Law Students v. Bar Review
74 U.Va 4 (2021)
Kulkarni, S. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Background
If you look at any article published by the esteemed newspaper the Virginia Law Weekly in the last year, or see any opinion published by this court in the same timeframe, you are likely to find a mention of the event known as Bar Review. Traditionally, students from all three years come together once a week to celebrate another seven-day cycle of challenging classes at a venue decided on by a certain person and hosted by a kind local watering hole. This weekly event was missing from the past year’s social calendar for reasons I am sure we can all appreciate. However, the event’s return was meant to provide a venue for 2Ls to behave like fools in public rather than wait for stories of their stupidity to circulate through the grapevine. It was meant to provide 1Ls with a proper introduction to the law school culture. It was meant to provide 3Ls the opportunity to meet old friends and have their debauchery be socially appropriate once a week.
Unfortunately, the students bringing this case allege that the esteemed host, Crozet Pizza, failed to provide the appropriate venue for all of these ideas at the first Bar Review. These students claim that the live band, lack of access to drink specials, and the greatest of unholy curses (undergrads) so affected their experience as to prevent them from understanding the true nature of Bar Review. As usual, the majority of plaintiffs are from the Class of 2023, who are quickly becoming joint claimants in front of this Court for their issues with every aspect of law school culture that they believe they were denied in the previous year. Let’s review these individual allegations one at a time.
Analysis
First, the live band. The students were given the opportunity to enjoy such premium performance art, but still found reason to complain. The Court is not unsympathetic to the concerns of the law students. The live band took up space that could have been used for dancing, and the music was limited by the setlist. Live performance is a gift and true art. But at times, expediency must take precedent. Crozet Pizza cannot hold two major events at once: live music is an event, a true experience; yet so is Bar Review. They have the option to host either, but they must choose one. It is important to note, however, that the stage space taken up by the DJs on other nights is not too dissimilar from the space that claimants allege is used by the live band. Unfortunately for the law students, this consideration makes this claim null and void.
Next, the lack of access to drink specials. On this, the students bring with them the best evidence. Many of them spent most of the two-hour-long window for drink specials simply waiting in line. Some students allege that upon reaching the front, they were not even given the reduced prices they were promised. This is certainly an affront, but this Court must balance the equities. Crozet only had two main bartenders who were managing the large crowd. Those wonderful people are not to blame for this high-stress situation, where mistakes are inevitable. The blame lies with their business overlord who did not plan ahead for such an occasion. Since the esteemed justices on this Court will one day defend businesses, it is important to take this sacred time on the Court to protect individuals when we can. This claim has merit, and the Court would also refer those unfortunate bartenders to any of the future lawyers at this law school for any help they might need.
Finally, the undergrads. The students allege that this law school event was plagued with the atrocity known as undergraduate students. The Court is appalled. Is Crozet not interested in its own pocketbooks? Allowing such deviants into their event, with the simple phrase “We’re with Bar Review” (that they can easily overhear and use) hurts their own bottom line. There was no space to stand and dance, according to the plaintiffs. The experience was ruined, they allege. On this, the Court completely understands. In allowing this flood of non-law students to enter, the contract of Bar Review hosting was broken. This claim is certainly meritorious and would ordinarily demand relief. For reasons discussed below, however, that relief will not be granted at this time.
Conclusion and Order
Crozet did fail in some aspects of hosting Bar Review. Drink specials are what draws law students to the event. Undergrads ruined the experience. With all of that said, this Court will stay its hand. Since the original claim was filed, a second Bar Review occurred at Crozet Pizza. This event was less congested, provided easier access to drink specials, and included fewer undergrads. We will issue only a warning to Crozet and any other future host of Bar Review. Consider wristbands and better preparations for future events—don’t overburden your own bartenders. We will hold ourselves back this time but will grant cert to future claims about inadequate Bar Reviews. In other words, you are on thin ice.
Tonseth, C.J. nonchalantly dissenting.
It has become due matter of course that when I assign my Associate Justice Kulkarni to write an opinion, I must dissent. This dissent may stem from the fact that I disagree with his analysis, that we believe in alternative facts that are dispositive to the case, that his conclusion is entirely based on substantive due process,[1] or that I just feel like being petty. Today, I am choosing the latter reason for dissenting.
First, J. Kulkarni makes some argument about venue.[2] Yet, he also supports keeping Bar Review at Crozet. I have major qualms about this decision. I’ve personally become highly preferential to Bilt. Is this because I now finally have a cool party trick where I can walk up to my favorite bartender, raise a hand and the number of fingers I hold up indicates how many Bud Lights I want? You bet. Plus, Bilt is usually less crowded, does a two form of ID check to keep undergrads out,[3] and has a nice pergola for when unforeseen rain showers pop up.
Second, J. Kulkarni keeps attempting to give 2Ls additional rights that they haven’t earned.[4] This opinion again reads like a “bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery.”[5] Granted, all of those who attended Bar Review were deprived of their constitutional right to a speedy drink delivery from plentiful bartenders. But, as a wise member of the Class of 2022 suggested in their Groupme, why didn’t we just make 1Ls be bartenders?
Third, I think J. Kulkarni and his fellow complainants just need to learn to order better. Every time I went to the bar, I simply ordered a six-pack of PBR. It allowed me to stay cheap, share a few with friends, and always have two drinks in hand while I waited in line again. Win, win, win. Work smarter, not harder, kids.
---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] Which, once the 1Ls take ConLaw, they’ll also learn is a farce. Just like my perceived power on this Court.
[2] I’m not going to lie, I skimmed the majority opinion while on the golf course, similar to my PR reading for this week.
[3] I watched them snatch 6 fake IDs last week, it was dope
[4] See 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021), Tonseth., C.J. vehemently dissenting.
[5] King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 506 (2015) (Scalia, J. dissenting).