February 29, 2004
My Oscar Picks
The Oscars are upon us...and here are my picks:
Sure Things
Best Picture - LOTR: Return of the King
Best Director - Peter Jackson
Best Animated Feature - Finding Nemo
Fairly Confident
Best Actress - Charlize Theron
Best Supporting Actress - Renee Zellweger
Best Original Screenplay - Lost in Translation
Iffy
Best Supporting Actor - Tim Robbins
Dark Horses
Best Actor - Bill Murray
Best Adapted Screenplay - American Splendor
Make your own predictions at The Numbers...
Sure Things
Best Picture - LOTR: Return of the King
Best Director - Peter Jackson
Best Animated Feature - Finding Nemo
Fairly Confident
Best Actress - Charlize Theron
Best Supporting Actress - Renee Zellweger
Best Original Screenplay - Lost in Translation
Iffy
Best Supporting Actor - Tim Robbins
Dark Horses
Best Actor - Bill Murray
Best Adapted Screenplay - American Splendor
Make your own predictions at The Numbers...
Red, Blue, & Black-and-White Striped?
As I sit on my couch, watching the Democratic Presidential Debate, I can't help but wonder: what happened to the political color code?
Unless I'm imagining things, I seem to remember a time when you could spot a Democrat or Republican by the color of her tie. It was straight-forward and consistent. Like the Bloods and the Crips. Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat. Now, it's all bungled...
We've got Edwards and Kucinich sporting red, Kerry keeping it real with blue, and Sharpton flashing some sort of black and white striped thing. To confuse things further, Dubya routinely sports blue. What am I supposed to make of it all?
I am a simple person. I fear change. Bring back the color code! It made things so much simpler. Now, I actually have to listen to these people to determine what they stand for, all the while feeling my stomach churn as they demonstrate their incredible inability to say "yes" or "no" to any question...
In other debate news, Elisabeth Bumiller is not a nice person. Al Sharpton nearly snapped at the lack of attention he received. I feel like I want to pat Kucinich on the head and tell him "it will be alright." And the 36 Million Dollar Man, John Edwards, wears a digital watch. Do we really want our next President to wear a digital watch? At least, it didn't appear to have a calculator...
Unless I'm imagining things, I seem to remember a time when you could spot a Democrat or Republican by the color of her tie. It was straight-forward and consistent. Like the Bloods and the Crips. Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat. Now, it's all bungled...
We've got Edwards and Kucinich sporting red, Kerry keeping it real with blue, and Sharpton flashing some sort of black and white striped thing. To confuse things further, Dubya routinely sports blue. What am I supposed to make of it all?
I am a simple person. I fear change. Bring back the color code! It made things so much simpler. Now, I actually have to listen to these people to determine what they stand for, all the while feeling my stomach churn as they demonstrate their incredible inability to say "yes" or "no" to any question...
In other debate news, Elisabeth Bumiller is not a nice person. Al Sharpton nearly snapped at the lack of attention he received. I feel like I want to pat Kucinich on the head and tell him "it will be alright." And the 36 Million Dollar Man, John Edwards, wears a digital watch. Do we really want our next President to wear a digital watch? At least, it didn't appear to have a calculator...
February 28, 2004
Obedience, depravity, and the quest to make partner
When I chose Legal Ethics as my "perspective elective" this semester, I did so not with the hope of gaining any perspective, but with pragmatic desire to satisfy my Professional Responsibility requirement. For the first seven weeks, I haven't been disappointed. The course reading has been universally "touchy-feely" and wholly tangential to what I believe to be the "meat" of my legal education. The class discussion is consumed by charmingly idealistic classmates, with an utter lack of experience with real world ethical dilemmas, and a blinding naivety of the pressures created by a mountain of debt, a mortgage, and a couple of kids.
I consider myself to be an ethical person, but I am not prepared to say I'll be willing to up and quit my job when faced with a tough ethical choice, as so many of classmates swear they would do. Furthermore, I'll be damned if I could tell you what "ethical" is. And I'll be further damned if anyone else has been able to convince me that they have found the elusive definitions of "good" or "moral" or "ethical." From my perspective, a lawyer is uniquely bound by the ethical constraints imposed by the Model Rules, as codified in various state statutes. Beyond that, however, a lawyer's moral decisionmaking is driven by the same forces as anyone else's: Will I be able to sleep at night? What would John Lennon do? What will my spouse or kids think of me? What does my gut tell me? A lawyer has neither a special exemption from nor an enhanced duty to moral judgment.
