colby joins admissions team

VIRGINIA
LAW
WEEKLY
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
LIBEL 108:
MINUTE BY
MINUTE
Greg Ranzini ‘18
News Editor
The yearly Libel Show involves
the coordination of more than one
hundred people over the better
part of a semester. Presented here
are (lightly edited and annotated)
notes that Libel Technical Directory (and The Law Weekly’s own
News Editor) Gregory Ranzini
took on his phone on Friday night,
in between fighting to keep the performers audible and the speakers
un-blown.
4:25–Arrive at the auditorium
a full hour and a half ahead
of schedule because it’s Friday and to heck with walking to my apartment and back.
4:54–Finish dealing with unread emails; remember that I
have a Law Weekly article that
I’m supposed to be writing.
4:58–Discover that the UVa
wireless has thrown a rod. Register my certificate again. Wonder if this is what passes for an
April Fools joke at Law ITC.
5:31–Set about unlocking the
house doors. Wonder who left
a pair of black leather pumps
in my booth last night. (Whoever it was, the shoes remain
there until strike on Sunday, and are now in the Libel
costume collection proper.)
5:40–Hang blackout curtains at
the stage doors. Discover that
the AC in the auditorium is
so powerful that the curtains
billow out away from the auditorium unless at least one
other door is open at all times.
5:45–Dinner for the cast and
crew arrives. (Sticks Kebobs.)
Eat hurriedly, then back to work.
5:56–Depart to get ice for the
beer service. Between the kegs in
the front and the keg for the cast
and crew on the loading dock,
the Libel show requires about
ninety pounds of ice each night.
6:18–Finish unloading the ice,
learning in the process that it
is possible to cut yourself accidentally with an ice cube.
6:28–Announcements.
Apparently
Thursday
night
was the first time in recent
memory
that
no
professors left early. It’s a start?
6:40–Fix a problem with the
synth from Friday night. The
band says they couldn’t hear
it.
Solution: more synth.
6:54–Nothing much to do while
makeup is taken care of backstage. Parts of Jefferson Clerkship are jamming with the riff
from The Immigrant Song. Audience is starting to arrive outside.
7:23–Pre-show music. I forget to
unmute several channels. Wild
gesticulation from the band
solves that particular problem.
7:30–Flute abruptly goes silent
for unclear reasons. Pre-show
video makes it a moot point.
►LIBEL page 2
Inside:
Oral Argument Tips
Lunch with Professor Hynes
Cartoon By Carly
Confirmation Question
The Newspaper of the University of Virginia School of Law Since 1948
COLBY JOINS
ADMISSIONS TEAM
Volume 68, Number 22
around north
grounds
Thumbs down to the
Panama Papers leak.
ANG is worried that
this will affect ANG’s
summer offer from Mossack Fonseca.
Thumbs up to UNC
for making the Final
Four and proving that
they’re not the safety
school in North Carolina. Sorry to
Grayson Allen for being unable to
make the trip to Houston. At least
you still look like Ted Cruz.
Thumbs up to Libel,
except ANG thought
it could have been an
hour shorter. But a real
thumbs up to the thick skin of the
Mahoneys. Even ANG isn’t that
brutal for 3.5 hours.
Thumbs down to the
flu season. Spring fever
is taking on a whole
new meaning.
Dana Wallace, ‘16
Editor Emeritus
Mr. Chris Colby ’04 is an alumnus of the Law School and the
new Director of Admissions, and
moved to work with Admissions
from the Law School Foundation
(LSF). Mr. Colby also happens to
be a past Executive Editor of The
Law Weekly, proving that writing
for the paper guarantees success
in your professional life.
We at The Law Weekly were
thrilled to sit down with Mr. Colby and get to know our newest
Director of Admissions.
Law Weekly: Where did you
grow up? What was it like?
Colby: I grew up in Fort Lauderdale, FL. It was hot and sunny
12 months a year, and the sun
tends to melt people’s brains.
LW: Where did you go to college?
Colby: University of Miami.
I was the only one in my family
to go to college, and wanted to
stay close to home to help out my
mom.
LW: Did you go straight
through to law school from undergrad?
Colby: I went straight through
to UVa Law. I was president of the
Honor Council at Miami for two
years, and heard about this mythical place where you could leave
a $20 bill on the ground, and an
hour later, it would still be there.
I’ve found that to be mostly true.
I’ve left my phone, my laptop, and
my belongings out, and no one
has touched them. That community of trust still exists.
LW: Why did you join The Law
Weekly?
Colby: I went to a Law Weekly
information session on September
4, 2001. The next Tuesday, I needed an outlet, and I felt that I had
bonded with the people on the
Dana Wallace (left) and Chris Colby (right). Photo by David Markoff
Law Weekly. From there, I felt like
it was my calling in law school–a
way to give back to the school. My
first articles were published on
September 14, 2001. It was a surreal time. I interviewed students
for one article, and so I talked to
then-2L Sarah Berger, who I knew
through The Law Weekly, and
asked her if she had any relatives
or knew anyone in the attacks.
She was concerned about her dad,
who she said was frequently in
the Pentagon. I later found out her
dad was none other than former
National Security Advisor Sandy
Berger. It was an interesting experience, because it just shows that
at this school we are surrounded
by people with two traits – brilliance and humility. You really
don’t find that many places like
this; elsewhere, brilliance is frequently accompanied by ego. UVa
Law is the only place I’ve been
where you experience that combination of brilliance with humility.
LW: What position did you
hold while on the paper?
Colby: I was the Executive Editor. We had four people on the Executive Board, and we all worked
well together; from the best of my
recollection, everyone’s duties
were a bit of a mish mosh.
LW: What was the tone of the
paper when you were on staff?
Colby: Professionalism. Pure
and simple. We wanted to turn
out a high-quality paper that
could drive people to do better, set
a positive tone, and impact change
in the community. The Law Weekly
should be something award-winning, something of value on your
resume, and something of which
we should all be proud. The Law
Weekly is the best of UVa Law,
pure and simple.
LW: Why did you decide to
join JAG instead of going the firm
route?
Colby: I wanted to join the
Navy since the age of four, and so
it just made sense to go JAG. Interestingly enough, my Navy JAG interviewer, a UVa Law grad, is now
the Chief Judge of the Navy; she is
the person I have been most honored to serve with, and we should
all be proud of folks like her.
LW: Where did you work during your time as a JAG?
Colby: Mostly in the National
Capital Region. I worked at the
Navy Yard, the Pentagon, and
wherever else they told me to go.
LW: When did you decide
to make the change from JAG?
Colby: My wife and I came back
through Central Virginia one
weekend on a whim. We had always known that we wanted to
get back to Charlottesville, then
wondered, “Why wait?” My wife
telecommutes to DC, and I set
up a firm in Gordonsville to help
some clients.
LW: What prompted you to
come back to Charlottesville?
