Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache
I was under the impression (and told explicitly) that I would still need this skill later on. "Book briefing" is way more efficient.
|
I have no idea why anybody would tell you briefing cases is important later on. But I heard the same thing. You get told a lot of shit. You might want to stick to what got you there. I think the IRAC method was pretty much was a guide for people who couldn't get their thoughts together on paper. It might come in handy for some people at times and as a guide it will get you through.
Like AP, you probably will have lots of instructors who never practiced law a day in their life. They suck. Most of the better will have been in the world outside academia. My Civ Pro instructor thought he was a bad ass because he clerked for Rehnquist (
Florida International University College of Law) he served on the committee who wrote those rules. However, he fancied himself as a Constitutional guru and moved on to much more elite places like Creighton and Florida International (10). The dude didn't know shit about con law or federal anything. Never practiced a day in his life and was widely mocked by a couple of other conlaw instructors who would tell him "I don't recall ever seeing your name in the reporters." Nah, he writes books and shit. Will Rice (
Faculty | St. Mary's Law) beside being a pretty cool dude, doesn't know jack shit about torts or insurance law. He freely admits that he never took evidence in law school yet always wanted to talk about it. He legitimately does not know the difference between "Clear and Convincing evidence" and "Circumstantial evidence". Um, you'll know how fucking bizarre that is eventually. He would go so far out on a limb to try to make a point that he could never bring it back in. BTW, his bio say Order of the Coif 1997, not true. I'd pretty much disregard anything that guy ever says regarding law. But one of the most likable dudes every in any area. So don't be surprised if some of these guys really don't know outside of researching and writing. We also had a guy who got the job for being Mexican (
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports: St. Mary's Law Dean Not Renewed) He was openly referred to as "Coach Piatt" as his classes were similar to those taught by the high school basketball coach. The article is kind to him. He was ran out of Texas Tech and the folks at St. Mary's thought he was an idiot as well and he pretty much hired his friends from past jobs.
Anyway I digress. A lot of your professors don't know shit about the outside world. Others you should listen to when they say something. A cool friend of mine and former classmate Michelle (
College of Law | Michelle Kwon) now is at Tennessee Law and probably knows more about Tax Law than anybody alive. She's turned down an appointment to the Tax Court Bench before heading to Knoxville. We both had Tax with Phelan in 1996, and we both thought the final may have well been written in Portguese. When an instructor who has never practiced a day in their life tells you that you need to know something as a lawyer, forget it. When they guys who have a several page list of cases they argued and are publish by Westlaw, and when they say you don't need this. Listen to them.
In the spring semester of your third year an instructor is going to call on somebody who will ask the instructor "is this on the bar exam?" "No." "No? Then I really don't care."
Here's a few further head's up. Ignore the Slaughterhouse Cases and Palko. You should start to see a pattern when you spend time on things only for historical value befoer moving on to relevant law.