Special Comment: I will say this twice

First of all, I'd like to apologize.  I haven't written a post in what, two months?  And no hiatus message?  Clearly, other things have been going on.  Rest assured, a review of The Big Short will be coming down the pipeline in the next week, so stay tuned.

Second, I'd like to apologize for writing this post.  I really don't want to do it.  It forces me to say a lot of things I'd rather not say.  I am sure I could say nothing and just let it die, and I'm afraid if I do this it will start things back up again.  I've never been one to attack strangers on the internet, and I don't want to do it.  But I have to defend myself.

For those of you that don't know, I have had my pathetic little fifteen minutes of crappy fame.  I don't even want to post a link here.  You can just google my name.  Luckily only one of the two posts shows up in the first results.  Unfortunately there were some pretty terrible pictures (or one, at least) that I just had to "report" on google.

I could launch into a full-on screed about cyber libel and how I should really turn this unfortunate event into a life lesson for all the scambloggers out there, but I don't want to invite any more speculation about what is or is not possible.  I kindly left a comment after the first story was posted and it was deleted.  I would rather not kindly ask anymore because if it goes down voluntarily, then it won't be as satisfying as, oh, returning the punch.

Because that is what we're told.  In Catholic school at least.  Do not get into fights.  If someone hits you, do not hit them back.  Turn the other cheek.

If I were making a six figure salary right now, I probably could do that.  However, while I really didn't want to make substantive comments about scamblogging, I think I have to.  Because I have to set things straight:

#1: I am not Mr. Infinity.

A lot of people think I am, for some reason.  I will tell you this: I really did not do myself any favors by writing a special comment about scamblogs.  I featured two of the blogs (maybe there was a third, but it had no fallout) in the comment.  One of them responded in truly vicious fashion, and the other one wrote, "Thank you very much for featuring my blog, 'Law School Fail' on your analysis.  Sincerely, Mr. Infinity." Now, I had already read the first post about me, so this did not come as a happy comment.  I wanted to be like, "WTF dude, didn't you see that everyone thought I was you? Why didn't you tell them we're two different people?" Instead, he just linked to Flying Houses on his blogroll.  I do not get very many hits from him.

But I'm not mad at him.  I could speculate that he's a made-up person, too, but I don't want to fuel speculation that I'm paranoid schizophrenic.

However, I am not him.  And the people that set out to destroy me (and if you think I'm being dramatic by saying that, you haven't read all the comments yet) probably won't believe that, but they should listen to reason and read the rest of my posts here.  Flying Houses is my only blog (apart from http://daylightsavingstime-jk.blogspot.com/, which was my way of putting my first novel online) and it has always been primarily about book reviews.

I rarely get into trouble with book reviews.  And in fact, the authors of some of the books I've reviewed have actually found them, and taken my criticism to heart.  So blogging is not a totally stupid thing to do.

However, writing a column called NIED was probably not the smartest thing to do.  I expected to get a lot of hate mail for what I wrote, and I did get a fair amount.  But some of this hate mail crossed the line.  Still, I am proud of (most of) my work for BLS Advocate.  Of course I wrote 24 pieces, and some of them became extremely esoteric (i.e. http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html), but overall, I think I wrote relatively well.  Some people just didn't get the joke.

#2: I never said the scamblogs were wrong.

This is what infuriates me most: the only reason I became a target is because I made some very mild comments!  I called the blog in question "an especially vicious site that seems to revel in parade after parade of horribles."  I guess the really offensive thing is that I may have expressed what appeared to be sympathy for a person that has been skewered about ten times worse than I have, but who truly can "turn the other cheek" because fighting back is beneath her and she would rather have everyone wonder what she does than answer why she needs to get paid like half a million dollars a year, but whatever.  What would be really cool is if she would notice what was going on, and pay me to "take care of the situation"--but I am sure she would rather pay her personal attorney than one of her "victims."

#3: I never took the NY Bar Exam.

And I did pass the Illinois Bar Exam.  You can check iardc.org now if you need proof.
Actually, those commenters on story #2 alerted me to the fact that there was one more hoop to jump through after being sworn-in: registering.  I registered a couple weeks after the comments came in that I was a liar.

Why did I not take the NY Bar Exam?  I really don't think I need to explain myself, but people seem to want to know.  First of all, let me agree with the person that said I was a "fucking idiot" for going back to Illinois.  I know--it was a mistake.  It is very hard to start off in a "new" city, even if you were born here and did your post-2L summer internship here.  I certainly made more "contacts" in NYC, but most of those contacts were at the places I interned.

And I really did want to stay in NYC.  I interviewed with one of those places where I did an internship, and I made it to the final round--but alas, I was not hired.  At that point, I had registered for the NY Bar Exam.  However, I cancelled that registration, and received a $250 refund (so for all the hesitant bar takers out there--it is possible!  But you may need to show them a copy of your bank account balance).  And, yes, I paid $1,450 to register in Illinois.  It hurt, but so did paying like $1,800 to have my stuff (which wasn't even very much stuff!) shipped from Brooklyn to Chicago and stored for two months.  And it hurt paying $1,080 for first month rent + security deposit without knowing when I would (or if I ever would) have stable income again.

But, I knew it wasn't likely that I would get a job at any of the other places I interned.  They just weren't the types of places to be able to hire all (or most) of their past interns.  I guess most places that do internships (and not summer associate-ships) are like that--but I always did my best at internships, with an eye towards the future.  It almost worked out a couple times, but in the end it didn't, and while it was a painful decision, I just didn't want to face the horrible reality of taking the NY Bar while trying to find an apartment with a dwindling cash reserve and no proof of stable employment.  I would have had to move out of my place two days after I took it.

So for the person that said it was "well-known" that I stayed in New York until August, you are correct!  I flew back to Chicago, stayed here a few days, took the Bar, passed it (somehow--and I find it offensive that some of these commenters think I am a cocky POS when I have always been painfully honest about my grades and general level of intelligence), flew back to NYC, packed up my apartment, and then went to my sister's wedding in Massachusetts.  I stayed so I could go to that wedding, and because I was working two days a week at the library.

#4: I did not move to California (that happened six-and-a-half years ago)

Seriously, why would I take the NY Bar if I was moving to California?  The only time I contemplated moving to California after law school was when I interviewed for a bankruptcy clerkship in Oakland.  I would never voluntarily go to CA to take the Bar there.  That is the hardest bar exam in the country by a lot.  However, if I was dead-set on moving there, I would have taken it over the NY Bar because it really would be retarded to think I'd be competitive in the job market there without in-state licensure.

I did move to Calfornia in 2007.  But this is going to get into the fact that my life is "all sorts of epic fail," a comment that especially made me want to kill myself.  Oh, don't let me confuse the issues here!  This is not about cyberbullying; this is about cyber libel.  It's not like I have a great reputation, okay, but when they swore us in on Halloween, all they wanted to talk about was that constant refrain that it takes years to build your reputation and minutes to destroy it, so be careful.  And I have been pretty careful.  People may think I'm reckless, but honestly, I have always been paying attention to the things I write and post online and the way I carry myself in day-to-day reality.