Colby: UVa is ultimately my
first love in Charlottesville, so
why be in Charlottesville and not
be at UVa?
LW: What attracted you to the
position of Director of Admissions?
Colby: You get to sell a product
that can speak to its own success
to an audience that wants to buy it.
It’s the most fun job in the world,
it shouldn’t even be called a job; I
get to speak with very enthusiastic
young people who want to make
change in the world for the better,
not just for themselves but also for
others, and for their community,
and for global change. You see
young people with big dreams,
►COLBY page 3
Thumbs up to the
FDA for proposing reductions in inorganic
arsenic in baby cereal;
because when it comes to baby
cereal, organic arsenic is the way
to go!
Thumbs sideways to
mock interviews. Now
the 1Ls finally get a
taste of what it means
to be judged by complete strangers.
Thumbs down to the
fustercluck that is the
Rio Olympics. ANG has
a pool in the back yard
if they really need a swimming
venue.
Thumbs up to the
new Gmail plugin “Just
Not Sorry,” but ANG
really needs “Unprofessional Passive Voice Curse Word.”
Thumbs down to the
engagement announcements that remind ANG
that ANG’s longest relationship is with vodka.
But congrats to our
staff members Heather
and Caroline on their respective engagements!!
Thumbs sideways to
the National Championship. ANG’s bracket
is shot, but less shot
than everyone else in ANG’s section pool. #SedonaGiftCardHereANGComes
Thumbs up to all the
runners in the Charlottesville Marathon this
weekend. ANG doesn’t
understand any marathon that
does not involve Netflix.
2
Colophon
VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY
►LIBEL
continued from page 1
7:32–Hit the PFL buttons to check
three instrument channels.
7:32–Oh shit, those were actually
the
mute
buttons
7:41–Jokes about the Duke
lacrosse
scandal
still
work
with
this
crowd.
8:00–Notice for the first time
that we have 10 robed backup dancers on “Clerking for
SCOTUS,” not the nine I’d
assumed up to this point.
8:13–“SCREENSHOTS!”
In the front row, Jason Dugas is dying of laughter.
8:24–Two back to back videos.
Time to raid the snack table.
8:33–By
popular
demand,
(read: requests from Law Weekly members in the audience on
GroupMe,) I figure out a way to
get the stage mics within a dB of
dissolving into feedback. This
is a delicate task, since once a
feedback loop starts, it’s very
difficult to get back under control without essentially muting one or more microphones.
Moreover, the soundboard and
the speakers will quite happily
burn themselves out if fed too
loud of a signal, as whoever
obliterated the fourth channel
on our 24-channel mixing board
in some past year doubtless discovered. I’m reminded of the
sarcastic Jargon File adage that
all electronics actually work by
trapping “magic smoke” within
the chips; above all else, even
the sound quality of the performance, it’s my job to keep that
magic smoke from escaping.
8:38–Somebody drops a glass
bottle on the floor somewhere
in the house. (Please don’t
be that guy, dear reader!)
8:39–Unbeknownst to most
of the audience, save for Prof.
White (who sidles over and
comments on it) we’re using
mostly different one-liner gags
each night. Indeed, a surprisingly large portion of the skits
can be ad-libbed to suit the
audience, and the “camp announcements” during scene
changes are more or less selected on the fly. Certain of the skits
also see lines re-ordered, with
varying degrees of elegance.
8:41–This time Jack Bisceglia
opts to actually lick Brad Alvarez’s face.
9:00–Intermission. This time I
don’t forget to leave the band on.
9:05–Robbie tells me that one of
the speakers has been dead all
day. That would explain why
the balance was so hard to set.
We run a new auxiliary lead
down the aisle to patch it in.
9:17–Professor rebuttals, now
with 100% more Jason Dugas!
Piercing catcalls from the crowd.
9:20–Having
serious
difficulty making the professors
audible
without
feedback,
for whatever reason. The audience doesn’t seem to care.
9:23–It dawns gradually on
the crowd that Prof. Coughlin
has chosen to write to the tune
of “Puff the Magic Dragon.”
9:33–Loud chants for an encore. (“One more song!”)
9:41–Fighting desperately to
keep mics from clipping today,
as the performers get into it
and the crowd noise reaches a
crescendo. By this point in the
evening, my carefully prepared
gain/fade charts have become
more or less useless, so I’m
playing the mix by ear—with
varying degrees of success.
9:43–Audience
participation
has reached approximately
WWE levels in the second act.
9:44–Unclear
why
the
video
is
skipping.
9:51–That flask gag in “CSPAN Dean Debate” is a
new one for tonight. (It gets
a laugh so it’s subsequently repeated on Saturday.)
10:00–Large
portions
of
this Bernie Sanders monologue are also brand new.
10:13–Rolling
Stone
jokes
might still be a bit soon.
10:21–A long series of skits
means an opportunity to stretch
my legs, so I mute all the channels and slip backstage. Up
close, old-age makeup looks
vaguely like camouflage paint.
(The exaggerated contrast looks
great under the lights, however.)
10:32–Starting to see some
phones on in the audience,
but some good laughs still.
10:50–“Attention
campers; if you were offended by
a skit earlier, buckle up.”
11:13–Curtain. Forced to drop
some mics almost completely
as the crowd noise and monitor
feedback threaten to blow the
channels. No lasting damage,
however. I power down the
system, starting with the microphone receivers, and clean up
my station. Two down, one to
go!
[email protected]
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
The Confirmation Question:
In Defense of A Resolute Senate
“What is a ‘moderate’ interpretation of the text? Halfway
between what it really means
Lea Patterson ‘16
Guest Columnist
and what you’d
like it to mean?”
Justice
Scalia’s
characteristically biting question best summarizes the reason
why Senate Republicans should
not be quick to confirm Judge
Garland to the Supreme Court:
a moderate interpretation may
not change the meaning of the
law as quickly as a liberal one,
but it will surely still change it.
Nothing the Senate does will
have as long-lived consequences as replacing Justice Scalia.
Accordingly, despite his moderate billing, the Senate can and
should refuse to confirm Judge
Garland.
As a Constitutional matter,
the Senate need neither confirm
nor consider any given nominee. A president is never entitled to have a particular nominee confirmed. In order for the
Senate’s duty to provide advice
and consent to have meaning,
the Senate must be able to withhold consent at its discretion. In
exercising that discretion, the
Senate need not be politically
neutral. Indeed, given the political impact the Court increasingly has, political reasons for
giving or withholding consent
are legitimate. The Senate’s
present position that it will not
consider nominees until after
the election is, therefore, entirely legitimate and principled.
It does not abdicate the duty to
give advice and consent, but
fulfills it by providing advice
and withholding consent in order to require conformity with
that advice. For this reason, refusing to hold hearings on any
nominee is appropriate given
the present point in the electoral cycle. However, if the Senate
chooses to hold hearings in an
attempt to appear less politically motivated, it would be inconsistent to then withhold full
consideration on the nominee’s
merits. Holding what amounts
to a sham hearing would be
both less legitimate and unfair
to Judge Garland.
