Love Wins, America Loses

America is 239 this year. It’s a great place if you ask me. I haven’t been to a lot of places outside of the United States, but I’ve been to enough to know that this is the greatest place on the planet to live. I’m grateful every day that I somehow landed here when I was born.

A couple years ago I did a post about America and how lawyers were great defenders of freedom, especially Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court.  One of the quotes I shared at the time from his Prop8 dissent was: “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”

Apparently Justice Kennedy forgot this when he wrote his majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges essentially making same-sex marriage legal nationwide. As Chief Justice Roberts notes in his dissent: “Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.”

The Justice Kennedy of 2013 agreed with that statement. Instead, the Justice Kennedy of 2015 thinks that his opinion is now more important than that of the people. His opinion is not based on any precedent whatsoever. Now, don’t get me wrong, the Court has always found new implied, fundamental rights (i.e. right to privacy, right to travel, etc.) under a Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Analysis. The problem is that they completely abandoned any principles that they typically adhere to. As Justice Kennedy said himself “One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system.” As Justice Roberts points out, there are specific guidelines the Court adopted to protect the Court from subverting the democratic process. After emphasizing the importance of judicial restraint in these types of situations, Roberts explains that “[o]ur precedents have required that implied fundamental rights be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

Roberts points out the legal and logical flaws in the Majority’s Due Process analysis and sums it up by saying “The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now.”

Roberts also shows the flaws in the Court’s Equal Protection Clause analysis by saying that “the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions….In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”

As both Roberts and Scalia point out, this is worrisome for a democratic society. With one opinion and five votes, half of the state’s marriage laws were invalidated. This is despite the recognition by Justice Kennedy two years ago that “regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Apparently no more. The debate that was occurring at ballot boxes across the country is now ended. If this case sets the precedent that five people can end the democratic process on a particular issue, as Justice Roberts points out, “Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”

In a lot of ways this has been a long time coming. Alexander Hamilton warned about the danger of the numeration of specific rights in the Constitution in The Federalist Papers.  I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.” Essentially, Hamilton was saying that the Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights to let the people govern themselves and protect them from the Government depriving them of liberty.

Justice Thomas sums it up well in his dissent in Obergefell, as he rejects the only real argument that the Majority makes in favor of its decision: dignity. “The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity….Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.” We are all children of God and that indeed does give us inherent worth.

Regardless of where you are on the issue, the Court’s ruling is worrisome. Religious freedom is on the attack. If you support traditional marriage, you are a hater. A bigot. Intolerant. The court essentially agrees with that by not even mentioning or recognizing religious freedom in its opinion. The irony is that many states have protecting religious freedoms when legalizing same-sex marriage through the democratic process. In so doing, the Court and society as a whole has forgotten the definition of tolerance. “A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own.” By not accepting the other side’s view, they are showing their intolerance. It’s a two way street. We will have to see how this one plays out, but it does not look good.

Our system is founded on the rule of law, and this decision provided neither predictability nor stability regarding any sound legal theory. It was nice prose and sounded good. I mean who can object to Kennedy’s closing statement sounding good. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” What the Justice Kennedy of 2015 forgets is that it wasn’t for him to decide what the definition of Marriage is. That is for the people to govern themselves. For as he said himself “The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.” 

J-Dro

I have had a lot of great professors during law school, but only one fits the bill of e pluribus Unum. I've had Prof. Drobac 4 of the six semesters of law school. She was my first year contracts professor, as well as my family law and sexual harassment law professor. She wrote the textbook on sexual harassment law. I think that is cool because I can actually say I took a class from someone who wrote the textbook on that subject.

The reason I like her mainly is that she doesn't take herself too seriously. She has a doctoral degree from Stanford, but still likes to have fun. The margins of my notebooks from her classes are filled with one liners that crack me up. One time she lectured while eating a donut. It was fantastic.

I also like her because her exams are the fairest of them all. She doesn't try to hide the ball from you and she tells you upfront what she is looking for on her exam. She also has a rubric that she distributes after the fact to show you what she expected. No law school professor typically ever does that. You really can't ask for anything more and I've been relatively successful on them, which helps her likability factor.

