The bright side of this distressing abortion of civil liberty news, which is basically that Ninth Circuit (en banc) emasculated what was left of the Fourth Amendment’s cajones, is that Fourth Amendment issues in Criminal Procedure class may be significantly easier to analyze. You can also look forward to reading Justice Kozynski’s dissent on the matter.  Sneak preview below:

This is an extraordinary case: Our court approves, without blinking, a police sweep of a person’s home without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion and without exigency—in other words, with nothing at all to support the entry except the curiosity police always have about what they might find if they go rummaging around a suspect’s home. Once inside, the police managed to turn up a gun “in plain view”—stuck between two cushions of the living room couch—and we reward them by upholding the search.

Did I mention that this was an entry into somebody’s home, the place where the protections of the Fourth Amendment are supposedly at their zenith?…

The opinion misapplies Supreme Court precedent, conflicts with our own case law and is contrary to the great weight of authority in the other circuits. It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.

Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment after [United States v. Black] is now gone. The evisceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl.

That Ayaan Hirsi Ali would come to CWSL. Come on, Dean Aceves, book a true proponent of human rights.

One of the first urban myths legends things you hear around the water cooler, so to speak, at CWSL is that it is on the verge of merging or collaborating with the Univ. Calif. at San Diego to form a law school under the UCSD banner. Speculation is rampant as to what sort of arrangement the two schools would have, and why such a merger hasn’t already occurred.

Some think the CWSL-UCSD merger hasn’t yet occurred because CWSL’s tenured professors disfavor the idea because they’d likely take a pay cut by moving to the UC pay scale. Maybe UC Irvine recently starting a law school prompted UCSD to accelerate its plans for a law school. All doubt that CWSL would abandon it’s stellar downtown law library (thanks Dean Emeritus Dessent - truly a gentleman and scholar) and campus. Of course, no one really knows. What is certain is that every student (and alumnus) would be happy to have “University of California” on their diploma.

Lo and behold, I hear today via the grapevine (actually it was a press release) that UCSD and CWSL have . . .

“formed a joint committee made up of faculty and administrators from both institutions to consider an affiliation that may lead to the establishment of a UC San Diego School of Law. It is envisioned that the law school would be self-supporting and no state or UC San Diego campus funds would be needed to make the new law school viable.”

CWSL’s Dean, whom I like very much, had this to say:

“This could create a public law school for San Diego with no start-up costs – and without creating a
new (de novo) law school, or generating more law school graduates.”

UCSD gets to put a law school feather in its cap for $0.00 (a great bargain if you can get it).  CWSL graduates get to put UCSD, whom US News and World report recently ranked as the 7th best public university in the nation, on their resumes. I’m totally cool with that. And a merger would mean no fourth San Diego law school – trust me this town doesn’t need any more law schools. As it is, San Diego’s extraordinarily high quality of life attracts law school grads countrywide.

I noticed too that a key, ahem, issue for the joint committee to “consider” is CWSL’s “[f]aculty – integrating and respecting existing California Western faculty and planning for new hires.”  Maybe the rumor about tenured professors having a salary issue has merit. Wouldn’t it be interesting if current and future professors take a pay cut so students can benefit by having UCSD on their diploma. That’s my kind of socialism.

There is no end to the humor this clip can provide.

Good post here:

Only go to law school next year if (1) you have always dreamed of being a lawyer; or (2) you are accepted by a very prestigious institution; or (3) you are offered a full scholarship.

I liked this bit too:

Given the current legal climate, one would hope that decreasing applications would force law schools to grapple with these questions.  But markets, including those for law students, are imperfect.

See here for my opinion on the matter . . .

Volokh links to the same article. Characteristically there’s great info and discussion in the comments section).