I moved there, and--what happened there, I will not tell.  I'll let other people try to figure it out for themselves.  But I will admit that Flying Houses was born in West L.A.

I'll also admit that I've pretty much said what I wanted to say, and unfortunately, I just have to record everything else that everyone got wrong.

#5: I am not a vegan.

But I wish I could be.

#6: I never wrote an e-book called "Derailed at my Law School"

And I would never publish a 25-page e-book.  A 25-page book is probably not worth $0.99 (especially if it's electronic).

#7: I do allow comments on my site.

Even negative ones.  But I delete spam.

#8: I don't always defend BLS.

I was complimenting the comment about the entering class size at BLS being too big.  Some people just do not want to say a single nice thing about anybody.  :(

#9: I am not Odnan.

I really didn't want to have to get into this either, but I seriously would not be so lame as to make a "copycat blog" or to write another e-book called "How to Win at Law School." While those may be uncanny parallels (perhaps Mr. Infinity does moonlight as Odnan), when I write an e-book, it's going to be called "TTT" or "A Mark" - not something lame and generic.  I also wouldn't waste my time creating mirror blogs to make it seem like I have more fans than I really do.  I'm proud of the fact that I have 52,000 page views.  My audience is limited, but I care about creating quality content--not becoming a limited public figure.

#10: I am not going to address all of the comments after story #1.

It would take too long and get too tedious.

#11: I did not talk down to JD Painter.

And I would never make fun of someone who was deeply in debt and unable to get a decent job in the legal industry.  That is just mean.  And yes, I guess we are now in the same boat.

#12: I am not $300,000 in debt.

But I may be after 24 years of IBR at $30/month or whatever it ends up being if I attempt to live off tips.  Wait for my blog and new pseudonym: JD Waiter.

I have nothing more to say except that I have always intended for my writing to bring other people a brief moment of happiness, or to feel less alone.  I would never write about a person to try to destroy them unless they had done something pretty bad to me or someone I loved.  I don't think I've done that and don't feel I deserve to be treated this way.  People feel free to act like dicks on the internet because they can hide behind a pseudonym or declare themselves anonymous and nobody will ever call them out on that.  But I honestly hope that one day all of the hurtful and insensitive comments, made with reckless disregard for the truth, will be treated as unprotected speech, as they are words that, by their very utterance, tend to inflict harm.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #23: Scamblogs

The penultimate NIED column.  #24 will be my farewell column, and is yet to be written.  While this post replicates some of the material linked to in the first paragraph, I felt that an update on the matter would be instructive in determining of how many legal educations "scams" at certain institutions continue to exist.  My slight complaint about the version appearing on BLS Advocate is that they did not seem to get my point about the Claims Adjuster position posted on our school's job board...

On June 1, 2011, I posted a long “special comment” on so-called “scamblogs.”  That may be found here http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2011/06/special-comment-scamblogs.html.  As previously understood between me and the BLS Advocate staff, I will complete Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress with 24 articles.  I felt that since I was nearing graduation, it was time to reconsider scamblogs, and see how the landscape has changed in the past two years.

                First, we consider http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com, which has just said “goodbye” on February 27, 2013, after 500 posts.  One statement bears excerpting:

19 months and 499 posts later, it turns out that the core message of this blog – that legal academia is operating on the basis of an unsustainable economic model, which requires most law students to borrow more money to get law degrees than it makes sense for them to borrow, given their career prospects, and that for many years law schools worked hard, wittingly or unwittingly, to hide this increasingly inconvenient truth from both themselves and their potential matriculants – has evolved from a horrible heresy to something close to conventional wisdom.

                So the scamblogs have gone away because people got tired of repeating themselves over and over again, until people at the ABA decided that it was time to take their concerns seriously.  I personally dislike this blog because he brags about getting 50,000 comments (I have about 100 comments and 30,000 page views, but I would like to think that I have written on a far more diverse range of topics).  I also have little sympathy for law school professors that write about how they know they are “duping” their students—if you believe that strongly about it then get out (maybe it’s all he’s qualified to do, though). 

                Next up we have the always popular “ATL.”  I will not say much about this website as I have written at length on it in my previous special comment linked to above, but I will just say that I was very distressed to see them report on the resignation of our Director of Career Services, with a “hot tip” from a BLS student who bemoaned the fact that a position of “Claims Adjuster” was listed on Symplicity.  Note to self: Claims Adjuster is not a “legal job” but it’s at an insurance company and they always need lawyers so they wouldn’t be posting there if that wasn’t at least part of the concern.  Plus those jobs pay pretty well, and the lead singer from the band Pissed Jeans is a Claims Adjuster for his day job so I think it would actually be kind of cool to do that. 

                I hate “ATL.”  I have visited it less and less over the years.  It loads slowly.  It’s TMZ for nerdy lawyers and law students.  They make all their money off advertising from various “legal companies” and then they don’t exactly bite that hand that feeds them, but might as well [tell everyone that if they score beneath 170 on the LSAT don’t go to law school].  I have very little respect for this website and hope that my blog will never fall prey to being such a sell-out.

                Lawschoolfail.blogspot.com is our next stop on the tour, and this site at least opens up with a nice post (dated December 26, 2012) asking whether the scamblogs are wrong.  Now this is an interesting question.   The scamblogs may have been right, and they may actually have effected a grassroots-type of change in the legal profession, now that US News & World Report has changed the way they list employment figures for graduated law students.  But do we really need scamblogs anymore? 

                The blogger makes an interesting point:

What is the point in not getting married or not trying in life because you did not get a job after law school?  What is the point in feeling sorry for yourself over the internet year after year?  There has to honestly come a time when you get off the internet and start striving again.  I just can't get over the fact that law school has broken so many people.  I can't come up with any other conclusion than these people were very weak individuals.  Some seem to literally revel in their own self pity, wallowing in the perceived idea that they are pariahs.  Many act as if they have given up on life, instead of trying to do something else, they just say "I can't do anything with my degree." 

                This is basically the point I wanted to make here.  Law school is not for babies.  If you’ve never had a job before starting law school, then you may not know what it is like to search for a job, and how demoralizing it can get.  It’s probably going to suck.  But things are different in 2013 than they were in 2012 or 2011 or 2010 or 2009 or even 2008.  They still pretty much suck, but they are, ever-so-slowly (we are told to believe) getting better.

                ThirdTierReality.blogspot.com is an especially vicious site with offensive imagery that seems to revel in parades after parades of horribles.  In the past, this blog has taken pot shots at BLS and our President.  Now, many of us may feel strongly about our President, but nobody really knows how much of a role she plays in our school.  She is higher up than the Dean, no?  She is the at the very top and has done her best to plug holes in the sinking ship that is a law school of our caliber in New York City in these economic times.  As much as people might love to hate on her, the fact is many of us have not even spoken to her, and have no idea what she is doing behind the scenes.  We will not pay any more attention to the woman behind the curtain.   