Requiring the Court to operate with only eight justices for
the next year may cause it some
inconvenience, but it is not unconstitutional. The Constitution
does not require that the Court
have nine justices—Article III
leaves that question to Congress. Since the Judiciary Act of
1789, the number of justices has
fluctuated between six and ten.1
Indeed, rather than replace Justice Scalia, Congress could reduce the number of justices on
the Court.2 Although Congress
is probably more likely to establish a colony on Mars before doing changing the Court’s size,
it demonstrates that Congress
is under no obligation to entertain any nominees and will not
cause the judiciary to implode
by doing so. An even number
of justices may be inconvenient
to the Court, but it is not crippling.
Although one may argue
that Judge Garland is as good
a nominee as the Republicans
are ever likely to get, Senate
Republicans would be taking
an extremely politically dangerous road if they confirm Judge
Garland or any Obama nominee
before the election. The present
disheveled state of the Republican Party is the culmination of
years of frustration of the party
base. When Republicans took
control of the House, the voters who put them there expected them to use every means at
their disposal to stop the President’s agenda. When the House
Republicans failed to do this
and said they needed a Republican Senate, the voters gave
them that too. Yet, the Republican-controlled Congress has
failed to provide any significant
resistance. Of course, Congress
has not passed the DREAM Act
or closed Guantanamo, but it
also has not stopped the implementation of Obamacare, the
Iran deal, or DAPA; Congress
also sold the party base out on
Planned Parenthood funding in
order to get the crude oil export
ban lifted instead. As a result,
many in the Republican base
seriously doubt whether the Republican-controlled Congress
has proven itself usefully different from a Democrat-controlled
Congress.
It is not an accident that the
frontrunners for the Republican
Presidential nomination consist
of Ted Cruz, whose bread and
butter is attacking the party
establishment, and Donald
Trump, whose bread and butter
is attacking everybody. Many
Republican voters are so angry
that the Republican Congress
will not fight for anything that
they have prioritized the willingness to fight above all other
attributes in a presidential nominee. Former Speaker Boehner
knows firsthand the results of
this frustration, and it is not an
unreasonable possibility that if
the Senate moves forward with
confirmation, Mitch McConnell
and Chuck Grassley will wind
►CONFIRMATION page 3
faculty quotes
J. Mahoney: Is making bricks
an absolutely terrible thing to
do? I mean, is this like making
a meth lab?
T. Nachbar: Iowa’s exports
are corn, pork, and danger.
P. Verdier: Walmart is great.
It’s the one place where I can go
to get my truck parts and my
beef jerky and my ammo…
J. Gordon Hylton: How
many Lutherans are there in
Pennsylvania? Who knows?
J. Mahoney: Real estate speculation is as American as apple
pie!
K. Ferzan: My husband
came home with gluten-free
Girl Scout Cookies. They cut
against everything Girl Scout
Cookies stand for.
Virginia Law Weekly
COLOPHON
Ashley Angelotti ‘17
Managing Editor
Alex Haden ‘17
Editor-in-Chief
Jenna Goldman ‘18
Executive Editor
Eric Hall ‘18
Production Editor
Caroline Catchpole ‘17
Columns Editor
Carly Coleman ‘17
Cartoonist-in-Chief
Ryan Caira ‘17
Features Editor
Greg Ranzini ‘18
News Editor
Lia-Michelle Keane ‘18
Assistant Managing & Features Editor
David Markoff ‘17
Technology Editor
Published weekly on Wednesday except during holiday and examination periods and serving the Law School community at the University of Virginia, the
Virginia Law Weekly (ISSN 0042-661X) is not an official publication of the University and does not necessarily express the views of the University. Any
article appearing herein may be reproduced provided that credit is given to both the Virginia Law Weekly and the author of the article. Advanced written
permission of the Virginia Law Weekly is also required for reproduction of any cartoon or illustration.
Virginia Law Weekly
580 Massie Road
University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1789
Phone: 443.812.3229
[email protected]
www.lawweekly.org
EDITORIAL POLICY: The Virginia Law Weekly publishes letters and columns of interest to the Law School and the legal community at large. Views
expressed in such submissions are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Law Weekly or the Editorial Board. Letters from organizations must bear the name, signature, and title of the person authorizing the submission. All letters and columns must either be submitted in
hardcopy bearing a handwritten signature along with an electronic version, or be mailed from the author’s e-mail account. Submissions must be
received by 5 p.m. the Friday before publication and must be in accordance with the submission guidelines. Letters over 500 words and columns
over 1000 words may not be accepted. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, grammar, and clarity. Although every
effort is made to publish all materials meeting our guidelines, we regret that not all submissions received can be published.
See News?
Hear a good story?
email: [email protected]
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
‘Tis the season for appellate
oral arguments. With the month
of April come 1L
Christina Albertson ‘16
Editor Emeritus
oral arguments and
the Final Round
of the Lile Moot
Court
Competition. When I gave
my first oral argument as a 1L
what seems like eons ago, I really didn’t fully understand what
an oral argument was. I had this
vague notion about arguing the
points of my brief, but I didn’t
really know what I was doing.
Now that I have served as
Chief Justice for Lile Moot Court,
and judged more than seventy
oral arguments, I know what an
appellate oral argument is.
An oral argument is a conversation.
A conversation between you
as the attorney giving the argument and the three judges sitting
on the panel. In this conversation, your goal is compound;
not only must you convince the
judges they should find for your
side today, you must also convince them that finding for your
side today is a good decision for
tomorrow.
Issues of first impression, once
decided, become precedent.
Judges want to know that the
precedent they set will produce
positive results going forward,
not just in this specific situation.
To that end, oral arguments
should not be conducted in a
combative manner. Again, you’re
having a conversation with the
judges, trying to get them to understand why your position is
the better position, answering
HOT BENCH
ARGUING IN
APRIL
afraid to stop talking. Let your
whatever questions they have
along the way.
This is why flexibility is so important. If you have three points
and a judge is asking about the
third, but you keep pulling back
to the first–you aren’t furthering the conversation. If a judge
wants to know about your third
point, that means you need to
jump to that third point and put
forth your best case. Then, you
can return to the beginning if
you have more time, confident
that you’ve addressed the judges
concerns as best you could.
With those broad ideas in
mind, I’ll move to some more
specific tips drawn from my personal experience judging.
Road Map. Always begin with
a road map and keep it short and
sweet. Do not start elaborating
during the road map. Simply list
your points clearly and concisely, then dive into the argument.
Nervous Ticks. Have a friend
watch you practice and point out
what your nervous habits are.
Some people say “umm.” Some
people sway. Some people make
bizarre hand gestures over and
over again. Some people grasp
the podium as though it’s the
only thing keeping them tied to
this Earth. Find out what weird
thing you do, and figure out
what helps you NOT do it.