Well, the Editors of the California Western Law Review did not select my article “Who is Hawaiian and How Much Blood Matters” for publication.
As such, I submitted it to 22 other law reviews and journals around the country. So far, no bites – but one nibble. One of UCLA’s journals invited me to resubmit for their summer publication because their spring publication is already full. Fingers crossed.
Time is a good thing, perhaps. I may re-title my paper “What Begets Federal Recognition, Who is Hawaiian, and How Much Blood Matters” and amend/reorganize my paper accordingly.
In other news, I bought a domain name in order to start a blog of some sort. (Of what sort, I don’t know yet.) Check it out: http://www.duelingbarstools.com.

Informative read here.  I especially liked this bit:

Pavel Wonsowicz, who directs the academic-support program at the University of California at Los Angeles’s School of Law, provided a lighthearted description of the frustration he felt after trying a traditional approach toward teaching a 15-page case involving a legal protection that allows the accused to face their accusers. After lecturing about the so-called confrontation clause, he engaged the students in some light Socratic dialogue.

“It’s like the hand of God had reached down and molded a chunk of clay into a swan,” he said. “What did I hope to see? Eager, even enthralled faces. What did I see? One hundred students on the Internet trying to figure out who Tiger Woods is sleeping with.”

I subscribe to an e-newsletter put out by a Canadian lawyer (Lawyerist.com).  Recently the author asked for ideas on how law schools can make better legal professionals. I went way, way out of the box.

Regarding how law schools can make better legal professionals I recommend the following.

Eliminate the de facto requirement that in order to sit for the bar exam in nearly every state one must graduate from an accredited law school. This will stimulate a tremendous amount of competition as lawyers and teachers alike scramble to provide faster, cheaper, more practical alternatives to law school. For instance, law firms might offer paid apprenticeship programs combining practical, hands on legal work (akin to a legal secretary) with a schooling component amounting to an extended Bar-Bri program.

This type of system will make better legal professionals because: (a) the primary component of their “education” is practical, hands-on legal experience; and (b) since law “students” will have no or considerably less student debt, they can (and will) forsake the legal field if it doesn’t suit them or they’re not good at it (by contrast a year’s worth of law school loans essentially makes students pot-committed to the industry even if they don’t like it or are not good at it).

In addition to making better legal professionals, this type of system increases access to the legal field (likely benefiting minorities as they do relatively worse on the LSAT and in law school generally) and, by lowering the cost of legal ‘education,’ lowers the cost of legal services.

In short, a free market in legal education.

I realize, of course, that the likelihood of changing America’s legal education system is lower than the chances of ending the war on drugs and eliminating subsidies for inefficient public entities (looking at you United States Postal Service).

While I would support such a fundamental change in the legal education system, I want to note that Calif. Western does an excellent job of providing practical, hands-on, legal education within the confines of the current legal education system.  If you so desire you can obtain nearly a half dozen separate internships, whether for credit or just experience (and potentially money), while in law school. Most of my classmates did a formal, “full-time” internship (for credit), which benefited them tremendously.  I can attest to the quality of CWSL’s ‘practicum’ classes (hands-on, practical classes in courses such as Mediation, Negotiation, Evidence advocacy, Alternative Dispute Resolution).  Note to future CWSL students: I recommend Prof. Dennis Sharp’s classes for mediation / negotiation / ADR.  Finally, when you attend CWSL you’ll have the chance to take interesting classes like Comparative Law (Prof. James Cooper – rockstar) and National Security Law (Prof. Ryan Williams – rockstar).

Happy New Year – Hau’oli Makahiki Hou. I’m looking forward to the challenges and opportunities 2010, as well as a new decade, will bring.  Best of luck, and remember that I’m happy to answer any questions you have.  Good luck on your LSAT.

You gotta read this.

MOTION TO CONTINUE

Comes now Jon B. Terry, as one of the attorneys for the Defendants and would move to
continue the current trial setting of January 4, 2010 and as grounds therefore would aver as
follows:

1. This case was set for trial several months ago before certain monumental events occurred
that were beyond the anticipation of the attorneys and the clients.

2. Since the setting of this case, one of the two great college football teams in this State has
reached levels on a national scale that have not been enjoyed by any team in this State in 17 years next preceding the date hereof.