***

                Higher education may indeed be a scam, but it is a scam with which we must live.  Persons concerned that they are not getting their money’s worth should avoid private education.  (Though it is worth noting that many public institutions have rather inflated tuitions for law school—see University of Illinois at $38,250 a year (in-state); I base my statement on the cost of attending Northern Illinois University, however, which most people would consider reasonable at $19,811 a year (in-state).)  Many people from my generation will find it necessary to obtain a higher degree because they have found out that liberal arts degrees are a a-dime-a-dozen and they are simply not competitive in the labor economy.  I would not say “the hard is what makes it great,” but I would say “the hard is what makes you prepared to accept the terms of reality.”  I’m not going to make $160,000 in my first year out of law school, and indeed may not even get a job paying $57,000.  But I am not going to blog about how I wish I had known better.  Law school has been a rigorous education and has opened up a few more job possibilities than were open to me with a B.A. I will continue to blog about literature, film, music, and interesting legal matters.   I will never suggest that BLS “tricked” me into attending (though I may file a complaint against them in small claims court for $6,000), and whenever I give my “unauthorized tour” of the library to prospective students, I tell them that it is a very good school, and the tragedy is that because we are all so well-qualified, a fair number of us will just get left in the dust because there will always be employers that only care about class rank. 

                BLS has cut back the number of students per class, and ultimately this is the wisest resolution of the “hyper-saturation problem.”  We may never be as good as NYU or Columbia, but my hope is that one day (hopefully soon) we will be recognized as a school on equal footing with Fordham.  And I do not think that is an unrealistic hope.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #22: Corporations

I really do not want to cover up "Wild Bill," but as we near the end of law school, we must think of others who do not read BLS Advocate.  While I have generally been pleased with the posting of my materials on BLS Advocate, there are at times small (nearly imperceptible) changes made to my work that I find to be incorrect.  My grammar and writing may be horrible, but I will continue to post the "unedited" versions on Flying Houses.  And using info-graphics that may require permission....

NIED #22: Corporations

By Christopher J. Knorps

I took Corporations in the Spring semester of my 2L year.  Only one section of it was offered then, and I was disheartened that I had not taken it in the Fall, when four (I think) were available, but I digress.  I do remember one Fall 2011 Corporations student’s status message on facebook: “If you are taking corporations in the spring, start outlining.”

                Corporations is a strange class—indeed, it is one of the many “upperclass requirements” (along with Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Trusts & Estates, and perhaps Tax or Administrative Law) but does not seem to focus on any single concept for too long except for the Business Judgment Rule.  By the end of the semester, you reach mergers & acquisitions, which is probably the hardest part of the course.  My professor worried, during an extra help session shortly before the exam, that I might “miss the forest for the trees,” and I was cautioned against doing so.  Regardless, I earned a B in the course—certainly the most disappointing grade in my 2L year—and I was later told that I was “boosted” from a B- for my in-class participation.  My hope is that after reading this column, you will not fall into the same Corporations trap. 

                First, if you have online access to BarBri or Themis or Kaplan, you should watch the lecture they have on Corporations.  It will not exactly be in depth, but it will tell you everything you need to succeed on the exam.  I feel that if I had watched the BarBri lecture, I would have earned a B+ or A- on the exam.  This was a class that I worked very hard in—and I knew the cases.  But I tend to focus on “the entire case,” rather than the rule to be gleaned from the case, due to a general distrust of “law student laziness.”

                “Law student laziness” may or may not be practiced by the top students—but it irks me to no end.  Corporations was difficult for me, because of the M&A stuff.  To illustrate, consider the Omnicare case.  Now, not only was the similarity of “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” a topic of some interest to throw off my concentration, but this case is a toughie.  It was the only assignment for that class, and we spent two hours on it.  When you have taken good notes from a two-hour class on one case, you have a problem because you have to get rid of all the extraneous stuff.  However, it is just like a law school exam to bring you through an extremely complex fact pattern that mimics patterns in certain cases, and forces you to react accordingly with the courts’ decisions in such instances.  I have no ideas about how to memorize such situations, but I can only suggest that you enumerate all of the relevant events in the merger negotiation process, and that you focus, laser-like, on the events or transactions most important to the court. 

Revlon is a different matter.  That is an easy case.  If your business is going up for sale, and everyone knows it, you now have an affirmative duty to find the best price for your shareholders. 

However, what the “best price” is in any given situation may be difficult to analyze.  Particularly if you do not have a very good idea about how analysts price stock. 

Now, I asked a question about this in my class, and my professor told me to take Corporate Finance.  I did that and got a C+ on that exam.  But I do know from that course how people price stock:

                XYZ Affair, Inc. has 1,000,000 authorized shares and was started with $1 million in capital. 

                Each share is worth $1.

                If XYZ Affair is very profitable, if it makes $500,000 in its first year of business, each share is now worth $1.50 (issues related to dividends, I will admit, are pretty well-cabined in the Corporate Finance course). 

                However, that would be too easy.  Stock pricing gets more difficult when you start including hostile tender offers that apply a “discount premium.”  In such a situation, Ronald Perelman or Carl Icahn is about to “raid” a company.  They may pay $4 for that share (probably more realistically they would not be interested in the XYZ Affair, Inc.), and once they own 500,001 shares, they have control.  Once they have control, they have a duty to their shareholders (unless the corporation is on the brink of insolvency, in which case the duties shift to the creditors of the corporation).  They will pay that $4 in order to get shareholders to sell, but once they have the majority of the stock of the corporation, they will be able to elect everyone to the Board of Directors. 

                I do not know if “poison pills” and “shark repellant” are essentially the same thing or not, and I am actually unsure of the veracity of the statements in the preceding paragraph by now (i.e. the stuff about voting).  But I do know my exam featured a “lock-up agreement” (also, may or may not be the same thing as a “no shop provision”) that I was unable to properly analyze, and so the rest of my answer came out a mess. 

                But I do know that BJR almost always wins the case for the Board—except in Van Gorkum.  And I do know that once it is determined that the Board is made up of “interested” directors, the standard shifts to “entire fairness” and the Board must prove their action was fair to shareholders.  Unitrin and Unocal are all about taking defensive measures against takeover attempts, and are easy, like Revlon to sum up in a sentence: the defense mechanism has to be consonant with the severity of the threat. 

                There are other cases—Caremark looms large, but I seem to remember that one just standing for the proposition that corporations must maintain internal systems of control to “police themselves” from committing fraud. 

                I really am afraid to write anything more because I don’t want to be wrong.  Just watch the lecture.  It should help.  If you want to comment in the hopes of clarifying some minute aspect of the corporations course, feel free—let this column be a place for impromptu truth-seeking.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law and constitutional law. He is organizing Brooklyn Law School’s 2^nd Annual Open Mic—please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you want to reserve a slot ahead of time.  You may read more of his work at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.  