Transition Words. Make it
easy for your audience to track
where you are. “First” “Second”
“Third” “Now I’d like to move
to x”. Anything that you can say
to indicate that you’re starting a
new point. We’re all human and
minds wander. It’s your job to
keep the judges tuned in to your
argument.
Pauses. Take a breath. Don’t be
sic and my all-time favorite, but
at this point I would consider
any book that does not contain a
court opinion to be my favorite.
5. Cats or Dogs?
Dogs. The Siamese cats in
Lady and the Tramp emotionally
scarred me for life.
LAURA GREGORY
6. If you were a superhero
what would your superpower
be?
I would like to be able to
travel anywhere instantly. Especially when it’s raining and I
have to walk to class because I
slipped and fell on those metal
things outside Pav once and it
was embarrassing.
1. Have you ever had a nickname? What?
Depends who you ask. In
high school it was LGregs, my
college friends call me LG, and
my family calls me Bug.
7. Are you a good dancer?
This is debatable, but I have
been diligently practicing the
dance from Justin Bieber’s “Sorry” music video and I think I’m
picking it up very well.
2. What’s the best meal you’ve
ever had?
I love sushi and I have yet to
find a good sushi place in Charlottesville. If you have a good
recommendation, feel free to take
me on a date. My number can be
found at the bottom of the events
email that I send you twice a
week.
8. What did you have for
breakfast this morning?
I opted for the snooze button
instead.
3. If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be?
Nick Saban. I went to a party
at his house once (and yes, of
course I toured his closet), but
I’ve unfortunately never formally met him. *Disclaimer: If you
do not know who Nick Saban is,
we cannot be friends.
4. What’s your favorite book?
To Kill a Mockingbird is a clas-
Hot Bench
VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY
9. What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And
what’s the lie?)
I’m related to a founding father. I accidentally rode Nancy
Pelosi’s private elevator in the
Capitol. My face is an Internet
meme. (True, Alexander Hamilton. True, she promptly had her
security kick me off. False, but
a photo of me crying when Alabama lost the Sugar Bowl in 2015
did go viral; props if you can find
it.)
10. What’s the best gift you’ve
ever received?
This year I was #blessed
audience actually digest what
you’re saying. A Faulkner-esque
stream of consciousness form of
argument will not be as effective
as an argument with carefully
planned pauses. When you finish an important point, pause for
a tick or two to let that point sink
in. Also, don’t be afraid to pause
for a moment before answering
a judge’s question. Take a minute to think, allowing you give a
solid response, instead of blathering on nonsensically.
Eye Contact. This might seem
blatantly obvious, but your argument will come off much better
if you actually look at the judges
while you talk. By looking at the
judges you convey confidence.
You are also able to observe the
judges’ reactions and see which
of your arguments they buy and
which they are more skeptical of
accepting.
Notes. Think quality, not
quantity. Different note methods
work for different people. My
favorite way only involves two
pages. The more pages you have,
the more prone you will be to flip
through them. Flipping through
them is distracting to your audience and can disrupt your own
focus.
Dodging Questions. Don’t
do it. Answer the question you
were asked. Judges can tell when
you’re dodging a question. In
fact, you are actually passing
up an opportunity to address a
judge’s concerns on your own
terms.
Cold Opening. Again, your
argument is a conversation and
you (should) know the material
really well by now. You should
know your opening hands down,
no notes.
To put this in a different perspective, imagine that you’re
trying to convince a friend to get
drinks on the downtown mall
Thursday night instead of going to Bilt. You wouldn’t need to
look down and read off notes to
know (1) the drinks on the mall
are more diverse and delicious,
(2) we all spend too much time
at Bilt, and (3) going to the mall
makes the odds of running into
that jerk Darden bro considerably lower. You can look your
friend straight in the face as you
put forth these three points.
Similarly, you should be able
to look the judges straight in the
face as you put forth the three
points of your oral argument.
Memorize the opening. Period.
You shouldn’t need notes to
know who you’re representing,
what you’re asking for, and what
your main points are. Needing
notes for this undermines your
credibility and does not give a
strong first impression.
Finish Strong. Your closing
should also be cold. Know how
long you need to close and when
the clock hits that time, wrap it
up. You want the last thing the
judges hear to be a strong summation of your argument.
This Saturday, you can see all
of these components and more
put into practice at the Lile Moot
Court Finals. Four 3Ls will be
demonstrating their excellent
oral argument skills before three
Article II judges. Whether you’re
about to give your first oral argument, or you’ve been doing it for
years, I would encourage everyone to attend. Who knows? You
may come up with a few tips of
your own!
to have journal tryouts on my
birthday.
11. If you could live anywhere, where would it be?
On a beach in southern
France. I studied French for 10
years and studied abroad in
France one summer in college.
12. Do you believe the library should install a water
feature?
Absolutely. Hot tubs would
definitely contribute to a more
conducive work environment.
13. If you could know one
thing about your future, what
would it be?
If I could get a heads up on
what my spring 1L exams are
going to look like that would
be great. Otherwise, I’m pretty
content.
14.
Backstreet Boys or
*NSYNC?
Backstreet Boys without a
doubt. They had a reunion concert at Alabama when I was in
college and it was the greatest
night of my life.
15. What’s the longest you’ve
gone without sleep?
I pulled one all-nighter
in undergrad. My family still
doesn’t believe me though because my greatest talent is my
ability to take a nap absolutely
anywhere and under any circumstances.
16. If you could make one
law that everyone had to follow, what would it be?
I strongly believe the siesta
needs to be brought to the United States. (See above about my
napping abilities.)
►CONFIRMATION
continued from page 2
er part is that Judge Garland’s
nomination occurred less than a
year before the inauguration of
a new president in an election
cycle that is, given past trends,
the Republican Party’s to lose.
Confirming an Obama nominee, therefore, would be seen
as the ultimate treason against
Republican voters—surrendering when victory, though not
assured, is at least within sight.
I do not presume to predict
who will be taking the Presidential oath of office come
January, and, indeed, even a
Republican win does not guarantee the party base a reliably
conservative Supreme Court
justice. But the possibility that
the next President may be Hillary Clinton does not justify ex
ante capitulation, even if Judge
Garland may be more moderate
than the average Clinton nominee. To the originalist, a “moderate” interpretation as Justice
Scalia defined it constitutes
merely a slower poison. The
Senate should not choose the
poison merely because it fears
an uncertain future.
--1
1 Stat. 73 § 1 (1789) (six); 2 Stat.
420 § 5 (1807) (seven); 5 Stat. 176
(1837) (nine); 12 Stat. 794 (1862)
(ten); 14 Stat. 209 (1866) (seven);
16 Stat. 44 (1869) (nine).
2
See 14 Stat. 209 (1866) (reduced the Court from ten to seven, providing that no vacancies
would be filled until the number
of justices dropped below seven).
