
Emanuel’s versus Gilbert’s. Everybody gets Gilbert’s. It’s written by Dukeminier, who actually wrote the book that Stone and Altman use, and it’s a solid purchase featuring some sweet flowcharts and good explanations. There’s also an Emanuel’s that’s keyed to the Dukeminier book which some people prefer. Personally, I’d go with Gilbert for use as a quick reference—but I think the Understanding Property book is much better than both in explaining the subject.

KEY STUDY AIDS

Understanding Property (LexisNexis)—I wouldn’t even read the casebook if I was you. Just look at this book. It’s only worth buying if you buy it early—it’s too long to buy as a last minute study aid.
There’s also a LexisNexis book called A Student’s Guide to Estates in Land and Future Interests, which explains future interests fairly well. However, it costs about $70—apparently, they haven’t been publishing them too much.
The Flashcards made by Emanuel’s are also a useful study aids—giving you a series of hypos to help solidify your understanding of each main concept. There’s also flashcards just for Future Interests, but again, I would be hesitant to invest in these because they are so focused on one aspect of a very broad subject area.

PROFESSORS

PROFESSOR STONE

PowerPoint Slides. With sound effects.

Ideally, you should set up your slides on a document prior to class and edit them as he goes through them in class.

Cases. Occasionally, he gets into cases but you’ll be able to anticipate which ones he’ll get into by the number of slides devoted to the case.

Initially, he made a big deal of cases and wanted us to brief them and write down who the parties are and what the cause of action is and get really detailed. He ended up only going this much in depth on a one or two cases. There really isn’t that much time in this class to go into all the cases he assigns.

Exam

Multiple Choice: He will subtract points for wrong answers on the multiple choice section.

I think about a third of the questions in this section had to do with future interests and the rule against perpetuities.

Spring 2004:

Short Answer: Four questions—each one gives you a concept and asks you to define it and explain it to someone not in law school.
Fact Pattern: Standard fact pattern—spot as many issues as you can.

Spring 2005:

Two Fact Patterns.

Note:

You need to balance your time between the short answer and the long fact pattern—there’s no break in-between. It will definitely be a time crunch.
He will ask about concepts rarely discussed in class (e.g., ius tertii). Bring all your study aids to the test, tab them ahead of time so you know where to look. And if you're having trouble finding something, use the index.

Socratic

He likes to call on people who sit on the sides. The class is in room 101, so I recommend sitting in the back of the rows facing the whiteboard if you don’t want to get called on. I sat in the back row in that section and got called on only once the entire semester (though not going to about half the lectures may have had something to do with it… hmmm… (but also, and actually strengthening this argument, my friend who sat next to me and actually went to class also got called on only once)) People on the sides always got called on. I was given this advice prior to taking the class so apparently it’s something that has been doing for awhile. I'm sure this advice is completely useless to you four weeks into the semester.
He’s very inconsistent with how many people he calls on each day and whether he even calls on people. But usually he won’t stay on you too long—especially, if you just play dumb and don’t say anything (that’s what my roommate did). He likes people who play along with his jokes—so if you play along, he’ll stay with you longer and probably come back to you.
No Attendance.

DEAN ALTMAN
sorry, not much of a scoop on this guy, but this is what my friend, Ahmed Sangbana (sangbana@usc.edu), has to say:

Great Teacher. Class is worth going to because he teaches the material well.
Straightforward Exams. The exam is straightforward with no surprises.
Not Socratic.
No Attendance.

PROFESSOR STOLZENBERG
by Sam Goldberg -- GenGoldy@aol.com

Know thy policy.
The test had a short answer portion that had some rather ridiculous hypotheticals that I cannot remember, but recall being rather dicey. O to A then to B and A for life if O isn't human. How can O give to A and B for longer than life and not violate RAP? Seriously, one short answer was something like that. Bottom line--knowing the black letter law was definitely helpful, but being able to be flexible with conceptual ideas would also be good. Obviously that doesn't help, but knowing this ahead of time can help you prepare.
The essays were like Constitutional Law--property style. I would say it was a writing contest except that I'm sure she looked at some of the ideas in the text as well.
Most of her class time is spent between rules and standards, and if there is one rule to her test (two years ago), it was that you should have been paying attention. Maybe even ask for an application example from time to time when being confronted with a seemingly vague policy perspective.
Since it will probably be a closed book test, a thorough understanding of the black letter law is likely not as beneficial as a well polished policy preparation. That being said, of course knowing the black letter law well would be helpful.
Maybe do a practice test and ask her to review it? Maybe find out what type of music she listens to and play it while going to class? Is Stolzenberg property were a cake: Constitutional Law would be the cake part, LLE the icing, and the sprinkles on top would be property.

2006-01-11T15:18:00.000-08:00

SECOND SEMESTER STUDY AIDS

The following is a list of suggested study aids for your second semester classes. After your experiences with study aids first semester, you probably know what works for you and what doesn't. For all these courses, there are MANY study aids available -- each course has an Emanuel's, a Gilbert's, an Examples & Explanations, briefs, Q&As, Lexis books, etc. The study aids recommended are ones which I or other students found to be particularly useful, some even essential. Also, these study aids are those which are beneficial to have throughout the semester as supplements to the course. As you get closer to finals, you should consider study aids, like Siegel's and Q&A, which strictly contain practice essays and multiple choice questions, if that's helpful to you.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

You should definitely have the Chemerinsky treatise for Con Law. You should get it early and read it throughout the semester. The treatise is great at explaining the state of a given constitutional doctrine and what the key analyses are.

I would also recommend that you have either an Emanuel's or Gilbert's for Con Law.

CRIMINAL LAW

The Legalines is hardly essential, but it is probably the most useful of the Crim Law study aids. However, make sure that it is keyed to your casebook. You may want to get a commercial outline, but since only two crimes tend to be covered, you'll hardly get your money's worth. Moreover, lecture is very important for Crim so you'll get most of the material from class.

LEGAL PROFESSION

The Emanuel's flashcards for Legal Profession are a great way to learn the material. For every topic, there are cards with hypotheticals which illustrate the application of the rules to a set of facts. They're good for learning the material and testing yourself close to finals. They come in a two-box set and cover alot more than what you'll cover in class, but they cover everything tested on the MPRE (which I recommend you take during your first-year summer). They're fairly expensive but you can easily split up the cost with 2-3 people and split up and swap the flashcards.

PROPERTY

I recommend this book for everyone. It's alot clearer than any casebook and is extremely comprehensive. If you do choose to buy this, buy this early on (i.e., now) and read it throughout the semester. They have plenty of these (for Property and other classes) at the UCLA Law bookstore. I would recommend looking into these books for any class for which they're available.