Happy 5th [April Fool's Day] Birthday to Flying Houses

Today is April Fool's Day and also the birthday of Flying Houses.  We turned 5 today.

It is always a good time to consider our achievements over the past year.  Consider this my MD&A.

First of all, we cracked 30,000 all time page views.

Second, we cracked 2,000 monthly page views in March 2013, demolishing the previous month's record by nearly 700.  This may or may not have been a "pop" instituted by Jeffrey Toobin's "retweet" of my review of The Oath.

Among the highlights of the past year, The Bond Project remains most prominent.  More than 25 posts were made on this topic.  Flying Houses will be making our 250th Post very soon and we expect it to be a special one.  But we would not be at this point if not for the hard work of Jay Maronde, who has proven himself to be an expert on James Bond.  With the Die Hard Project currently in progress, I cannot thank Jay enough for his contributions.

I also want to thank Emily Dufton for her excellent review of IQ84 by Haruki Murakami.  This was one of the finest pieces of literary journalism/criticism that I have read in recent years, and I am deeply honored that I was able to present it here.

I also want to thank our most recent contributor, J. Alexander Gibson for his review of The Defining Decade, and not just because I post it in the waning days (16 left to go) of my twenties: I feel that these types of books (non-fiction or sociological theory) are potentially the most rewarding ones to review because real life experience, as opposed to the trait of being "well-read," colors the interpretation of a text in more "useful" or "tangible" ways.

I want to thank the BLS Advocate for allowing me to write my column and also post those columns (in their un-edited form) on this blog.  Those comprise an additional 22 posts or so, and again, without those we would not be knocking on the door of 250.

My hope is that by April 1, 2014, I will be gainfully employed, and will have cracked 300 posts and 75,000 page views.  Those may be ambitious projections, but I believe they are within reach.

Apart from those reviews already linked to above, here are what I consider to be the "greatest hits" of April 1, 2012 - April 1, 2013:

#1: NIED #9: Not in Love (Legally)  (posted 4/4/12) - This is a column about people seeking their spouses in law school.  Notable because some anonymous commenter on BLS Advocate just wrote, "you poor, poor thing," after reading it. (I tend to wonder whether that comment was a legitimate expression of sympathy or a passive-aggressive jab.)

#2: The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon (posted 5/13/12) - This was the first book I was able to review by Thomas Pynchon, and it was an excellent read.  Highly recommended, though it does not quite make the list of the "best books reviewed on Flying Houses list" (which you may find in my Profile).

#3: Discourse on Method by Rene Descartes (posted 6/1/12) - Understandably not the most popular post, but an original one as reviews on Flying Houses of philosophical texts hold the potential for enormous intellectual rewards.

#4: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller (posted 6/27/12) - Important because (a) it is named one of the "best books reviewed on Flying Houses" and (b) it is the first of many reviews of graphic novels that were undertaken over this past year.

#5: Big Sur by Jack Kerouac (posted 8/20/12) - Important because it is one of the last works of literature reviewed before the beginning of my 3L year, which brought great changes.  An entertaining review, and a book worth reading if one is interested at all in Kerouac.

#6: Skyfall (JK); Skyfall (JM) (posted 12/3/12) - Dueling Reviews of the newest Bond, our film criticism at its height.

#7: The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (posted 12/15/12) - Maybe I didn't do so well in my classes because I was so wrapped up in this book.  Notable as good "background reading" on certain cases in First Amendment law, provided at the end of the review.   Also notable for making the "best books" list.

#8: Superman: Red Son by Mark Millar (posted 1/1/13) - Notable for being such an outstanding work of art in the graphic novel medium.  A personal favorite from the year and an entrant on the "best books" list.

#9:  My Bloody Valentine - m b v (posted 2/16/13) - The album that took 22 years to release created a ton of music journalism--this was my little drop in the bucket.

#10: Die Hard with a Vengeance (JM) (posted 3/20/13) - This movie is an underrated classic and deserves to be seen by more members of the general public.  I include it as #10 as a way to sign off this post, as we are still meandering in the territory of the Die Hard Project and will soon complete it.

Thanks to all of our readers and thanks especially to those that have left comments.  You have helped to make this blog a success.  It may not be the greatest way for me to make money, but I feel that a substantial public interest has been served, and I will continue to do my best in providing excellent content for years to come.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #21: Monthly Expense Project and Moral Hazard

NIED #21: Monthly Expense Project and Moral Hazard

By Christopher J. Knorps

                On January 25, 2012, I had an inspiration.  The germ of this idea came from a period in early 2008.  I had recently gone on a road trip and managed to spend about $10,000.  While I could track most of my expenses through credit card statements, obviously I had not been diligent about keeping receipts from cash transactions.  Thus, I became paranoid that someone was taking money out of my account—recognizing that I was traveling (filling up my tank about once a day, paying for a hotel almost every night, buying snacks and meals) and incurring heavy expenses, and believing (perhaps correctly) that they could slip a withdrawal or purchase under my nose. 

                But it took four years for me to realize that a more eloquent system had to be constructed for personal finance.  Starting on February 1, 2012, I kept track of every dollar (nearly every penny) that I spent.  On February 1, 2013, I had completed one year of what I called “Monthly Expense Project” (or MEP).  Here were my totals (for the 5 main categories out of 16):

Total: $27,207.15 ($2,270.46 per month average)
Transportation: $2,344.75 ($195.40 per month average)
Food: $3,820.72 ($318.39 per month average)
Recreation: $4,923.93 ($410.33 per month average)
Academic: $1,877.67 ($156.48 per month average)

                More important is the disparity between “fixed” expenses and “discretionary” expenses.  Here, my 1 year MEP shows an interesting trend—as my fixed expenses dropped, my discretionary expenses grew (the disparity arose from a summer spent in Chicago, where I paid about $450 per month in rent as opposed to about $1,000 per month in Brooklyn). 

                On a very general level, I can tell that my fixed expenses come close to equaling my discretionary expenses.  Of the $27,207.15, about $11,000 of that is attributable to rent.  Thus, my total income after taxes should be about $33,000 (applying the general principle that rent should equal 1/3 of net income).  My total expenditures after rent totals approximately $16,000.  Thus, I would have roughly $6,000 to dispose of in other ways—it could go into savings, but after graduation, a good portion of that should go to loan payments.

                But more interestingly, how do these totals stack up to the approximations that Brooklyn Law School provides for its incoming students?

Add $49,976 to my total and you get $77,183.15 (the school estimates $75,536—not bad!)

                However, the school estimates housing in the amount of $17,200 (probably the cost of a fairly nice room in Feil Hall).  Subtracting $6,000 for me, the school estimate drops to $69,536. 

                Now this starts to look fishy.  Am I really spending almost $8,000 more dollars than the typical law student?

