Calling Lawyers and Legal Students! (Homework)

JennyColada

I am taking a Business Law class (it's very introductory) and we have our first homework assignment due tomorrow.

I've completed it, but I would like someone to just briefly look it over to tell me if it even makes sense (we have to write our responses in IRAC - Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion...does this mean anything to you guys or is this just a teacher-specific preference?).

I don't mind copy-pasting the questions/my replies into this topic (it has to do with fake cases and it's only three questions) if anyone wouldn't mind too terribly? I know that there are a handful of legal-students/lawyers, but I can't quite remember who they are (I think @JCbride2015 and a couple others?).

JCbride2015

Yep, I know IRAC.  Shoot me a PM or just post it here if you don't mind.

JennyColada

Yay I was right! I'm not a stalker I swear though. :P I still have to finish the A/C of my last question, but here are the two that I'm done with (if I know I'm on the right track then I'll have no issue finishing the third question on my own.

2-1
Freedom of Speech. A mayoral election is about to be held in Bay City. One of the candidates is Donita Estrella, and her supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on public property. The purpose of the ordinance is to improve the appearance of the city. Estrella’s supporters content that the ordinance violates their rights to free speech. What factors might a court consider in determining the constitutionality of this ordinance?

Issue: Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on the public property.
Rule: A Bay City ordinance that prohibits the posting of signs on the public property.
Application: It is not stated if Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post signs on streetlights and utility posts in the Bay City, but it can be inferred. Streetlights and utility posts are considered public property, and it is a Reasonable Restriction to disallow the posting of signs on these items, since the posting of signs on private property is not expressly disallowed by the ordinance. Content-Neutral Laws are restricting the time, manner, and place, but as this ordinance is not expressly regulating content it is not to as scrutinized by the courts.
Conclusion: This ordinance does not violate the rights to free speech.

2-5 The Commerce Clause. Under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), sex offenders must register and update their registration as sex offenders when they travel from one state to another. David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his registration. He was charged with violating SORNA. He claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved. Is this reasonable? Why or why not?

Issue: David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his his state registration as outlined by SORNA. He was charged with violating SORNA. David Hall claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved.
Rule: Article 1, Section 8, (also known as “The Commerce Clause”) of the U.S. Constitition expressly permits Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Application: The Commerce Clause does indeed regulate commerce between Nations, States, and Tribes. It is not stated that David Hall is not planning on involving any commerce between New York state and Virginia, as implied by his citation of the clause in his defense. SORNA does involve the movement of Registered Sex Offenders between states. As David is a registered Sex Offender in the state of New York, he is covered by the regulation of SORNA. Traveled from state to state without updating his registration.
Conclusion: This does not violate the rights of the Commerce Clause.

JennyColada

(TK ate my paragraphs but I tried to edit them back in.)

JCbride2015

Did your prof ask you to write the IRAC part actually in there? This is something I do while drafting but I delete it in the final version.

JennyColada

JCbride2015 said:

Did your prof ask you to write the IRAC part actually in there? This is something I do while drafting but I delete it in the final version.

Yea, he said that our responses have to be in IRAC format. So I'm assuming that we just write out an IRAC? Since this is our first introduction to business law, I guess his intent is to ensure that we understand the format (I imagine that in later parts of the semester and in other classes we won't need to keep the actual IRAC format...but this is the first homework assignment in the second week).

JCbride2015

JennyColada said:

JCbride2015 said:

Did your prof ask you to write the IRAC part actually in there? This is something I do while drafting but I delete it in the final version.

Yea, he said that our responses have to be in IRAC format. So I'm assuming that we just write out an IRAC? Since this is our first introduction to business law, I guess his intent is to ensure that we understand the format (I imagine that in later parts of the semester and in other classes we won't need to keep the actual IRAC format...but this is the first homework assignment in the second week).

That's fine.  I teach taught my 1L writing students to do this, too.  We just edit it out in the final version.

I'm working on some comments now.  Should I send you a PM with them?  Or are you on mobile and can't get PMs?  (damn TK)

JennyColada

I just switched to mobile.

But I don't mind you tearing apart my work publicly. Lol.

JCbride2015

JennyColada said:

I just switched to mobile. But I don't mind you tearing apart my work publicly. Lol.