The interesting part in all of this is that she is a flaming liberal. Almost completely opposite of where I stand. Her motto is "I will march in the streets for your right to march in the street" for points of view that she doesn't agree. She practices what she preaches. Even though she clearly supports same-sex marriage, she did the best job of any professor representing both sides of the issue, which I appreciated.

At the end of the day, I'm grateful for J-Dro. My first year of law school was tough, in many respects, but also grade wise compared to where I was at at BYU. Because I did so well in her class I realized that I could be successful at law school. My grade in first year Contracts helped me realize that if J-Dro thought I could do it, then I could. It was a pleasure being taught by J-Dro. I will miss her.

Civil Practice Clinic

The past two semesters I've had the chance to be in a clinical course that gets you actual cases and the opportunity to do real legal stuff. I got to become a Certified Legal Intern which means that I've taken more than 45 credits and Professional Responsibility and have a supervising attorney watching what I do. This basically lets me be a real attorney as long as I have a supervising attorney signing off on things.

Prof. Hagan was my supervising attorney and she was fantastic. She did a good job of letting you have complete control. Even when I didn't know what to do, she would force me to figure out what to do. Really good at knowing exactly what to say. She also taught us basic skills that every attorney needs to know (i.e. how to be a lawyer).

We have this really cool workspace in the Law School that is basically its own separate law practice.

The cases we take are pro bono. That means that we don't charge for our services and we help those individuals who can't afford to pay for legal services. It is very rewarding and I learned a lot in the process. My busiest case was a landlord/tenant case where the landlord didn't give back the security deposit. It was interesting because it was an appeal of small claims decision. To make a long story short, after a three year legal battle I was able to get my client her security deposit back. It was really rewarding. I got to attend a hearing, write a motion for summary judgment and deal with an unresponsive attorney. Stuff that happens on a regular basis in the real legal word. If you ever go to law school, make sure you take a clinic.

The Bluebook

Whenever you write scholarly, academic papers you always have to use citations using the proper format. There is MLA. APA. Chicago/Turabian (preferred by the BYU Poli-Sci department). Despite the existence of these great citation systems somewhere along the line, legal academics decided to come up with their own citation system. Basically a bunch of students at Columbia, Harvard, Yale and UPenn were bored one day and decided to come up with a bunch of rules.

So many rules with so many different distinctions for the most useless things. They also use small caps a lot. I got real friendly with this book during the writing of my law review note. I don't understand why we just can't use one of the other standard citation systems. Anyway, just another oddity of law school.

Take Home Finals

Law school finals are the worst thing in the world. First, in most classes it is your only grade. So everything is riding on that. Second, they throw everything and kitchen sink at you to figure out. My first final this year was a take home final. Most of the time take home exams are better because you typically have a longer period to take them and you can take them whenever and just submit them via the internet. They are also open note, so you don't have to worry about memorizing anything.

My final in Environmental Compliance and Enforcement only allowed two hours to take the exam. He wanted us to do 40 multiple choice and 20 + short answer. It was brutal, but the important thing is that it is over. Only one more final to go on Friday!

The Talk

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at its Sunday worship services members of the Church get to give talks. It's not just a pastor giving a sermon, but rather members of the congregation giving talks about various Gospel topics. It's just everyday men and women giving their insights about different topics. I really like it because everyone has unique insights about Gospel topics. Today, I had the opportunity to address my congregation. I was assigned to talk on one of the talks at the most recent General Conference. I gave mine on Elder Zwick's address entitled "What do you think?"

K-R-O-G-E-R

When I moved to Indy I really didn’t know anything about it. One of the most important questions when you move to a place is where you go grocery shopping. During undergrad I just went where my roommates were going since I didn’t have a car. If Owen was driving, I went to Smiths. If Mike, then Maceys. When I moved here I had a few options including Kroger and Marsh. I found out Kroger actually owns Smiths so I decided to go with that.

I really like Kroger for a few reasons.