                What about transportation?  The school estimates $950 for that category, and I spent $2,344.75, about a $1,400 difference. 

                A word about transportation: over the summer, I took the El Train to work every day, and had monthly CTA cards, but at BLS, I rarely use the subway (I walk to campus).  However, I have also taken a number of plane trips, and this is probably responsible for my high totals (though there is certainly an argument to be made that this transportation expense is misleading).

So now, we’re down to $6,600—but let’s get to my favorite category: living expenses. 

                The school estimates that the average student will spend $5,880 on miscellaneous and living expenses.  Now, I did spend roughly $3,800 on food, which leaves about $2,000 for recreation, toiletries and various household expenses like cleaning and laundry. 

                If you add my recreation and food totals, it equals a whopping $8,744.65—almost $3,000 over the school estimate. 

                Still, there is about $3,600 difference lurking in the shadows.  My academic expenses equaled $1,877.67 and the school estimates “books” at $1,300.  Down to $3,100. 

                You could take out another $1,400 for health insurance—which I was on last year until I realized I could qualify for Medicaid (the school factors $0 into health insurance and does not widely distribute information about Medicaid—perhaps an attempt to drive up business with their provider, Aetna).  Still, there is a $1,700 shortfall.  I would imagine that cell phone and other utility bills makes up this difference.

                I advertised MEP as best as I could.  One other person participated in the November MEP.  My total was $1,999 and “Jackie Chan’s” total was $1,955, so the average was $1,977.

                My goal with MEP was to show that the school’s estimates were inaccurate and misleading.  People often criticize for BLS for its massive tuition and the expense of living in what is perhaps the most expensive area in Brooklyn. 

It is questionable what kinds of figures the school is “estimating” for food and recreational expenses.  It is not surprising that MEP has failed—but I am not a quitter and I demand that one more attempt be made.  The point of MEP was to write a scholarly article about personal finance, and to send it to Elizabeth Warren for comments.  In Chapter 13, disposable income is separated from fixed monthly expenses, and the debtor pays the court each month, and the court distributes that amount to creditors.  The point of the article would be to see if those amounts allocated by the court ($280 for food per month, for a single individual, from what I recall…) matched up to reality. 

Of course MEP is a larger project, but it has its seeds at BLS, and my experience of going from “fairly wealthy” to “broke” from 2007-2013—and I do not think my experience is unique.

I urge you to join me in the March 2013 MEP.  I know I will have at least three other participants, but of course greater participation equals greater accuracy.  Please visit this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIznoCng3Oo to watch a 28-minute video of the MEP Presentation.  I will e-mail you the slides from the Powerpoint if you prefer not to see the comedy.  I realize that MEP can be a tedious exercise, but it has been a valuable one for me (it has helped me figure out what kind of salary I should aim to earn), and I would be very pleased if you join me in this endeavor.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L.  He enjoys studying Bankruptcy and Constitutional Law.  He is organizing a Monthly Expense Project “reporting” for March of 2013—please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in participating.  He is also organizing a 2^nd Annual Open Mic and seeking performers so please contact him if you are interested. 

NIED #10: BLS Student Audit 2012 - PSG Cuts, Tuition Hikes

As we near the end of law school and the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress column (there will be 24) I wanted to double-check and be sure that every column I had written for BLS Advocate would also be included on Flying Houses (because it is no secret that I often feel my words being ripped from my throat and twisted in just the slightest way to make way for a completely different interpretation).

My guess is that I forgot to post this column (which was written April 7, 2012) because I posted my Presidential Speech when I ran for President of the Student Bar Association last year.  Also, I was a bit nervous about posting it because BLS Advocate was in its first year and there were concerns about taking away perfectly good traffic from that site.  I think 10 months later, it is safe to post.  I also think a lot of students don't really care (or even know) about the way this school used to be, so I post this as a refresher.  

Note however that some commentators felt the need to break out the "hatorade" on BLS Advocate.  I ask that you please refrain from duplicating that experience.  If there was anytime that my "popularity" at the school hit an all-time low, it was certainly around the time of this column.  I have nothing against BLSPI and I feel that if I spend $450 to have dinner with Geraldo, then I am entitled to make light of the situation....Also I was corrected about my use of the phrase "Hobson's Choice" but I am leaving it in because I still think it's being appropriately used.

Moreover the situation is even more frustrating now than it was for me then--keep in mind that this was before the NIED column "On the Cusp."

Last week, a few representatives from the American Bar Association set up in the Moot Court room from 5:00 – 6:00 PM on a Monday.  They wanted to hear students’ opinions of our law school.  How many of us showed up?  I don’t know—7?  8?  I know that when I arrived I was the 4^th. 

                I used this opportunity to lobby for a napping room, and for a broad mandate to all law schools that class sizes must be reduced if the legal market can ever hope to be fixed.  BLS may or may not already be implementing such a mandate—and the size of next year’s 1L class should help determine that.  I also mentioned a brief story about the public service grant from last year. 

                If you were here, perhaps you remember the one day “push” to get a petition signed by as many students as possible.  Perhaps you remember our argument—that we had counted on the $5,000 being there for the summer for which we applied—and to remove it with the simple explanation that “the government cut our funding,” when there are plenty of other ways to make up for an $800,000 shortfall (the approximate cost of providing $2,000 extra per student) does not indicate a willingness on the part of the administration to really help students manage the cost of law school.

                BLS may, or may not have inflated their “9-months after graduation employment” numbers.  Big whoop.  So has everyone else.  BLS participated in the merit scholarship “scheme” where falling beneath the 40% mark in your class meant a reduction in your scholarship. Big whoop.  Some schools are even tougher—33% was my barrier everywhere else.   BLS may, or may have not, participated in “scholarship stacking,” which is a vague practice that involves packaging all of the highest “scholarship earning” students in the same section, or same larger section, first year.  This is more evil than fair, but difficult to prove (though not impossible).  And I do know that Section 16 from last year [2010-Ed.] is a powerhouse. 

                New York Law School’s case is getting dismissed.  Brooklyn’s case is getting dismissed (I’m calling it right here) because they can’t allege anything truly audacious—their only hope is the “scholarship stacking” argument—but even that might fly as a reasonable business judgment.  BLS is a 501(c)(3) and it should not care about profits.  But this is the #65 law school in the nation, and keeping such a high public profile costs a lot of money.  The cleanest way to make up for the shortfall without harming any existing funding or expenses is to raise tuition. 

                Tuition increased from $46,610 to $48,416 this year [$49,976 this year-Ed.].  3Ls did not bear the cost of the increase—but 2Ls did [3Ls, I think, did bear the cost of the increase this year--note the "I think" because this is not a formal Complaint-Ed.].  And 1Ls find themselves in the fortunate position of a smaller class by 100 students, and the unfortunate position of being the final class to have the 40% scholarship renewal barrier imposed upon them.  