3. Currently, one of the two great teams in this State are playing for a national championship
and has enjoyed an undefeated season and clinched the SEC Title Game.

4. Most of the attorneys representing all of the named Defendants have tickets and reservations to be in Pasadena on the 6th day of January, 2010, which date would conflict with the trial date as travel times and schedules for the game overlap the trial as currently set.

5. In fact, the Honorable Jim Lloyd has children that live in the area and is scheduled to be
with them in California to celebrate the game and the Tide s success.

6. Attempts to resolve this conflict directly with the Plaintiffs has been unfruitful as the
reply has been that they are for the other great team in this State who did not make the playoffs.
Unfortunately, that response remains short-sighted as they may one day find themselves in the
same position that the Defendant attorneys are in and, unfortunately, the BSC Title Game is no
longer scheduled on January 1st, but has been moved to January 7th.

7. In checking with your Honor s Office, it was determined that there are potential quick
dates available during March, the only known conflict being that Jim Lloyd has recently been
elected President of the Birmingham Bar and must attend a conference on March 10-12. Other
than that, the Defendants can be ready to be first out during any available week for trial during the month of February, March, or April and believe that there would be no harm, considering the
magnitude of this event and its impact on this State, and the fact such an event only comes
infrequently during a person s lifetime and is an achievement of such a magnitude that all
involved in this litigation should want everyone to fully participate in this achievement.

8. It is also understood that many of the witness involved are trying to acquire tickets to the
game and/or scheduled to be at the game in Pasadena on January 7th and certainly any juror
selected to participate will likely be preoccupied and not able to devote their full attention to the
case before them during the week of January 4, 2010, and therefore, the parties would be
prejudiced by the distraction caused by such a major event of such significant importance to so
many people in this State.

9. ROLL TIDE!! ( although my secretary is for the other great team of this State, she feels
that I need to attend this championship game!); and may the Longhorns be defeated.

Clearly this lawyer hasn’t heard about TiVo.  Maybe it sounds too much like Tebow for him, I dunno.  The fine folks at Deadspin are piling on too.

UPDATE: Motion Granted! (really).

First, I regret that I haven’t blogged as frequently this semester as in past semesters. This, my fifth, semester of law school has been uniquely busy. I’ve been writing an article that I hope the executive editors will select for publication in the Calif. Western Law Review.
Some notes on the law review selection process. Law Review invites the top ten percent of each class (after the first year) to join Law Review. Then, each semester (summer included) there is a “write-on” contest for interested students (who are in the top half of their class). While it is not ‘easy’ to write-on, indeed it is quite competitive, I was fortunate to do so. What enabled me to write-on, I believe, is that prior to entering the write-on contest I wrote two other scholarly papers (for other classes). I made a great deal of mistakes writing those papers, but learned from them. I believe that was a significant advantage in the write-on contest. If you don’t grade on after your first year, I would recommend taking several writing-intensive classes your third semester so that you can cut your teeth in academic legal writing before doing the contest. If your are considering CWSL for law school, rest assured that if you don’t “grade on” to law review you will have ample opportunity to write on, and that the write-on process is fair and administered professionally.

Each member of law review writes an article their first semester on Law Review. After several drafts, the Executive Committee selects several for a fourth draft. Then they select one or more of those articles for publication.
I started working on my article in May, right after the spring 2009 semester ended. I selected a broad, difficult, and controversial topic: “Who is Hawaiian and How Much Blood Matters.” To make a very long story (and paper) short, it’s 80 pages with over 300 footnotes and nearly 100 sources.
Writing it piqued my interest in academic/scholarly research and writing. I intend to do more scholarship out of law school and create a “niche” for myself. On the other hand, since I was essentially possessed by writing this paper, my other studies suffered this semester. There’s a couple weeks left until finals and I’m scrambling to catch up.
Writing the paper has dramatically improved my research and writing skills. Most notably I research much more efficiently and am able to translate that research into persuasive legal writing more quickly.
Those skills will translate into making me a more productive lawyer.
In sum, while getting on Law Review may seem daunting, it is certainly possible. Good luck!!