[email protected]
3
►COLBY
continued from page 1
and here, you see those dreams ignited with the education that they
need to put those dreams into action.
LW: What should all students
do during their time at UVa?
Colby: Three things. 1. Go to the
Barbecue Exchange in Gordonsville; 2. Go to Montpelier; 3. Go on
a hike in the Shenandoah National
Park with your best friend.
LW: What is the most useful
skill that an attorney should possess?
Colby: The ability to speak with
a client. Not to a client, but with
a client, so that you are speaking
the client’s language. No matter
what area of the law you enter, it
is a people profession and you are
talking with people. You need to
be able to communicate on their
level.
LW: Is there a professor or class
that you took that had a big impact on your career?
Colby: The number one class is
Virginia Practice and Procedure
with Kent Sinclair. If you’re looking to pass the Virginia Bar, he is
the go-to guy. He literally wrote
the book and I’m glad I read it!
Beyond that, the list is nearly endless.
LW: What are you looking forward to for the next year?
Colby: A great incoming class.
It will be a lot of fun to see them
come onto Grounds for the first
time to get engaged with a new
community and with a new Dean.
LW: If your life had intro music,
what would your song of choice
be?
Colby: The Navy Hymn for poignant parts, or “Anchors Away”
for accidentally brainwashing
children.
LW: What terrible movie do
you love?
Colby: Battlestar Galactica is the
closest thing, even though it’s a
show. I hope that counts.
LW: Favorite thing to watch on
Netflix?
Colby: We just got Netflix a few
months ago so we’re watching
House of Cards, Season 3; but there
are also a lot of awesome Star
Wars: The Clone Wars TV cartoons.
Of course, I remember The West
Wing before it was syndicated.
LW: Do you like Friends?
Colby: Yeah, of course!
LW: Who is the best character?
Colby: Phoebe, because she is
able to navigate her way through
life with everyone caring for her
and keeping her safe, while she
continues to go along and make
everyone’s lives a little more
amusing and happy.
LW: Worst character?
Colby: Rachel. Ross is sort of
bumbling and calculating, but ultimately, wants good for people
for the most part. Rachel, you’re
not quite sure that you’re getting
the whole story from Rachel.
LW: Apple or Android?
Colby: Apple.
LW: Football or basketball?
Colby: Football.
LW: Coffee or tea?
Colby: Depends on the situation. I’d say coffee right now, but
every now and then, I go through
a tea phase.
LW: How old are you in dog
years?
Colby: According to catcalculator.com, I’m 5.9 in dog years.
LW: Thank goodness; you got it
right!
[email protected]
4
Professor Lunch
Erich Reimer’s private Facebook post, though admittedly
open to displeasBetsey Hedges ‘18
Guest Columnist
ing
interpretations, is a woefully insufficient
basis for the pressure to which
he has been subjected, for his
unpraiseworthy capitulation in
the face of that pressure, and for
the SBA’s apparent felt need to
involve itself through a conciliatory email. Here is why:
1) The Law Weekly, in what I
hope was an uncharacteristic
slip, mischaracterized the import of Reimer’s tactless statement. The Facebook post, on its
own, in no way purported to
explain Reimer’s reasons for abstaining from the vote. Though
by now, most students are probably aware of Reimer’s political predispositions, which illuminate his statements, the post
itself—which gave rise to the
trouble—was, at best, ambiguous. At worst, it showed a post
hoc satisfaction with the vote.
This leads to my next point.
2) Though the Facebook post
supports an interpretation offensive to many people, especially
the DREAMers themselves, this
is irrelevant to whether Reimer’s
post demands a questioning of
his ability to be a good StudCo
representative. It is, if possible,
even more irrelevant to any concern of the SBA. Reimer made
the statement in his unofficial
capacity as a private individual,
VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Letter to the Editor: In Defense of Reimer
not as a statement on behalf of
any organization. The post itself apparently demonstrated
an individual’s political pleasure with the result of the vote;
but it was directed to Reimer’s
Facebook friends for their own
enjoyment (or disapprobation).
By contrast, the overtly political response of the DREAMers,
The Law Weekly and the SBA has
been inflicted upon the Law
School student body as a whole.
The DREAMers demand Reimer’s removal on the basis of
a lone Facebook post which
contained the slogan “#conservative.” The Law Weekly alleges that the post “revealed
[Reimer’s] reason for abstaining.” (It did not.) The SBA, for
its part, denounces Reimer’s
comment as “inappropriate and
repugnant.” Though the SBA
does not explain what the post
is repugnant to, I would imagine that it is repugnant to a political consensus among student
leaders who are sympathetic to
the DREAMers. While sympathy with the DREAMers seems
entirely reasonable to me, I am
a little skeptical whether the
SBA’s mission of “building a
more inclusive community” is
best pursued through falling in
line with an emotional—and decidedly un-inclusive—reaction
to the political slant of a foolish
but vague comment.
3) Reimer was part of the half
of the StudCo voters that abstained. Possibly some of his
reasons (political or otherwise)
for abstention were shared by
one or more of his colleagues.
I think it is also reasonable to
conjecture that one or more of
the reasons members had for abstaining were indeed legitimate
(though that in itself is a vague
word). For example, The Law
Weekly article cites another student member who explained his
abstention as a result of having
incomplete information at the
time of the vote. The SBA should
think twice before condemning what may appear as one
member’s motive for abstention
when the abstention itself was
joined by five other members
whose motives have, apparently,
not been subjected to such scrutiny and maligning.
4) Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that Reimer is alone
among StudCo members in espousing certain political beliefs,
I think it is safe to say that some
members of the student body
probably have similar views to
Reimer’s. If that is indeed the
case, Reimer’s voice on StudCo
is valuable as a representation
of some of his classmates’ ideas.
This is true even if—perhaps
especially if—his views are unpopular with some others of his
classmates. I have not heard any
strong arguments lately for the
proposition that solidity, stolidity and complacency are desirable attributes in a student governing body.
5) The SBA has allowed itself
to be goaded by a relatively
small student organization into
sending a Law School-wide
email which purports to absolve
the SBA of responsibility. The
SBA has nothing to apologize
for. Neither does Erich Reimer.
Every day every one of us, I
would imagine, makes one or
more comments—on social media or elsewhere—which may be
taken by someone or some group
as hurtful or offensive. This does
not mean the statements are intended to hurt or offend. Even if
the Facebook post was intended
as a hurtful gloat over victory,
that does very little, if anything,
to show that Reimer’s vote was
motivated by unwholesome
considerations. For many people, political, moral, and practical sensibilities align closely,
and they may feel strongly that
to exercise their voting power in
good faith is to follow their political convictions. What seems
certain is that Reimer did not
make his comment hoping to
sway another StudCo member
or to prejudice the vote, since
he made the post after the vote.
It was an indiscretion, nothing
more.