                It is worth noting that I have not seen any student movement to reinstate the $5,000 summer PSG.  It is a fact of life that we accept.  I would like to argue that it is not unreasonable for us to seek this additional funding.  With the new system, students may be tempted to work 25 hours per week at the internship and 15 hours at some other place that might pay and make up for the shortfall.  This may include non-legal work like in a restaurant or something, and the school is not exactly encouraging students to do this, but they should know that students will be doing this, and that these sorts of jobs are not going to make them look any more attractive to prospective employers.  Thus, students are left with a choice – work 40 hours a week at one place – 15 of those for free – or try to make up the difference.  The school should not force students to make such a Hobson’s Choice when it is clear that other funds may be easily diverted to the cause (look, for example, at BLSPI, and how they fund scholarships….by getting students drunk and convincing them it’s a really good idea to spend $900 to have dinner with Geraldo, or $3,000 with the commissioner of the NHL….).  The result is that students need to think more creatively and do even more legwork to best avoid financial disaster.  But I hate students that complain about how busy they are.  We all are.  Get over it. 

BLS is not the only law school to hike its tuition, and it has to stay competitive.  We cannot blame BLS for everything, but we can try to urge it to be different from other schools and implement some really original policies.  It’s my hope that the change will be coming soon. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 2L at BLS.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  You may find his other work at flyinghouses.blogspot.com.  Like Jamie Moyer, he believes that people should never count themselves out.  You may fail, and fail, and fail, and people may call you a freak and a loser who doesn’t know when to call it quits, but when you are still pitching at age 49 in the Rockies starting rotation, you will have the last laugh.    

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #19: Fighting Words and the Reading Period

          On the morning of December 2, 2012, a group of ten students gathered in the lobby of Brooklyn Law School, waiting for the library to open. It was 9:05 AM and several students found the prohibition on entering the library unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. One student in particular was a worker at the library (hereinafter the “off-duty librarian”)—indeed he had opened up the library the previous day—but was told that he was not allowed to open it today, since it was not his shift. This set another student off.

          While several students became extremely vocal about the ridiculousness of the situation, one student became noticeably more upset than the others, and threatened to have the students responsible for opening the library at 9:00 AM—sharp—fired.   The off-duty librarian, who had repeatedly requested that everyone “calm down” and “relax,” was dealt the harsh blow of the vague-sounding threat, “I’ll deal with you later.” 

          The off-duty librarian became upset and said that he was getting his feelings hurt.  The other student responded by saying that their feelings were being hurt too.  At this point a couple other students emerged from the student lounge and further suggested relaxing and calming down—they were then told to “stay out of it.”  By this point, the other extremely vocal students had quieted down to a degree—a consensus seemed to be developing (perhaps the marketplace of ideas and counter-speech were effectively combating the threat of violence).  The security guard in particular was subjected to verbal abuse.  

          The off-duty librarian attempted to maintain peace, but the abusive speech would not abate.  He finally took out his First Amendment Law casebook and sat on the ground in front of the security guard table, outside the view of the anxious mob.  At roughly 9:10 AM, the on-duty librarian arrived, the doors were opened, and the anger subsided.

          Never before has there been such a shocking display of the “50/50 Rule[1]” as this incident.  If anything it was near perfect proof of the truth of the theory (at least amongst the early-risers of the law school): of the 10 students present in the lobby, about four were un-cool and six were cool. 

          The situation was also extremely ironic in light of First Amendment concerns – these were fighting words if any – and though some readers may be laughing at the prospect of such a situation, it was certainly plausible that a fight was about to break out.  If one other student had accepted the invitation to threaten more severely as a rejoinder, it would have come to blows.  There was no better illustration of the misery that other law students can heap on their innocent classmates. 

          Afterward, this off-duty librarian was shaken and upset, fearing the other student now, indeed worried about the threat to be “taken care of later.”  The off-duty librarian may, for once, make a colorable claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.  Indeed he fears for his safety, and the incident left him so distressed that he could not concentrate on his work—indeed threatened to keep him out of the law school entirely—merely because he wanted the mob to “settle down.” 

          I would list damages at $25,000—or the cost of one semester—if indeed this precluded the off-duty librarian from attending exams.  But this off-duty librarian does not like to take chances in court.  Indeed the injury may be viewed as a de minimus from a certain perspective.  However, from a different perspective these are fighting words indeed, and outside the protection of the First Amendment, unless we are to attach crucial importance to the word “later.”  See, e.g., Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).

          One hopes that an apology is forthcoming.  However, the “40%” never fail to amaze me with their utter indifference to common human decency, fueled by their sense of entitlement.  I expect this to be “war” and a conflict that is only going to end with more destruction in its wake.

          It may indeed be time for the school to purchase a puppy for the library to help students relieve stress.  Violent verbal assaults should be reserved for the uneducated masses and the people who exploit them – not students that seek to define how a “reasonable person” should react in a certain situation.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He works at the library and enjoys studying Constitutional Law and Bankruptcy Law.  He does not like fighting.  He is organizing a 2^nd Annual Open Mic with proceeds going towards Sanctuary for Families.  Please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in reading or performing.

---

[1] The 50/50 Rule was first stated in writing on March 14, 2012 here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/03/negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-trust-no-one-dr-jones-the-5050-rule/.  It was later amended to the 40/60 rule on April 19, 2012 (the un-cool students now outnumbering the cool students) which is documented here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/04/nied-cubs-win-world-seriesagainst-miami-bls-in-2015/.  It will now stand as the 60/40 rule—as the numbers of this all-too-clear situation must dictate.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #18: Doppelgangers

In this column, I attempted to illustrate the difficulty of self-definition in the law school and job search context.  While I feared a backlash from this piece, fortunately there was none.  It would be quite easy for people to make fun of me on the basis of the idea that I am incapable of remembering names because people's appearances tend to blend together in this atmosphere.  However, perhaps a general sense of agreement with the ideas herein are present: in certain instances, it is simply better to avoid social contact than to invite social awkwardness.  In general it is better to be a social person - I think most people will agree with that - but there is a danger of being too social, as well, that may tend to rub people the wrong way.  Everybody knows that time is at a premium, and that sensitivity to wasting another person's time is useful in the development of social tact.  Regardless, the column is simply about my desire to allow people to "be themselves."

NIED #18: Doppelgangers

                One of my least favorite things about law school is seeing people that I know, but not being able to say hi to them because it’s weird since we have not both formally acknowledged that we know each other’s first names.  Even worse is when someone says hi to me and I have absolutely no idea who they are, but I want to be polite, so I say hi back, but don’t say their name, and then worry about whether or not they know that I don’t know their name.  Some might say this is a trivial matter, but I believe that Doppelgangers present a strong case for a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

                In the first place, these Doppelgangers—they owe me no duty to make me feel better about myself.  So the claim fails.  However, I do not intend for every NIED column to present a colorable claim—I merely intend to contribute a voice of reason into this sea of Sameness.