That said, today's ethics reading really turned it up a notch. The topic was cognitive dissonance, the dangers of obedience, and how an ethical lawyer can quickly find herself on the "slippery slope" to destruction. The framework for the piece was Stanley Milgram's 35-year-old experiment on obedience.
In his experiment, Milgram placed a volunteer in the position of "teacher" and compelled him to delivery increasing levels of electric shock to the learner (who was actually an actor, in on the experiment) each time she missed a question. The shocks would begin at 15 volts and increase in 15 volt increments until, 30 shocks later, the "learner" was receiving 450 volts of electricity. Milgram hoped the experiment might illuminate how so many people could have blindly followed the Nazi regime. Milgram hypothesized that "all but a few sadists" would refuse to complete the experiment, and refuse to shock the "learner."
In reality, 65% of the "teachers" completed the experiment, despite the “learner's” consistent and pitiful complaints about the pain, a heart condition, and wanting to stop. Some “teachers” asked Milgram to stop, but when told that the experiment must go on and that Milgram assumed all liability, they readily continued to the end. No "teacher" quit before 300 volts. Why?
The human desire to please and obey others simply overpowered the conflicting desire to "do no harm." Further, cognitive dissonance enabled the "teachers" to minimize their actions. By increasing the voltage incrementally, it becomes difficult to draw the line at what is too much. To say that 300 volts is too much would require an admission that 285 was probably too much, as well.
How does this apply to legal ethics? The drive to make partner can be seen as a pressure causing obedience to the firm or a senior attorney to override a young attorney’s moral barometer or adherence to the rules. In addition, it highlights the potential risk of a slippery slope in legal practice. With inauspicious beginnings, a young attorney fights a legitimate discovery request in the name of zealous advocacy. Where does it go from there? See David Luban, “The Ethics of Wrongful Obedience in Ethics in Practice (Deborah L Rhode, ed.).
What does it mean to me? It means I am more certain than ever that some very important choices lay ahead of me. In my opinion, the only true ethical choice we have is deciding what type of practice to pursue. Once we make that choice, unfortunately, many other choices may be made for us...
I consider myself to be an ethical person, but I am not prepared to say I'll be willing to up and quit my job when faced with a tough ethical choice, as so many of classmates swear they would do. Furthermore, I'll be damned if I could tell you what "ethical" is. And I'll be further damned if anyone else has been able to convince me that they have found the elusive definitions of "good" or "moral" or "ethical." From my perspective, a lawyer is uniquely bound by the ethical constraints imposed by the Model Rules, as codified in various state statutes. Beyond that, however, a lawyer's moral decisionmaking is driven by the same forces as anyone else's: Will I be able to sleep at night? What would John Lennon do? What will my spouse or kids think of me? What does my gut tell me? A lawyer has neither a special exemption from nor an enhanced duty to moral judgment.
That said, today's ethics reading really turned it up a notch. The topic was cognitive dissonance, the dangers of obedience, and how an ethical lawyer can quickly find herself on the "slippery slope" to destruction. The framework for the piece was Stanley Milgram's 35-year-old experiment on obedience.
In his experiment, Milgram placed a volunteer in the position of "teacher" and compelled him to delivery increasing levels of electric shock to the learner (who was actually an actor, in on the experiment) each time she missed a question. The shocks would begin at 15 volts and increase in 15 volt increments until, 30 shocks later, the "learner" was receiving 450 volts of electricity. Milgram hoped the experiment might illuminate how so many people could have blindly followed the Nazi regime. Milgram hypothesized that "all but a few sadists" would refuse to complete the experiment, and refuse to shock the "learner."
In reality, 65% of the "teachers" completed the experiment, despite the “learner's” consistent and pitiful complaints about the pain, a heart condition, and wanting to stop. Some “teachers” asked Milgram to stop, but when told that the experiment must go on and that Milgram assumed all liability, they readily continued to the end. No "teacher" quit before 300 volts. Why?