1. 1.       You can use your smith’s card there so I never had to get a new card.
2. 2.       You earn points that get you discounts on gas. Given the expensive price of gas these days that really makes a difference.
3. 3.       Most of the time, when they have things on sale they are cheaper than Walmart.
4. 4.       They reward loyalty. Since I have shopped with them for so long, they now send me coupons in the mail that are very impressive, most of the time they include free coupons or five dollar off coupons. The mail coupons are also specifically tailored to me based on what I buy. They also have a free Friday digital coupon that you can use as well.

The most important reason though is because Kroger is willing to go to places that other low cost retailers aren’t. If you go to the rough parts of Indianapolis you will not find any Walmarts or Targets. Besides Kroger, you find a lot of Family Dollar and Dollar Generals. I think those stores are overpriced and take advantages of the poor people in the surrounding neighborhoods. Kroger is the only reasonable choice. They also give back to the community and hire people from there as well. That’s why I’m all about Kroger!

Mom Knows Best

I had every intention of posting this on my Mom’s birthday, but like a lot of times in law school, things didn’t turn out as planned. Being in law school everyone needs a support system. You really can’t do it alone. Whether it’s friends or family you need someone there for encouragement and moral support.

My parents have always supported me in everything that I’ve done. They have always encouraged me to do whatever I want and have always supported me in my educational pursuits. It’s always nice to be able to be able to talk to my Mom and ask her advice and stuff. She always been there for me and I appreciate it. Happy belated Birthday!

NPRMCC

Continuing our tour of the law school, on the second floor you will find the following plaque with my name on it.

I had the chance this school year to serve as the Chief Justices of the National Professional Responsibility Moot Court Competition. I also worked on the competition’s problem design. A “moot court” is where law students argue a fake case. Working on this competition was really a year-long process. It started last year around this time as we started coming up with ideas for this year’s problem. The key is to find a balanced issue that gives each side a fair shot at making a pretty strong argument. Once we got a solid idea for our problem, we began writing the problem. Basically, you are writing two court opinions that the teams participating will appeal to the fictitious Supreme Court. This was very tedious. But we got it finished by the November deadline. You can read the problem here. I worked on the 8.2 issue.

Besides the problem, as Chief Justice of the competition I worked on registration and other issues with the competition. You don’t realize how long it takes to plan something until you have to do it. Luckily I had an excellent board that helped me out a lot. We ended up having ten teams from law schools across the country participate.

The competition was in March just before spring break. Besides some last minute room changes, things went surprisingly smooth. Our banquet at the NCAA headquarters went really well. We held the final round at the actual Indiana Supreme Court which was a neat experience. I think we were all glad when it was over though.

Even though it was over, there were a lot of wrap-up items that needed to take place. I’m finally finished with it. It was a great way to represent the law school on a national stage. And gave me some great experience in the process.

Papers and More Papers

I’ve finished the last papers of my academic career. Normally in law school, you don’t have a lot of papers. The only grade in most classes is the final exam. It requires a lot of effort to make sure you are keeping up with your work. It also takes a lot of time to figure out what each individual professor is looking for. This semester though, I produced about sixty pages of written work. This has caused me to reflect down memory lane about some of the papers I have written in law school.

The first paper I wrote was for aviation law. It was a pretty straightforward assignment, so I chose a safe topic. A lot of times, you have these grandiose ideas about what you would like to write about, but that isn’t always your best bet. Professors typically don’t reward creativity. It was entitled “Aviation Accidents: Where do you bury the survivors.” The title was based on the joke about when a plane crashes on the U.S./Canada border and the punch line is where do you bury the survivors? This paper examined which courts should have jurisdiction over airplane accidents.

My second paper was my law review note, already discussed on this blog. My third paper was entitled “CYBER TERRORISM: THE THREAT A CYBER-ATTACK POSES TO THE GRID.” It basically examined the current vulnerabilities of the power grid and the likelihood of a cyber-attack on the grid. It’s pretty scary actually. There are some viruses like Stuxnet which basically go in undetected and can wreak a lot of havoc.