                My friend dyed my hair blonde last year.  A couple weeks after that, I set up an interview for a judicial internship with a bankruptcy judge nearby.  My counselor told me that I needed to dye my hair back.  Another counselor indicated that it would not be a good idea to go to the PILC Fair with the blonde. 

                I also started my internship that semester with the blonde, and when I dyed it back, my supervising attorney thought it had been my natural color.  His wife, ironically, told me that she met Andy Warhol at a party in the early 1980s.  They had both approved of my hair.

                While blonde, I came upon a brilliant realization: I could never dye it back.  It would make me stand out.  Of course, others might say it would make me stick out like a sore thumb.

                I told people that I needed to be “diverse” somehow.  I told people that it was some kind of impossible form of discrimination to judge my intelligence on the basis of my hair color—but of course, hair color is not immutable.  This much is certain, however: people knew who I was.  I was “that blonde kid” and subject to whatever criticisms or praise that appellation entailed.  I was immediately identifiable.  Then I dyed it back to brown and I receded back into the ooze of professional appearances and anonymity.   

                Many people at this school (and I would imagine every single other law school) look exactly the same (but to qualify this statement, let me specify that BLS students probably do not look like UVM Law students).  And it is very annoying for me.  How am I supposed to know who you are if you look like five other people?  I might recognize your voice?  What if there is just that awkward moment of eye contact without any kind of wave or similar friendly gesture?  Then I go into the library and keep my head down—I do not want to see anyone anymore.  Blindness is preferable to any display of social awkwardness.  The blind cannot be faulted for their condition, but I can be faulted for not making an effort to know everyone’s name and for not being able to tell them apart from a distance when, perhaps I am not even wearing my glasses.  It is absurd. 

                My advice is contrary to what the Career Services Office will tell you, but I seriously believe that law school will suck the vitality out of you and turn you into a sheep if you let it.  So, do not cut your hair.  Do not dye it back to its original color.  Keep reading the Communist Manifesto.  Maintain your pre-law school hobbies to the extent practicable.  Read for pleasure.  Use your real name on facebook instead of trying to hide.  Keep at your blog. 

If you have ideas, share them.  If you don’t really care very much about your individuality, then I guess you won’t be offended the next time I look away.  But if you feel like law school is preventing you from being the person you want to be, I suggest you go into court one day.  There are always crazy lawyers with fantastic suits and bizarre piercings and atypical hairstyles.  People might say you shouldn’t look like that if you want to get hired—but I seriously doubt the judge will rule against you because of it. 

               

                

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #17: Preemption

As previously promised, this is NIED column #17 on Preemption.  It is primarily intended to address preemption in the Law Review context--but truth be told I did not make it onto a Journal at our law school and so my analysis of the preemption concept may not square with the wisdom of such fortunate students.  However, preemption arises in other contexts, and the episode that this column describes is in fact true.  Nevertheless, at this point I have serious doubts that the friend of my friend was telling the truth when he said he was "really tired because he was out partying with Lindsay Lohan the night before."  I have heard stories of people that simply make things up on Facebook and claim they are friends with celebrities.  I have no patience for these types of persons and do not want anyone to consider me as being "on that level."  I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do indeed have serious doubts that Ms. Lohan will be interested in a contract (paying perhaps $100) for the lead female role in Batman in Brooklyn.  Regardless, if she happens to come upon this post by some serendipitous act, I would be very interested indeed in discussing the project with her.  While my time and funding are at all-time lows, my creativity, I think, is at an all-time high.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress No. 17: Pre-Emption

                I recently heard that a friend of a friend had been hanging out with Lindsay Lohan all night. A few days later, Lindsay Lohan was on the news, apparently the victim of an assault in a Manhattan hotel room. 

                Before the assault though, I told my friend, “Look.  Hynes is no longer able to be in Batman in Brooklyn.  It would have been exciting to have him, but we can’t.  But.  If we can get Lindsay Lohan. This film will be incredibly important.  It will be her comeback.  And it is made all the more perfect by my Parent Trap Redux (due about November 18, 2016) – which specifically abrogates the Parent Trap remake.  Give me five minutes with her and I guarantee I can get her to sign on.”

                Previously I had been formulating the idea for the opening shots of the film. It opens with a shot of the new World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, 50/50 in composition. There would be many more shots. Still shots. Landmarks around Brooklyn. There would need to be music in the background. I thought Dum Dum Girls would be appropriate. I thought “Jail La La” would be appropriate.

                A couple days after that, the assault occurred, and a news item on Pitchfork discussed a new film that Lohan will appear in. It is directed by Paul Schrader (screenwriter of Taxi Driver, director of a dozen other vaguely-acclaimed films) and written by Bret Easton Ellis (uber-hipster). The preview consists of still shots taken around Los Angeles while a Dum Dum Girls song plays in the background.

                I weep.

                I get into trouble when I write about journals, but I must comment upon Preemption.  Many students complain about not being able to write about the topic they want to write about. But there are many topics that occur to me.  They occur whenever I observe a phenomenon in real life (say, for example, psychiatrist liability post-Tarasoff with the “Batman in Aurora” incident as the intro).  They occur whenever I do research for an internship (say, for example, establishing a BAC threshold for marijuana DWIs).  They occur whenever I do my reading assignment for the next day (say, for example, that holographic wills should be admitted in more states).  They do not occur when I actively try to think of a good topic to write about (say, for example, the effect of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare spending).

News flash: I did not make a journal. I wrote a 40 page paper with 188 footnotes though. 

I saw one journal article that had 350 footnotes though. 

It wasn’t good enough for the open note competition. So I am revising it.

But I found, when I did my preemption check, that I was, essentially, pre-empted by two articles.  (Briefly, my article was on the Temporary Help Industry. It was extraordinarily ambitious, but the reason stated for its rejection was that its personal elements detracted from its legal analysis. Understandable.) One addressed unemployment benefits for temps, and the other was basically the same as my article except it was longer and didn’t contain the personal element (and I quoted from it liberally).

                And so we cannot write about that topic—or rather, we just have to “tweak” our topic so that it’s “original” but we may have to focus on a tangential issue that we don’t find as intriguing—because somebody else got there first.

                It is almost like in Manhattan when Woody Allen asks Michael Murphy why he deserves to go out with Diane Keaton.  Murphy says, “I liked her first,” to which Allen replies, “What are you, six years old?” It’s almost like the Great Journal Editors in the Sky are saying, “You couldn’t possibly do a better job, so you can’t write about the same thing.”

                The obvious analogue here is copyright law—but I will not purport to know anything about that since (due to my own great fault and misfortune) I have not been able to take that course.  But I know that it is not okay to steal someone else’s idea.

                I suppose that the rationale underlying preemption is that we do not want to encourage law students to write articles that have little hope of being published, because a journal would not want to publish a duplicative article.  But as far as I am concerned, so long as the article updates an old article, it should not be pre-empted (as indeed mine was not, written as it was in 2009, before the real effects of the financial crisis had been more clearly reflected in reality).