The human desire to please and obey others simply overpowered the conflicting desire to "do no harm." Further, cognitive dissonance enabled the "teachers" to minimize their actions. By increasing the voltage incrementally, it becomes difficult to draw the line at what is too much. To say that 300 volts is too much would require an admission that 285 was probably too much, as well.
How does this apply to legal ethics? The drive to make partner can be seen as a pressure causing obedience to the firm or a senior attorney to override a young attorney’s moral barometer or adherence to the rules. In addition, it highlights the potential risk of a slippery slope in legal practice. With inauspicious beginnings, a young attorney fights a legitimate discovery request in the name of zealous advocacy. Where does it go from there? See David Luban, “The Ethics of Wrongful Obedience in Ethics in Practice (Deborah L Rhode, ed.).
What does it mean to me? It means I am more certain than ever that some very important choices lay ahead of me. In my opinion, the only true ethical choice we have is deciding what type of practice to pursue. Once we make that choice, unfortunately, many other choices may be made for us...
February 27, 2004
You know law school has utterly ruined you when...
.....you find things like this funny.
The infamous FRCP quiz, as brought to my attention by JCA. Collectively, I think my civ pro section wasted a good 19 1/2 hours on this thing. Even Professor Civ Pro got in on the action (somewhat surprisingly as a Rule 11). As for me:
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your
forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a
stickler for details and particularity, you
have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and
easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a
plaintiff provide a short and plain statement
of a claim on which a court can grant relief.
While there is much to be lauded in your
approach, your good nature sometimes gets you
in trouble, and you often have to rely on your
good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
At least I wasn't that "obnoxious" Rule 12(b). I've got tons of reading to do...I wonder if there's a UCC quiz out there...
The infamous FRCP quiz, as brought to my attention by JCA. Collectively, I think my civ pro section wasted a good 19 1/2 hours on this thing. Even Professor Civ Pro got in on the action (somewhat surprisingly as a Rule 11). As for me:
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!
You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your
forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a
stickler for details and particularity, you
have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and
easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a
plaintiff provide a short and plain statement
of a claim on which a court can grant relief.
While there is much to be lauded in your
approach, your good nature sometimes gets you
in trouble, and you often have to rely on your
good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.
Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
At least I wasn't that "obnoxious" Rule 12(b). I've got tons of reading to do...I wonder if there's a UCC quiz out there...
The Obligatory First Post
Welcome to Dubitante, the newest law school blog east of the Mississippi. Here's the lowdown on me...
I am halfway through my second semester as a 1L at a fine institution of legal education located in the Nation's Capital; I don't have a summer job; I have not started any of my course outlines; I have two classes in which, each time I attend, I feel like I am lying in a damp corner of a windowless room, curled up in the fetal position, being kicked repeatedly; I have a ton of reading I should be doing. Add it all up and what do you find? Every reason in the world to jump on the Blog Bandwagon. It took awhile, but I finally found another wonderfully efficient time vacuum to keep me from my studies. The O.C. and American Chopper just weren't getting the job done...
So, as is customary in "The Obligatory First Post," let me tell you a little bit about myself. I go to school at Georgetown. I moved to DC from sunny California. I miss California. I am engaged to be married to a wonderful young lady. She is the best thing that's ever happened to me and a pretty good cook, too. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, as well as a good movie. I cry at movies. I used to read a lot before law school. Now, I still read a lot, but it's not as much fun. My first semester grades were respectable, though it isn't showing in my job hunt. I have no idea what type of law I want to pursue. At times, I have no idea why I went to law school in the first place. Yet, I am very pleased and consistently impressed with my choice of school. I am really lucky to be there.
Thanks for coming, and I hope to see you again. The entries will get more interesting, I promise.
I am halfway through my second semester as a 1L at a fine institution of legal education located in the Nation's Capital; I don't have a summer job; I have not started any of my course outlines; I have two classes in which, each time I attend, I feel like I am lying in a damp corner of a windowless room, curled up in the fetal position, being kicked repeatedly; I have a ton of reading I should be doing. Add it all up and what do you find? Every reason in the world to jump on the Blog Bandwagon. It took awhile, but I finally found another wonderfully efficient time vacuum to keep me from my studies. The O.C. and American Chopper just weren't getting the job done...