6) Furthermore, if a careless
speaker wishes to make amends
with the person or persons he
has harmed, a sincere apology
may go a long way. A sincere
apology is not what Reimer and
the SBA have offered. Instead,
they have allowed the frustration and political angst of one
organization to intimidate them
into making insubstantial concessions. They have taken the
easy route—the quick fix that
solves nothing—in response to
an uncomfortable situation. No
one has been enlightened or
educated by the fracas; reaction
has won the day over reason.
which may be of some practical
interest: if Reimer’s comments
are distressing and “highly inappropriate,” the way to stop
the inflammation is to ignore the
comments—not to found a political mini-movement on them.
The DREAMers should have
thought twice before playing Reimer at his own game. Instead,
they have overreacted, possibly
providing Reimer with political
gratification, and the SBA has
hastened to the DREAMers’
side, assailing the student body
with an apology too broad and
vaguely worded to be meaningful.
In closing, I write not because
I think Reimer is right—I am not
sure there is anything in his post
to support agreement or disagreement. But I am concerned
because Reimer’s freedom to
write in his unofficial capacity should be the same as mine
and all my fellow students’. And
I would hate to think that my
own friends’ futures in student
government likewise depend on
their preparedness to make insincere and unnecessary apologies in response to politics-driven, emotional backlashes against
vague and substantially harmless comments.
[email protected]
7) As a small point but one
Law Weekly Feature: Lunch with Professor Hynes
The Law Weekly is featuring a recurring series of articles detailing the discussions we have when we take a professor to lunch. We hope you enjoy our newest feature series!
This week, four members of The
Law Weekly–David Markoff, Lia
Keane, Eric Hall,
Ashley Angelotti ‘17
Managing Editor
and
myself–took
professor
Hynes
to lunch to discuss
his three current research projects. Professor Hynes
is relatively new, as he joined the
faculty at the University almost a
decade ago. While you may have
seen him at the North Grounds
gym every now and then, you
might not have seen him this year
because he is teaching fewer classes to spend time with his son during his senior year of high school.
Professor Hynes specializes
in consumer finance, law and
economics,
and
bankruptcy.
He received his B.S. from the
Walsh School of Foreign Service
at Georgetown University,1 his
Ph.D in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and his
law degree from the University
of Chicago. He then practiced for
a short while with Skadden Arps
in Los Angeles before joining the
faculty at William & Mary in 2000.
He joined the faculty at UVa Law
in 2007 after visiting the previous
year. Professor Hynes is currently
the Nicholas E. Chimicles Research Professor of Business Law
and Regulation and the director of
the John M. Olin Program in Law
and Economics.
Current 1L Sections H and J
know Professor Hynes as their
Contracts professor from last semester. Professor Hynes has a
great sense of humor that he loves
to bring to class. Every year he
plants an upperclassman in his
contracts class early in the semester while the new students are still
trying to get their bearings in law
school. He purposely calls on the
upperclassman with a difficult
cold call that the student pretends
to be unable to answer, thus scaring the new 1Ls. While he later
reveals his joke, the 1Ls have
learned a valuable lesson: always
come prepared to class. Professor
Hynes actually asked me to be the
plant this year, but unfortunately,
ganization. Most people consider
Chapter 11 to be exclusively for
corporations looking to reorganize. The ABI thus found it puzzling to find so many individuals
filing for Chapter 11 rather than
one of the other options, especially since a case in Chapter 11 is, on
average, at least two to three times
as expensive as a case in Chapter
13.
Their first summer was spent
in a pilot project trying to figure
out what type of data they would
Commercial Law of Intellectual
Property.” It was published in the
March 2016 issue of the Virginia
Law Review. The article discusses
whether or not some intellectual
property rights should be exhausted upon the sale of a good.
For example, when a book is sold
it can normally be re-sold. If the
exhaustion doctrine did not apply to the right to sell, the author
could prevent the re-sale of his
books and thus likely increase the
sale of his books from the publish-
L to R: Eric Hall, ‘18; Professor Hynes; Lia Keane, ‘18. photo courtesy of David Markoff
I had class at the same time and
was unable to participate.
For the past two years, Hynes
has been heading up a large project with Anne Lawton, a professor
from Michigan State University
College of Law. They were commissioned by the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) to conduct a
study on individuals filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Traditionally,
individuals file in Chapter 7 for
liquidation or Chapter 13 for reor-
be able to reasonably gather from
PACER and documents filed in
individual bankruptcy cases. The
majority of the research was conducted this past summer,2 and
they just finished the first draft report to the ABI advisory committee.
Professor Hynes’ second
project is an article about the exhaustion doctrine that he has coauthored with Professor Duffy
titled “Statutory Domain and the
er. There is currently a conflict as
to whether or not the exhaustion
doctrine should apply in such circumstances. The purpose of the
article was to show that the law
in the area has traditionally been
based on statutory interpretation and “is directed toward the
more nuanced goal of limiting the
domain of intellectual property
statutes to avoid displacing other
areas of law.”3
Professor Hynes has been
holding his third project on the
back burner for a few years but is
finally bringing it to the forefront.
This project is still in its early stages, but he wants to look at the use
of credit reports. The Fair Credit
Reporting Act governs the use
of credit reports in employment,
applying for loans, and receiving
car insurance. Proposed legislation would stop the use of credit
reports in most employment situations because they are often inaccurate and there is little empirical
evidence that they are predictive.
Professor Hynes hopes to be able
to answer the question of what
happens to employment when the
government bans the use of credit
reports in hiring decisions.
Next year, Professor Hynes is
scheduled to teach Bankruptcy
(Law & Business), Contracts, and
Corporate Finance. Corporate
Finance is part of the two-class
package introduction to the Law
and Business program at UVa
Law; those who are interested in
taking the Law and Business versions of classes later in law school
must complete both Accounting
and Corporate Finance (or have
background experience in those
areas to place out of the classes).
He would love to see you all in
class!
--1
The SFS is also my alma mater.
We have already bonded over this.
2
I was one of his research assistants working on this project.
3
John F. Duffy & Richard Hynes,
Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property, 102 Va. L. Rev. 1, 1 (2016).
[email protected]
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Columns
VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY
Major Labor Dispute Waits for a New Justice
It would normally not be prudent or feasible to reprint the entirety of one of the most important
Daniel Richardson ‘18
Guest Columnist
Supreme
Court
opinions of the current term on the
pages of The Law
Weekly, but these are not normal
times. “The judgment is affirmed
by an equally divided court.” That
was the entire opinion handed
down by the court on Tuesday in
Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n,
following years of litigation on one
of the most contentious issues in
labor law.