Haha!  It won't be that bad.  Constructive professional criticism.

Did your prof give any indication of how long the assignment is supposed to be?  This is stuff that, like, an entire brief could be written on.

JennyColada

Hrm. No. The sample IRACs he have were a tiny bit shorter than my own (not by much though), so I don't think they need to be pages and pages long.

This is what's frustrating about the first assignments - I never know where I stand until after the fact! But I feel comfortable with my content, I guess I just want to make sure that the format is right (I'm thinking that the Issue section should focus more on stuff like @Hall is suing the state of NY because..." Rather than what I wrote?

JCbride2015

2-1 

Freedom of Speech. A mayoral election is about to be held in Bay City. One of the candidates is Donita Estrella, and her supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on public property. The purpose of the ordinance is to improve the appearance of the city. Estrella’s supporters content that the ordinance violates their rights to free speech. What factors might a court consider in determining the constitutionality of this ordinance? 

Issue: Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on the public property. Issue statement should try to drill down on the actual point of law at issue.  Here, that’s probably, “Does the Bay City ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property violate Ms. Estrella’s First Amendment rights?” I almost always phrase this as a question.  Alternatively, you can state, “At issue is whether…” or “The issue is whether…”

Rule: A Bay City ordinance that prohibits the posting of signs on the public property.  What is the law that will decide the case?  That’s like your benchmark against which you will measure the facts (in the Application section).  So here, you are deciding whether the Bay City ordinance is constitutional.  Therefore you are measuring it against the First Amendment.  The First Amendment is your rule.  You should either directly quote and cite the relevant part of the First Amendment, or paraphrase it and cite.

Application: It is not stated if Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post signs on streetlights and utility posts in the Bay City, but it can be inferred.  This is a good lawyer move: if you make an assumption, state what you are assuming. Streetlights and utility posts are considered public property, and it is a Reasonable Restriction (Reasonable Restriction is a First Amendment concept— that should have been introduced in the Rule section so your reader knows what you’re talking about by the time they get here) to disallow the posting of signs on these items, since (Good— always include “since” or “because” as much as you can) the posting of signs on private property is not expressly disallowed by the ordinance. Content-Neutral Laws are restricting the time, manner, and place (again, you wanted to introduce the content neutral standard in the Rule section), but as this ordinance is not expressly regulating content it is not to as scrutinized by the courts.  

Conclusion: This ordinance does not violate the rights to free speech. Conclusion is fine, it can be brief.  Sometimes I’ll briefly restate the crux of my argument in the Conclusion, such as “Because the ordinance is a content-neutral regulation on time, place, and manner of speech, it does not violate the First Amendment.”

***Did your class cover any cases about the special, highly elevated protections for political speech?  That’s something I would have discussed but this is obviously a short assignment and if you didn’t cover it, don’t worry about it.  I actually would not be surprised if a law like this would turn out to be unconstitutional because it suppresses political speech, but First Amendment isn’t really my jam so I’m not sure.

2-5 The Commerce Clause. Under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), sex offenders must register and update their registration as sex offenders when they travel from one state to another. David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his registration. He was charged with violating SORNA. He claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved. Is this reasonable? Why or why not? 

Issue: David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his his state registration as outlined by SORNA. He was charged with violating SORNA. David Hall claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved.  You don’t need so many specific facts here (if you were writing a brief, this would have been already laid out in the facts section).  Phrase as a concise sentence or two: what is the crux of the legal question?

Rule: Article 1, Section 8, (also known as “The Commerce Clause”) of the U.S. Constitition expressly permits Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  Good.  The Commerce Clause is what will decide this issue.  Is there a case or interpretation you learned about that includes a definition of “interstate commerce?”

Application: The Commerce Clause does indeed regulate commerce between Nations, States, and Tribes. It is not stated that David Hall is not planning on involving any commerce between New York state and Virginia, as implied by his citation of the clause in his defense. SORNA does involve the movement of Registered Sex Offenders between states. As David is a registered Sex Offender in the state of New York, he is covered by the regulation of SORNA. Traveled from state to state without updating his registration.  This section is kind of unclear and includes some incomplete sentences.  What you want to do is measure Mr. Hall’s actions (the facts) against the standard for what Congress is allowed to regulate, i.e. what counts as interstate commerce (the law).  Think about: do you spend money when you move?  Are you engaging in business that crosses state lines?  Does moving affect the economy?