                Which leads to my final point: since the past 5 years have involved a significant social upheaval, preemption should not be a problem, because this “Great Depression Part Two” affected almost every sector of the economy and American life in general—to the point that articles taking stock of its aftermath should not be struck down by the Preemption Hammer.

                Unfortunately for me and Ms. Lohan, the film industry doesn’t even pretend to be fair.  If the legal industry at least wants to give the appearance of fairness, it needs to be changed from the bottom up, and that means journal reform—as vague as it may sound.  I may not make the same film I want to make due to pre-emption, but law students should not be pre-empted from writing the articles they want to write. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  He has been told not to be defensive about his failure to obtain journal membership, but he cannot stay quiet in the face of injustice—particularly when it rains down upon him.    

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #16 - No. 1 Against the Rush

While I have not been as prolific this year, it is not due to any fault of my own.  Whereas last year almost every single one of my columns was posted to BLS Advocate with nary a complaint, there has been a tad bit more scrutiny this year.  NIED #15: Exams/Grades was never posted--though it appeared on this blog (the link is included below if you cannot navigate the archival dates on the right hand side of this blog).  Surprisingly, #16 was considered worthy of publication.  This is a strange piece but it is written to discuss the concept of "rushing around everywhere" as law students tend to do.  Fortunately, columns #17 and #18 were published on BLS Advocate, and they will be posted here shortly (over the next two days).  I have stated that there will be 24 NIED columns in all, and that they will become progressively more esoteric and artistic.  

I may or may not hold myself to that latter adjective, but I will complete 24, and I will state that #19 will appear in January and will be on the topic of post-graduate job applications.  For now enjoy "No. 1 Against the Rush" - free of the edits made for BLS Advocate.

NIED #16: No. 1 Against the Rush

By Christopher J. Knorps

Pitchfork: I suppose I can quiz you on "No. 1 Against the Rush"-- which NFL team held that title last year?

AA: We were talking about the 49ers. They played well last year. Man, fuck. They were contenders.

AH: It's good though because when we titled that song, people thought it was this arty thing against, like, euphoria.*

I

Liars (who put this song out as the first single on their most recent album WIXIW – pronounced “wish you”) are not lawyers, but they are an important band (at least in my opinion) because they constantly challenge the listener’s expectations. With this in mind I dedicate this column to that band and suggest two interpretations gleaned from that song and that football statistic that apply to law school:

1)      Block the rush

2)      Do not mind the rush

In football, if you are number one against the rush, the other team will be forced to pass more often because they will expect you to destroy their running game. So if you are number one against the rush, you may be concerned about pass protection—or even what counts as a catch.

In law school, if you are number one against the rush, it means that you succeed where others fail. “Rush,” in this case, does not mean “euphoria” but rushing around, juggling tasks, and prioritizing (see NIED #7, “Super Administrative Priority Expense,” 3/21/12). With these principles in mind, we may now properly inquire which interpretation of the song is most useful for the average reasonable law student.

II

If you “block the rush,” you may be number one against the rush in football, but you will not be a better law student. Simply put: there is no way to block the rush.

An apt metaphor for “blocking the rush” in the context of law school is difficult to devise. But you will (generally) be forced to rush around, and “blocking” it might simply be saying “no.” 

If you say “no,” it’s still possible to succeed, but with so many other students saying “yes” (and thereby accepting the rush) it will prove more difficult.

III

If you “do not mind the rush,” you will not be number one against the rush in football, but you will be a better law student. Simply put: do not pay attention to what other people are doing.

Some (non-exhaustive) illustrations may be instructive:

·         If you make Moot Court, of course, you may want to participate in the Writing Competition (but it is perfectly acceptable not to do so). 

·         If you do not make Moot Court, it is probably a good idea to at least try your hand at the Writing Competition (but if you are guaranteed a job after graduation by virtue of nepotism, previous professional experience, or the like, then you do not need to do anything except earn C’s—which is quite easy in law school).

·         If you do not make Moot Court or a Journal, you need to be working at an internship every semester, and ideally not “repeating” internships (but I know a few “repeaters”—and I would question this wisdom in the limited circumstances where you are able to meet important people within the organization and they have told you that they like you and offer you the opportunity to stay on through the next semester). 

·         Though it is hardly mandatory that everyone earn some sort of “certificate,” it is generally a good idea to develop an area of focus (but a lot of people say you have to take New York Civil Practice and Criminal Procedure and Corporations and Federal Income Taxation—the result being that you must choose your courses for your last 4 semesters wisely).

IV

If you are on Moot Court, if you are on Journal, if you are working at an internship, if you are taking Securities Regulation, if you are on the e-Board of one or two student organizations, and you work as a research assistant for a professor, then you are probably rushing around.

If you intend to make a film, put a band together for Brookfest, and write seemingly inconsequential columns for the BLS Advocate (among other activities), you are probably rushing around. And the problem with rushing around is that you stand a greater chance of forgetting some important event or appointment you have made. And once you miss an appointment for the first time, you will know how serious an error that is (depending of course on the people involved).

While this syllogism could be criticized as a contradiction (i.e. “you are saying do not ‘say no’ to the rush, but you are also saying do not pay attention to what other students are doing, and your article is a fumbling attempt to make a point where one does not exist”), I feel that it is a subtle piece of advice that students (particularly 1Ls or even “pre-laws”) should take to heart.

V

The principles of law school success do not equate to principles of football success. Law school is not a full contact sport, though there may be poor officiating (see NIED #15, “Exams/Grades,” 9/16/12, available at http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html (last visited 9/26/12)). Metaphors in this regard are only devised by means of verbal wizardry, and are hardly worth contemplating.

Music, however, may apply to whatever one desires. And as Liars reflect upon their “breakthrough success” in the neo-no-wave/electroclash “scene” in the Brooklyn music community circa 2002, perhaps BLS alums will offer similar reflections:

Pitchfork: It's been 10 years since you made your first record in New York. Since then, a lot of the bands from that Brooklyn scene have gone away. Do you feel like you had to get away from New York for your own artistic vitality?

AA: In hindsight, it was really a great time, though we definitely didn't want to be part of it then. It's funny, whenever any of those bands from that period puts out a record, I will definitely listen to the whole thing, even though I might not be that interested in the music. I still have that connection. But the thing that bugged us the most was being locked into something. Obviously, it was a journalistic tool to help people. That's fine. Since then, the approach has really been to avoid being part of anything like that as much as possible.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law, is the managing editor of BLS Advocate, is the founder of Monthly Expense Project, serves as a UCD in the SBA, carries 16 credits, is trying to make a film entitled “Batman in Brooklyn,” is trying to put a band together for Brookfest, is trying to get a job that starts in August 2013, is trying to ignore the rush, and has not been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. 

*Interview excerpts courtesy of www.pitchfork.com. The full interview may be found here http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/8826-liars/