For Administrative Law we had a lot of mini-papers and still had a final exam. Even though the teacher was all about due process and notice, I still don’t know the weight she applied to each assignment or the final. One of the more fun assignments was actually taking part in the notice and comment procedures for new regulations that are being introduced. I commented on the Proposed Rule for National Cemeteries which was trying to change the definition of what is considered a demonstration. I probably really didn’t care because I think it’s probably a good thing that National Cemeteries limit what activities take place there, but I made a First Amendment free speech argument and did really well on the assignment. Turns out I was only one of a few people to comment on the rule. If you ever need something to do, go ahead and search for a regulation on Regulations.gov to comment on.

I also did a group project where we created an LLC operating agreement. That was pretty cool to do. This semester I had contract drafting where we drafted a Performance Agreement and a Drafting Agreement. I really enjoyed that class. I also wrote a paper for my Transportation Law class. I wrote it about the red and white reflective tape on the sides and back of tractor trailers. It was actually a fun paper. Just never thought I would be able to write a 20+ page paper about tape on trucks. I also had another paper about energy efficiency projects in the military. It’s been a lot of fun to write about these various topics, but I’m glad I don’t have to write anymore.

Hall of Flags

The law school building is actually a really nice building. That’s partly the reason I decided to come to Indiana for law school. I stopped by here with my parents on my way back from BYU and I fell in love with the place. In the main part of the building, the Atrium, you will see a lot of flags.

The flags represent the nations of all the students currently enrolled in the law school. There are a lot needless to say. I have made great friends from around the world in law school. It’s amazing how there are so many people trying to accomplish the same thing in life.

Geri Lopez Lecture

19 days. Today was my last day of classes. I can't believe this day has finally arrived. With the exception of the two years that I was in Hungary, I really have been in school since Kindergarten. One of my favorite parts of college is the last lecture that some of the professors do on the last day of class. For a last lecture, they typically give advice for life instead of just talking about the course material. They are somewhat rare in law school, but there is one last lecture that I got for the third time today. It's probably the only lecture I've ever gotten three times so I figured that I would share it with everyone.

The lecture is entitled the Geri Lopez lecture. I have no idea who this person is other than what I learned through my internet search. All I know is that he was my professor's Contracts Professor. He gave basically the same lecture to her and now she gives it to all of her students. Turns out he was prominent civil rights attorney in California and worked to mobilize individuals to change the rough situation they were living in.

The basic premise is that because you are in law school that puts you in an elite group. Since you are in that elite group you have certain responsibilities.

We have a duty to your community. She challenged us to take on pro bono cases to help those who can't afford legal services. Give to worthy causes whether with our time or financial means. Also be politically active. Since we are in the battle so to speak, we need to help shape policy.

We have a duty to those in the profession (i.e. other lawyers). We need to be an example of professional and ethical lawyers. We need to set the standard and adhere to the ethical rules. This is especially important because of the bad reputation lawyers as a whole have because of the actions of a few lawyers. "If lawyers acted like Mother Teresa, we wouldn't have a bad reputation." We also need to insist that others follow our lead. We also need to remember that we can always risk walking away from an unethical situation and hang our own shingle.

Finally, we have a duty to ourselves. We always need to make sure that we are questioning ourselves and who we are and what we value. We don't want to wake up one day, look in the mirror and not like what we see staring back at us.

Ultimately, we need to do what we love. The professor giving this lecture did just that when she gave up a successful law practice to travel from California to Indiana to become a professor. She does what she loves.

I think this is great advice. Essentially, she's challenging us to be true to ourselves. Great advice for us all.

Because of Him

20 days to go. I'm grateful for this Easter Sunday and the chance that it gives us to reflect on the sacrifice, death and resurrection of the Savior. We truly only have hope to overcome both physical and spiritual death because of Him and the sacrifice He made on our behalf. The talks at Church today focused on forgiveness and love. I think the Savior's atonement really exemplifies those two things. Because of Him, I know that I will receive forgiveness from my sins and able to experience the love of God throughout my life. It has meant a lot to me throughout my life.



All things are made possible because of Jesus Christ's sacrifice. I think one of the most important things I've received is never having to do anything alone. He will always be there for me no matter where I walk. Because He walked alone, I don't have to. I know that God will not leave me hanging.  So grateful for the knowledge His sacrifice gives me that I know that there is life after death. This has really helped me keep an eternal perspective on the things that happen in life.