Conclusion: This does not violate the rights of the Commerce Clause.  Rephrase this— the Commerce Clause doesn’t have rights; it’s a section of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate certain things.  So you can say, “The Commerce Clause does/ does not authorize X action by Congress.  X action is thus constitutional/unconstitutional.”

JCbride2015

JennyColada said:

Hrm. No. The sample IRACs he have were a tiny bit shorter than my own (not by much though), so I don't think they need to be pages and pages long. This is what's frustrating about the first assignments - I never know where I stand until after the fact! But I feel comfortable with my content, I guess I just want to make sure that the format is right (I'm thinking that the Issue section should focus more on stuff like @Hall is suing the state of NY because..." Rather than what I wrote?

Okay, I figured this was supposed to be a short assignment.

JennyColada

Oh I really like your notes (especially about using money to move - I didn't even think about that!). Thank you!

JCbride2015

JennyColada said:

Oh I really like your notes (especially about using money to move - I didn't even think about that!). Thank you!

You're welcome!  Let me know if you want to throw a second draft my way.

hteverywhere15

Your issues are restating the facts rather than stating the actual legal issue. For example, in the first question, the issue is whether an ordinance prohibiting posting signs violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Hope that helps a little, I remember hating IRAC (and CRAC and TRAC...every professor has a different stupid acronym) at first, but it becomes second nature after a while. 

hteverywhere15

Oops looks like you already got some good (and more thorough) feedback above  

JCbride2015

hopeh18 said:

Your issues are restating the facts rather than stating the actual legal issue. For example, in the first question, the issue is whether an ordinance prohibiting posting signs violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Hope that helps a little, I remember hating IRAC (and CRAC and TRAC...every professor has a different stupid acronym) at first, but it becomes second nature after a while. 

Yes, haha, everyone does it differently.  My 1L writing program called it CREAC: Conclusion, Rule, Explanation [of rule], Application, Conclusion [again].  Really it just should have been CRAC, but we figured our profs didn't always want to say "crack."  CRAC is whack.

hteverywhere15

Oh yes, how could I forget CREAC?? As if 1L's aren't overwhelmed enough without 4 different methods for how to write a basic legal argument.  

JennyColada

So I see that I have a lot to look forward to...

JennyColada

Ok, here is the updated version (and I added in my last question):

@hopeh18 @JCbride2015

2-1

Freedom of Speech. A mayoral election is about to be held in Bay City. One of the candidates is Donita Estrella, and her supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on public property. The purpose of the ordinance is to improve the appearance of the city. Estrella’s supporters content that the ordinance violates their rights to free speech. What factors might a court consider in determining the constitutionality of this ordinance? (Page 40)

Issue: Does the Bay City ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on the public property violate Donita Estrella’s First Amendment rights to free speech?

Rule: The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. Reasonable restrictions express that a balance must be struct between a government’s obligation to protect its citizens and those citizens’ exercise of their rights. Content-Neutral Laws regulate the time, manner, and place, but not the content. Symbolic speech is protected which involves gestures, movements, articles of clothing, and other forms of expressive conduct.

Application: It is not stated if Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post signs on streetlights and utility posts in the Bay City, but it can be inferred. Streetlights and utility posts are considered public property, and it is a Reasonable Restriction to disallow the posting of signs on these items, since the posting of signs on private property is not expressly disallowed by the ordinance. Content-Neutral Laws are restricting the time, manner, and place, but as this ordinance is not expressly regulating content it is not to as scrutinized by the courts. It is not stated what is to be printed on the campaign signs, but it is reasonable that they would be protected as symbolic speech. This may especially come into consideration if the signs consist of artwork or an abstract visual item as opposed to words or other written language.

Conclusion: No, this does not violate first Amendment rights.

2-5

The Commerce Clause. Under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), sex offenders must register and update their registration as sex offenders when they travel from one state to another. David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his registration. He was charged with violating SORNA. He claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved. Is this reasonable? Why or why not? (Page 35)

Issue: David Hall claims that the charge he is facing about disobeying SORNA is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved.