So, as is customary in "The Obligatory First Post," let me tell you a little bit about myself. I go to school at Georgetown. I moved to DC from sunny California. I miss California. I am engaged to be married to a wonderful young lady. She is the best thing that's ever happened to me and a pretty good cook, too. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, as well as a good movie. I cry at movies. I used to read a lot before law school. Now, I still read a lot, but it's not as much fun. My first semester grades were respectable, though it isn't showing in my job hunt. I have no idea what type of law I want to pursue. At times, I have no idea why I went to law school in the first place. Yet, I am very pleased and consistently impressed with my choice of school. I am really lucky to be there.
Thanks for coming, and I hope to see you again. The entries will get more interesting, I promise.
February 01, 2004
About Dubitante
-Contact: DubitanteJD [at] hotmail [dot] com
-Law School Bio: Rising 2L at Georgetown University Law Center, a fine institution of legal education.
-My Opinion of Law School: So far I'm pleased, both with the experience and my performance. No regrets (yet).
-Dubitante's Purpose: a place for me to comment about my law school experience, the world around me, and anything else I choose. A place for other law students, lawyers, or curious folk to get a glimpse into my life, law school's role in it, and offer their thoughts or comments.
-What does "Dubitante" mean?: Dubitante is a rarely used type of appellate opinion. Typically, it signifies a concurrence with severe reservations about the soundness of both the reasoning and the outcome. An extremely doubtful concurrence... See definition. For me, "Dubitante" sums up my view of the world: extremely cynical, but a good sport about it. I disagree with many things, but am usually willing to play along...
-My Political Leanings: Left, though compared to my classmates, increasingly right.
-Personal Bio: I'm 26. I grew up and did my undergrad in Northern CA. I plan to return to the left coast after graduation. I am engaged to a lovely young lady (who also posts occassionally to offer the S.O. perspective on the law school experience).
-Interests (things I used to like to do before I started law school and free time became scarce): read a good book, watch a good movie, listen to some good music, support the Sacramento Kings...
-1L Summer Job: Judicial Internship at DC District Court
-Plans for the Future (in no particular order): Get married. Graduate. Pass the bar. Clerk. Work in indentured servitude until the loans are paid. Be happy. Teach. Quit smoking. Get a dog. Have some kids. Be a good Dad. Be a good husband. Retire from the law. Open a bookstore. Be happy.
You can also check my first post if you're still interested...
-Law School Bio: Rising 2L at Georgetown University Law Center, a fine institution of legal education.
-My Opinion of Law School: So far I'm pleased, both with the experience and my performance. No regrets (yet).
-Dubitante's Purpose: a place for me to comment about my law school experience, the world around me, and anything else I choose. A place for other law students, lawyers, or curious folk to get a glimpse into my life, law school's role in it, and offer their thoughts or comments.
-What does "Dubitante" mean?: Dubitante is a rarely used type of appellate opinion. Typically, it signifies a concurrence with severe reservations about the soundness of both the reasoning and the outcome. An extremely doubtful concurrence... See definition. For me, "Dubitante" sums up my view of the world: extremely cynical, but a good sport about it. I disagree with many things, but am usually willing to play along...
-My Political Leanings: Left, though compared to my classmates, increasingly right.
-Personal Bio: I'm 26. I grew up and did my undergrad in Northern CA. I plan to return to the left coast after graduation. I am engaged to a lovely young lady (who also posts occassionally to offer the S.O. perspective on the law school experience).
-Interests (things I used to like to do before I started law school and free time became scarce): read a good book, watch a good movie, listen to some good music, support the Sacramento Kings...
-1L Summer Job: Judicial Internship at DC District Court
-Plans for the Future (in no particular order): Get married. Graduate. Pass the bar. Clerk. Work in indentured servitude until the loans are paid. Be happy. Teach. Quit smoking. Get a dog. Have some kids. Be a good Dad. Be a good husband. Retire from the law. Open a bookstore. Be happy.
You can also check my first post if you're still interested...