Indiana's Team

Before I moved to Indy I really hadn’t had much exposure to the NBA. Yeah I was in the same state as the Jazz, but I never really had an opportunity to go to any games. One time during my first year of law school, the Pacers were offering tickets to the Heat game for five dollars a ticket. I went and had a great time and I’ve pretty much been hooked ever since. I’ve gotten multi-game plans the past couple of years. It’s been a lot of fun.

I had plans for a great post filled with plenty of pictures and fun stories about past games, and then the Pacers laid a big fat goose egg in their opening playoff game. They just never got anything going. The bench was playing better than the starters. Nothing was going right. I tend to be pretty loyal to my sports teams, even in the midst of a bad loss, but I had to leave early. I just couldn’t handle a team that is so much better than their opponent play so terribly. Here’s to hoping that the Pacers can turn the ship around before they find themselves knocked out in the first round.

ILR

In law school there are a lot of opportunities for things to take up your time. The most prestigious is probably law review. Basically, every law schools have scholarly journals that basically review laws and in some instances provide proposals for new laws. These journals contain works from professors across the country and student works called “notes.” My law school has three law reviews, with the most important being Indiana Law Review. The top ten percent of the class automatically get in. Those who aren’t in the top ten percent have an opportunity to “write-on” by submitting a writing sample on an assigned topic and doing a sample editing assignment. If you do write on you also have to be in the top forty percent of your class. I was lucky enough to write on and get on the Indiana Law Review.

Your first year you are considered student note candidate. Your main responsibility is to write a note that is 25 pages in length, not including footnotes. You also have editing assignments to make sure that the articles submitted for publication conform to legal citation style. In writing your note you work with a law professor to help you along the way. I chose my criminal law professor, Professor Silva. Her area of research deals mainly with prisoner reentry.

Ever since I took a tour of the York County Prison during a scouting event one evening during mutual I have been fascinated by the extremely high recidivism rates of ex-convicts. When I went on the tour of my local prison at age 16 the rate there was 80 percent. That means that 80 percent of their prisoners return within three years. I thought that was crazy and a huge problem. I used to think that it was because that prisons weren’t harsh enough. That’s an uneducated view of the problem. The problem is once they get out. They aren’t able to find work or places to live so they are forced back into their old ways. My note examined this problem and argued that we should give employers a greater tax incentive to hire ex-offenders.  Mine didn’t end up getting selected for publication, but it was fun to write. If you’re curious or just need something to put you to sleep one night, check it out.

In your second year, there are a variety of positions that individuals have, I was lucky to only be an associate editor which basically means that I just edit articles as they come along. Of course we got a last minute one to edit this week, so that is how I spent my Saturday morning. It seems though, that Law Review is not as prestigious as it once was. It doesn’t seem like that big of a deal and I haven’t even had it come up at any of my interviews. It’s been a good experience though.

It's Getting Cold in Here

23 days to go. Law school is intense. Most of the time in college classes you can go to class, not do the reading or pay attention and be okay because the professor will only call on you if you volunteer. If only law school were the same way.

In law school, there is a thing called the "cold call." This is where a professor will call on students without any prior notice to answer questions or talk about a case we were assigned to read. The interesting part is trying to figure out the professor and how they cold call because they all have different methods.

Some simply use a seating chart or list and pick at random. Some people study the student list before class and pick the people they will call on. Some teachers assign days where certain groups of students are "on call." Some professors go alphabetically. Some call three people to work together on a single problem. My favorite way has probably been the professor that had the "deck." The deck was basically a bunch of 3x5 cards with our names/pictures on them. She would pull them from the top of the deck and at random points in the semester she would shuffle the deck.

In some classes the teacher actually takes volunteers, and will only cold call someone if no one volunteers. The key in these situations is to preempt the cold call. You have to volunteer for a case you are prepared for so you will not get called on for a case you know nothing about.

Most professors are satisfied if you at least give a good faith effort in your response. It's okay if you don't know everything. Just don't be completely unprepared, or you may find yourself kicked out of class.Yes, I've seen that happen.