Rule: Article 1, Section 8, (also known as “The Commerce Clause”) of the U.S. Constitution expressly permits Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Application: We know that David Hall is involving multiple states because he is moving from New York to Virginia, which are states in the US. It is not stated if David Hall wishes to create commerce by stating a business or working, however, there is much commerce involved in inter-state travel, including: moving fees (he may be renting or purchasing a property in Virginia, which would provide income in the state of Virginia), as well as travel costs (purchasing gasoline or railway or airplane tickets to or from Virginia). It is not stated if David Hall pays taxes to the state of New York, but if that is his original state of residence then it can be implied that he either had a place of employment (income tax) in New York or had a place of residence (property tax) as well as purchasing goods and service in New York (sales tax). Similarly, it is not stated that David Hall will be paying taxes in Virginia, but it is a reasonable implication that he either has a place of employment or a state of residence, as well as will be purchasing goods and services in Virginia. By moving from New York to Virginia, New York loses David Hall’s tax revenue while Virginia gains it, thus taking commerce away from one state and moving it into another, which is engaging in business across state lines.

Conclusion: Yes, this violates the Commerce Clause.

2-8

Freedom of Speech. Mark Wooden sent e-mail to an alder-woman for the city of St. Louis. Attached was a nineteen-minute audio that compared her to the biblical character, Jezebel - she was a “bitch in the Sixth Ward,” spending too much time with the rich and powerful and too little time with the poor. In a menacing, maniacal tone, Wooden said that he was “dusting off a sawed-off shotgun,” called himself a “domestic terrorist,” and referred to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the murder of a federal judge, and the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Feeling threatened, the alderwoman called the police. Wooden was convicted of harassment under a state criminal statute. Was this conviction unconstitutional under the First Amendment? Discuss. (Page 40)

Issue: Mark Wooden’s conviction of harassment is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Rule: The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. Reasonable restrictions express that a balance must be struct between a government’s obligation to protect its citizens and those citizens’ exercise of their rights. Content-Neutral Laws regulate the time, manner, and place, but not the content. Symbolic speech is protected which involves gestures, movements, articles of clothing, and other forms of expressive conduct.

Application: The e-mail that was sent does not involve religion, or verbal speech, but since it is written it involves the press. He is not asking asking to assemble peacefully. We know that Mark Wooden is planning on non-peaceful assembly since he is calling himself a terrorist and is implying violent behavior by involving firearms in his discussion of assassinations. Since Reasonable Restrictions allows the government to strike a balance between free speech and protecting it’s citizens, and since to be a congresswoman one must be a citizen, we know that Gabrielle Giffords must be a citizen and is offered protection in this manner. Content-Neutral Laws do not come into affect since it is the content, and not the time, manner, or place of the message that is an issue. Symbolic speech protection does not come into place since we know that this is issue involves written word since e-mails consist of typed words and phrases.

Conclusion: No, this does not violate first Amendment rights.

JCbride2015

JennyColada said:

Ok, here is the updated version (and I added in my last question):

@hopeh18 @JCbride2015

It's really hard to give critique without knowing what you learned in class so I tried to just comment on IRAC, but I noted where the law seemed wonky, too.  But Con Law was three years ago for me at this point and obviously your prof will grade you on what he taught you, so go with what you learned in class.  Overall this draft is much better at using the IRAC format.  It takes some getting used to.

2-1

Freedom of Speech. A mayoral election is about to be held in Bay City. One of the candidates is Donita Estrella, and her supporters wish to post campaign signs on streetlights and utility posts. A Bay City ordinance prohibits the posting of signs on public property. The purpose of the ordinance is to improve the appearance of the city. Estrella’s supporters content that the ordinance violates their rights to free speech. What factors might a court consider in determining the constitutionality of this ordinance? (Page 40)

Issue: Does the Bay City ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on the public property violate Donita Estrella’s First Amendment rights to free speech?

Rule: The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. Reasonable restrictions express that a balance must be struct between a government’s obligation to protect its citizens and those citizens’ exercise of their rights. Content-Neutral Laws regulate the time, manner, and place, but not the content (note here whatever it is you learned about how much scrutiny a content-neutral law gets.  You've defined the term but not said why it is significant). Symbolic speech is protected ("symbolic speech is protected" is sort of a distortion of the law-- symbolic speech doesn't get any special protection; it's just that certain gestures, etc. can be treated the same as verbal speech.  Take another look at whatever case your prof used) which involves gestures, movements, articles of clothing, and other forms of expressive conduct.