Friedrichs asked the court to
consider two issues, ovne broad
and one narrow. The first is whether the Supreme Court’s 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of
Educ., which upheld the union
practice of charging “agency fees,”
is correct. Agency fees are separate from union dues paid by active members and are only used in
representing employees in collective bargaining activities and paying administrative costs. Under
the California law at issue in this
case, members are entitled to a refund of any agency fees not used
for these purposes. The second issue is whether unions can require
non-member employees to opt out
of additional union dues affirmatively each year. On one side of
this issue are those like Ms. Friedrichs, who believe that any contribution to a public sector union,
even an “agency fee” to assist with
bargaining activities, amounts to
political speech. In the petitioner’s
view, any collective-bargaining activities in the public sector are nec-
essarily matters of public concern.
On the other side, unions and their
supporters argue that removal of
the mandatory fee structure would
endanger their ability to bargain
by incentivizing free riders that
receive the benefits of negotiation
without paying into the cost. They
argue that the current arrangement, which separates union dues
from representation fees, represents an adequate protection from
compelled political speech.
Watching this issue play out
across the last year is a reminder
of both the importance a single
justice can play on a fragile issue
and a cautionary tale as the vacancy saga plays out. Friedrichs
arrival at the Supreme Court in
2016 was the product of years of
litigation and signaling from the
Supreme Court. The 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn was the
first salvo in this effort, with the
Court holding that free speech
concerns prohibited public sector
unions from requiring dues from
“quasi-governmental employees.”
In a particularly prescient quote
following the ruling, the President
of the Center for Individual Rights
(the organization supporting the
plaintiffs in Friedrichs) took to
SCOTUSblog to write “[w]hile Justice Scalia sided with the majority
in Harris, it remains open to speculate how he might vote if the case
involved. . . public employees generally.” When the case was argued
just a month before Justice Scalia’s
passing, the votes seemed on track
to remove Abood once and for
all. Instead, the decision handed
down last week kept the current
precedent intact, with no opinions
suggesting how the court viewed
the merits of the two issues.
Putting Our Money Where Our Morals Are:
Divest Our Endowment from Fossil Fuels
Over the past two semesters, a
small but growing group of students has been working to divest
Jim Dennison ‘18
President, LSSI
UVa Law’s endowment from fossil fuels. The group, now
called Law Students
for Sustainable Investment (LSSI),
is in the process of applying for CIO
status. LSSI has met with faculty
and administrators to discuss divestment, collaborated with main
grounds’ Climate Action Society, circulated petitions and an open letter
to the Board of Visitors, and worked
to educate the student body about
climate change and divestment.
Just like an individual’s savings,
our endowment is invested in the
stock market. LSSI’s goal is to remove the Law School’s money that
is currently invested in fossil fuel
companies, ideally reinvesting it in
companies whose work benefits our
communities and our environment.
The argument for divestment
from fossil fuels rests on just two
uncontroversial premises. First, the
Law School should not invest its
money in companies whose work
is fundamentally incompatible with
our community’s morals. Second,
companies whose business model
is based on fossil fuel extraction are
incompatible with our community’s
morals.
UVa’s prior history of divestment demonstrates that it accepts
the first premise. UVa divested
from South Africa during apartheid,
from Unocal (an oil company that
committed human rights abuses in
Burma) in 2001, and from Sudan
in 2006. Opponents of divestment
often argue that it may weaken our
endowment and that it will have
only an insignificant effect on the
companies’ bottom line. Divestment
is unlikely to significantly affect
our endowment, however, because
we would still maintain a diverse
portfolio even after removing fossil
fuel investments, which constitute
a small portion of our total investments (around 10%). Moreover, empirical studies show that institutions
that divest are impacted only slightly, and may even benefit financially.
(Think about it—coal is a textbook
stranded asset). But financial outcomes—for both the University and
the companies we divest from—are
not what divestment is about. It is
about taking a moral stance and
putting our money behind it. If we
are willing to spend money promoting sustainability on Grounds,
we should also be willing to invest
money in being on the right side of
history.
The second premise is just as
uncontroversial. Climate change is
one of the central moral crises facing our generation. You do not have
to be a tree-hugging hippie with a
soft spot for polar bears to appreciate this. People are dying, in the
United States and abroad, as a consequence of climate change. The city
of Norfolk is sinking. Hurricanes
are becoming stronger and more
frequent. Droughts, floods, and heat
waves are on the rise, and we’ve
only seen the beginning. If you want
a more qualified authority than me
on the moral implications of climate
change, just ask the Pope. It is time
our school takes a stance on climate
change, and divestment is a key first
step.
[email protected]
The result is uncertainty and
inconsistency in public sector
unions. Surely the unions are
breathing a sigh of relief given the
near certainty that Justice Scalia
would have found the agency fee
structure unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the unions are now operating in an environment of extreme
uncertainty about their financial
future. Moreover, the path started
in Harris has stalled, with different
rules for “quasi-government” employees and other public employees. For the petitioners and their
political supporters, public workers across the country will continue contributing dues to unions
that, in their view, fail to represent
their interests and are engaged in
political speech.
An even more fundamental concern is that no one knows exactly
what disagreement is reflected
in the terse opinion of the court.
Would any of the conservative
justices be willing to include an
annual opt-out process, even if the
agency fees cannot be required?
Would any narrow the holding to
the California scheme alone? The
4-4 opinion does not tell us. While
it is tempting to speculate at just
how a potential Justice Garland
would come down on these issues,
it is currently not clear that he
would be decisive on both issues
presented.
This confusion will certainly
not be unique to labor law as decisions continue to come down
throughout 2016. While the focus
will likely shift to the outcome of
the presidential election, it is worth
remembering that the current vacancy is likely to have real ramifications in the interim. Despite the
assurances of the remaining jus-
tices that everything at the court is
business as usual, there are many
union leaders and public employees who now have good reason to
disagree. Lawyers for Ms. Friedrich have already announced their
decision to file a petition to rehear
the case. With any luck, the next
round will produce more clarity.
The next few months will provide many occasions to reflect on
5
the accuracy of Justice Jackson’s
assessment of the court: “We are
not final because we are infallible,
but we are infallible only because
we are final.” Let’s all hope that
even this modest appraisal of the
highest court in the land is still
true.
[email protected]
McCoy’s TAXI SERVICE, LLC
CHARLOTTESVILLE’S
PREMIER TAXI EXPERIENCE
****
Also Serving Surrounding Areas
24 Hours / 7Days
 Airport & Hotel Transportation
 Corporate Accounts
 Concerts & Sporting Events
 Historic Sites & Wine Tours
 Hospital & Medical Transportation
 Hotel & Resort Transportation
434 - 295 - RIDE (7433)
P. O. Box 1733
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.mccoystaxi.com
eVA Vendor No.: VS0000124879
6 The Back Page
VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Lawyers: Adapt or Die
Cartoon By Carly
FOOD
7
2
3
6
1
5
4
8
8
1
4
6
5
3
7
2
9
4
3
5
2
9
6
Puzzle 1 (Hard, difficulty rating 0.68)
–
9
Free
7
Amphitheater on
Main Grounds
9
–
4
Free
2
The Paramount
Theater
6
5
1
8
7
8:00 PM
Tom Tom
Founders: Future
Forum
Take Back the
Night Vigil
1
6:00 PM
8
–
3
Free
6
12:00 PM
4
Purcell Reading
Room
MONDAY – April 11, 2016
1
–
3
Law & Hollywood
Cheap
8
Gordon Ave Library
9
Friends of the
Library Book Sale
The Docket
Answers
Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/sudoku on Mon Apr 4 22:54:16 2016 GMT. Enjoy!