Lunch Time

24 days and counting. So a lot of people think that once you get to law school it's all professional and stuff, which it is. At the same time though, we are still students at heart. We get our pictures taken, we have fire drills, and most importantly we look forward to lunch time.

Eating lunch with friends provides a nice relief from classes and studying. Gives you a good chance to complain about stuff and talk about life outside of law school.

I typically bring a frozen meal and use one of the handy dandy microwaves in our school's cafeteria area.

The reason I bring my meals is because our little food service place we have, The Docket, is to say the least, not the greatest. Amanda, one of my best friends I've made in law school is buying an afternoon beverage to get her through her fascinating evening class.

At the end of the day, lunch is about supporting each other as law students. It's talking about classes, exams, cases and professors. It's about commiserating with one another about how much school and the job market sucks. Ultimately it's about helping one another to believe in ourselves.

IV-D

These past two semesters I’ve had the privilege of being involved in the Law School’s civil practice clinic. As part of that I became a Certified Legal Intern which means that I can be an attorney as long as I have a supervising attorney signing his or her name to everything saying it’s legit. As part of that class we get to go to Court IV-D at the city county building once a week. It’s the court that deals with child support issues. It’s a pretty interesting place, with a lot of interesting characters.

I planned to pack this post with a lot of pictures, but today at IV-D was a lot more stressful than I thought it would be. The normal judge wasn’t there so that threw Whitney (i.e. my supervising attorney) and me off. The judge ran a tight ship. The littlest whisper or drinking of water from the peanut gallery got a response. She was grilling the prosecutor. By the time our case got called we were expecting the worse. Luckily all the parties involved in our case were reasonable and we were able to work out a solution that got my client’s child support lowered by $74 a week, which is very substantial given his limited ability to work right now. Whitney and I were happy to get out of there. We celebrated with Starbucks. Don’t worry, I just had hot chocolate.

Going to IV-D has been an interesting experience because it’s great that I’ve been able to help some people get their child support modified who really weren’t able to pay the amount they were ordered to. It was also a good experience being in front of a judge. If you had picture, you would see that you stand like a foot from the judge when you are talking. It’s been great to help people navigate our complicated legal system.

J. Reuben Clark Law Society

26 days to go. When you look at my picture on this year’s composite picture you will see this:

As you can see I am President of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. It’s part of a national organization that “affirm[s] the strength brought to the law by a lawyer's personal religious conviction. We strive through public service and professional excellence to promote fairness and virtue founded upon the rule of law.” It’s named after J. Reuben Clark who was a prominent Latter-day Saint attorney. One of his first cases was fighting anti-Japanese discrimination in California. He was also influential in formulating America’s foreign policy with Latin America. He also recognized the importance of everyday Americans making sacrifices for their rights and freedoms that they possess as Americans.

This organization really means a lot to me personally. When I first moved here for law school I was coming from BYU where practically everyone was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I didn’t know anyone here, let alone any members of the Church. At the student org fair I saw the JRCLS table and immediately signed up. I became pretty active in the organization because it was nice to have a core group who held the same beliefs that I did. It has also benefited me professionally as I found my job at EnerDel through my contacts in this organization.

When some of the other student leadership graduated, they asked if I would take over as President for this year. I gladly accepted. We have social gatherings, networking events, panel discussions at the law school and also watch an annual fireside that the national chapter hosts every year. We also do events with the attorney chapter in Indianapolis. I’m really glad that I found this organization and that I will be able to pass on the torch to other students to carry on the legacy of this group that was started in the not too distant past.

 

Day of Rest

I started this blog as part of an ongoing assignment for a New Testament class I was taking at BYU with Dr. Holzapfel. He really was ahead of the times in requiring us to get religious on the internet given the explosion of social media in the past couple of years.

Throughout law school I've had a no homework policy on Sundays. I think it's important to not only keep the Lord's day holy, but also just allow myself to have a break from it all. I've been incredibly blessed. Some of my best performances on final exams have been when the exam was held on Monday morning. I think it's important that no matter what the circumstance in life that we keep perspective of the truly important things in life. My Sabbath observance is just one way I try to do that. 27 days.