Application: It is not stated if Donita Estrella and supporters wish to post signs on streetlights and utility posts in the Bay City, but it can be inferred. Streetlights and utility posts are considered public property, and it is a Reasonable Restriction to disallow the posting of signs on these items, since the posting of signs on private property is not expressly disallowed by the ordinance (this phrasing is a little weird, try rephrasing and don't use the word "disallow" twice). Content-Neutral Laws are restricting the time, manner, and place, but as this ordinance is not expressly regulating content it is not to as (missing a word here?) scrutinized by the courts. It is not stated what is to be printed on the campaign signs, but it is reasonable that they would be protected as symbolic speech. This may especially come into consideration if the signs consist of artwork or an abstract visual item as opposed to words or other written language. (I just don't see how symbolic speech played into this but you know what your prof said, not me.  This would seem to me to be an issue of political speech)

Conclusion: No, this does not violate First Amendment rights.

2-5

The Commerce Clause. Under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), sex offenders must register and update their registration as sex offenders when they travel from one state to another. David Hall, a convicted sex offender in New York, moved to Virginia, where he did not update his registration. He was charged with violating SORNA. He claimed that the statute is unconstitutional, arguing that congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved. Is this reasonable? Why or why not? (Page 35)

Issue: David Hall claims that the charge he is facing about disobeying SORNA is unconstitutional, arguing that Congress cannot criminalize interstate travel if no commerce is involved.

Rule: Article 1, Section 8, (also known as “The Commerce Clause”) of the U.S. Constitution expressly permits Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Application: We know that David Hall is involving multiple states because he is moving from New York to Virginia, which are states in the US. It is not stated if David Hall wishes to create commerce by stating a business or working, however,  There is much commerce involved in inter-state travel, including: moving fees (he may be renting or purchasing a property in Virginia, which would provide income in the state of Virginia), as well as travel costs (purchasing gasoline or railway or airplane tickets to or from Virginia). It is not stated if David Hall pays taxes to the state of New York, but if that is his original state of residence then it can be implied that he either had a place of employment (income tax) in New York or had a place of residence (property tax) as well as purchasing goods and service in New York (sales tax). (Did your prof teach you that taxes factor strongly into the Commerce Clause analysis?  I don't remember this.) Similarly, it is not stated that David Hall will be paying taxes in Virginia, but it is a reasonable implication that he either has a place of employment or a state of residence, as well as will be purchasing goods and services in Virginia. By moving from New York to Virginia, New York loses David Hall’s tax revenue while Virginia gains it, thus taking commerce away from one state and moving it into another, which is engaging in business across state lines. (Interstate commerce tends to be more about private business, not necessarily taxes.  Unless your prof use taxes as an example?  This was a few years ago in school for me).

Conclusion: Yes, this violates the Commerce Clause.

2-8

Freedom of Speech. Mark Wooden sent e-mail to an alder-woman for the city of St. Louis. Attached was a nineteen-minute audio that compared her to the biblical character, Jezebel - she was a “bitch in the Sixth Ward,” spending too much time with the rich and powerful and too little time with the poor. In a menacing, maniacal tone, Wooden said that he was “dusting off a sawed-off shotgun,” called himself a “domestic terrorist,” and referred to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the murder of a federal judge, and the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Feeling threatened, the alderwoman called the police. Wooden was convicted of harassment under a state criminal statute. Was this conviction unconstitutional under the First Amendment? Discuss. (Page 40)

Issue: Mark Wooden’s conviction of harassment is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (I personally like to state the conclusion at the beginning like this; however in IRAC format you want to just say "The issue is..." or "At issue is whether..." or ask the question.  Don't state the conclusion here)

Rule: The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition the government. Reasonable restrictions express that a balance must be struct between a government’s obligation to protect its citizens and those citizens’ exercise of their rights. Content-Neutral Laws regulate the time, manner, and place, but not the content. Symbolic speech is protected which involves gestures, movements, articles of clothing, and other forms of expressive conduct. (I don't see how symbolic speech is relevant here.  You only need to state the relevant parts of the amendment.  Did you learn anything about speech that is threatening or harassing?  I guess I don't understand why the prof would give you this question if you hadn't read some material about threats and harassment).