2
SUNDAY – April 10, 2016
Available for
Purchase
2
5
4
1
3
9
7
$25–$50
–
6
5
JPJ Arena
Free
3
2
12:00 PM
Caplin Pavilion
–
3
8:00 PM
SATURDAY – April 9, 2016
Nameless Field
$12–$20
Near Main Grounds
9
8
10:00 AM
Camp Holiday
Trails 5K
Lile Moot Court
Finals
Straight No
Chaser
8
1
Available for
Purchase
7
$42–$137
5
9:00 AM
The Legend of
Zelda: Symphony
of the Goddesses
6
7:30 PM
2
9
JPJ Arena
FRIDAY – April 8, 2016
8
4
Available for
Purchase
4
$2 Rails
1
5
Crozet (mention
Bar Review)
4
7
Light Fare
1
8
Free
2
1
Darden Café 67
5
3
Wine & Hors
d’oevres
6
9
Free
1
2
Caplin Pavilion
3
6
Provided
3
Free
1
WB 154
6
–
2
5
Bar Review
Free
3
9
9:00 PM
WB 121
9
8
2
6:30 PM
Chik-fil-a
5
7
5:30 PM
Free
6
4
4:00 PM
Caplin Pavilion
7
5
8
3:30 PM
Judge Sutton;
Our 51
Constitutions
Taxapalooza
FLF Bd. Member
Info Meeting
Women in Pub.
Svc. Spring
Reception
Healthcare Trivia
Night
4
9
–
2
8
–
THURSDAY – April 7, 2016
11:45 AM
SUDOKU
Puzzle 1 (Hard, difficulty rating 0.68)
2
COST
6
LOCATION
WEDNESDAY – April 6, 2016
Kluge Ruhe
Art and Country
Free
Aboriginal Art
Museum
Failures of
Securities
Caplin Pavilion
Free
Regulation Panel
4
5:30 PM
EVENT
7
10:00 AM
and valued by employers hiring
lawyers, and will be necessary
for legal entrepreneurs creating
new companies. The Law School
offers many opportunities to become proficient in these areas.
Law students also have the chance
to take business classes at Darden.
Some law students may say that
they didn’t come to law school to
learn these skills; however, that is
the wrong line of thinking. You
should be learning skills that the
marketplace will demand in the
future. You are paying a large
amount in tuition; it would be
foolish to pass on the chance to
increase your adaptability. Let’s
make sure our profession does not
go the way of the dodo bird and
end up extinct and forgotten.
[email protected]
3
TIME
allowing them to service many
more customers and clients at a
lower cost. Currently, lawyers bill
by the hour, and their earnings are
limited by the number of working
hours in a day. While LegalZoom
and Rocket Lawyer already exist
for consumers, they are relatively
primitive and are ripe for further
disruption. There are also massive and lucrative opportunities
to create enterprise level legal solutions for industry sectors and
businesses. If lawyers do not disrupt their own industry, outsiders
will, and they will make billions
doing so.
These amazing opportunities will only be open to lawyers
who have the skill set that allows
them to adapt to the changing legal economy. Business acumen,
technology, and teamwork will
become increasingly important
5
edly over your careers. Lawyers will
not be spared from
the future of globalization and technology. Competition is increasing and clients
are demanding greater value.
The only way to stay ahead is to
become adaptable to changing
circumstances. If you resist the
change, or even merely ignore it,
your career will wither and starve
to death in the wilderness.
Change does not happen in a
linear fashion; rather, there are
periods of stasis followed by short
periods of rapid change. Evolutionary biologists call this change
a “punctuated equilibrium” and
it is during this time that only the
fittest species survive. Examples
include the Permian mass extinction, the meteor that killed the
dinosaurs, and possibly climate
change occurring in this epoch.
Darwin did not assert that survival
fitness is defined by strength or intelligence but rather by adaptability. Species that are not adaptable
do not survive the rapid change
that is characteristic of punctuated
equilibriums. They are too slow to
adapt to the new environment and
go extinct at the expense of more
adaptable species.
The economy and technology
work in surprisingly similar ways.
The Great Recession of 2008 was
a punctuated equilibrium that
killed off many people’s careers
that were not adaptable. But while
the recession was the proximate
the change and profit from it, or
get trampled by it.
Lawyers can deliver greater
value in two ways. First, they can
deliver legal advice customized
to the strategic business needs of
the company, thereby providing
more for the same cost. Lawyers
will need to be businesspeople
first and lawyers second. This will
open opportunities to new career
paths and allow lawyers to move
beyond the dreaded “cost center”
label within businesses. Lawyers
will be able to form professional
service firms with accounting, financial, and management consulting professionals to deliver consolidated solutions for businesses
under one roof. The ABA rules
preventing this will fall away as
businesses demand it. Second,
lawyers can use technology to add
scalability to their legal advice,
1
Patrick Leugers ‘18
Guest Columnist
cause of the change, shifts in technology and effects on labor economics were the underlying cause
of many people’s careers perishing. The change continues unabated today, underneath the surface, hidden by the growth of the
economy and the rebound of the
stock market. Lean times will return again and careers that are not
adaptable will be culled. Make
no mistake: business people view
legal advice as a “cost center” in
terms of managerial accounting.
When the next recession hits,
companies will cut their spending
to the bone in all areas, including
legal. Once companies find that
they can get by with lower-cost
legal providers, they will have no
use for high-priced legal advisors
when the economy returns to the
land of milk and honey.
Your future career as a lawyer
must be constructed with inherent
flexibility and pragmatism. While
all of you have an extremely high
level of intelligence, it will not
save you from any rigidity. As in
evolution, adaptability, not intelligence, is the key. Legal process
outsourcers, predicative analytic
companies, and the Big 4 accounting firms are making inroads into
traditional legal work. Clients
are under tremendous cost pressures and are looking for ways to
reduce legal costs. Lawyers have
a Hobson’s choice; they must deliver greater value, or other professionals will, and lawyers will
be pushed to the side. Make no
mistake: while it is currently lowend legal work that is being commoditized, these competitors will
move up the value chain and compete on highly specialized legal
work. Lawyers can either embrace
Generated by http://www.opensky.ca/sudoku on Mon Apr 4 22:54:16 2016 GMT. Enjoy!
Consider yourselves warned,
fellow law students. The current
practice of law will change mark-