Application: The e-mail that was sent does not involve religion, or verbal speech, but since it is written it involves the press (did you learn a definition of "press?"  Something doesn't automatically become freedom of the press just because it's written down). He is not asking asking to assemble peacefully (good effort on relating rules to facts, but I just don't think this is relevant). We know that Mark Wooden is planning on non-peaceful assembly (It seems like you are really trying to shoehorn this into peaceful assembly law.  Assembly would be gathering with other people, this is an issue where he's making a threat) since he is calling himself a terrorist and is implying violent behavior by involving firearms in his discussion of assassinations. Since Reasonable Restrictions allows the government to strike a balance between free speech and protecting it’s citizens, and since to be a congresswoman one must be a citizen, we know that Gabrielle Giffords must be a citizen and is offered protection in this manner. Content-Neutral Laws do not come into affect since it is the content, and not the time, manner, or place of the message that is an issue. Symbolic speech protection does not come into place since we know that this is issue involves written word since e-mails consist of typed words and phrases.  (I think the general issue with the Rule and Application section is that you don't have a rule about threats and harassment to use as your baseline, so you're trying to fit the situation into these other First Amendment rules you have learned.  Did you have any cases about threats under the First Amendment?)

Conclusion: No, this does not violate first Amendment rights. (Note that your I statement says the conviction is unconstitutional, whereas your C statement says the conviction is constitutional.  Double check this.)

Sugargirl1019

Hi y'all y'all are freaking awesome. But reading this just made me puke.

Doonneee wiitthhhh schooooollllllll!

But really thanks for helping her out. You're fantastic. I hate writing.

JennyColada

You are such a help @JCbride2015! Thank you so much for looking over this (multiple times even!).

lc07

This community is rad.

hteverywhere15

Sorry, just saw this! JCbride clearly has it covered though GL with your class! 

Chipmunk415

Im having flashbacks to finals and bar prep.....no thanks, JC covered it, I will start cracking open the wine to get rid of law school memories

melbenso

As you've already guessed, IRAC is the standard way of doing legal writing.  And you'd be surprised how many lawyers forget that as soon as they finish law school - the horribly written briefs I've had to respond to over the years amaze me.

@Chipmunk415 - I miss law school, well, sometimes.   But then again, most of my law school and bar prep memories involve bottles of wine.

hteverywhere15

Well I must be certifiably insane because after passing the bar and working for over a year I just accepted a new job that is requiring me to take another state's bar exam this Feb. So I am voluntarily putting myself through that again. Wine will be needed in copious amounts.

kat1114

hopeh18 said:

Well I must be certifiably insane because after passing the bar and working for over a year I just accepted a new job that is requiring me to take another state's bar exam this Feb. So I am voluntarily putting myself through that again. Wine will be needed in copious amounts.

SITB

You are a brave soul. After I passed the bar, I said never again. I passed in a UBE state, so if we ever have to move to another state, it better be one I can transfer my score to.

hteverywhere15

kat1114 said:

hopeh18 said:

Well I must be certifiably insane because after passing the bar and working for over a year I just accepted a new job that is requiring me to take another state's bar exam this Feb. So I am voluntarily putting myself through that again. Wine will be needed in copious amounts.

SITB

You are a brave soul. After I passed the bar, I said never again. I passed in a UBE state, so if we ever have to move to another state, it better be one I can transfer my score to.

I said the same exact thing after I passed...then this really great opportunity came along and I figured 2 months of suffering will be worth the payoff. It's also the NY bar, which is supposed to be one of the harder ones   

I just have to try to forget how horrible it was the first time and suck it up. I imagine it's similar to how women forget how painful childbirth was when they decide to get pregnant again.

melbenso

hopeh18 said:

Well I must be certifiably insane because after passing the bar and working for over a year I just accepted a new job that is requiring me to take another state's bar exam this Feb. So I am voluntarily putting myself through that again. Wine will be needed in copious amounts.

That's actually my only prohibition against moving.  I have told DH that I will never consider moving to a state where I would have to take another bar exam.  I've practiced long enough that I can waive in in most any state that has any form of reciprocity at this point, but states that don't are completely out of the question. 

@hopeh18, wine for you: