Hot Bench: Hunter Sentner '23

Virginia Law Weekly October 7, 2020

Interviewed by Jacob Smith ‘23

Welcome to Hot Bench! Can you tell our readers where you’re from?

I grew up in Port Washington, New York, on Long Island.

What was it like growing up there?

It was good. It’s a pretty dense suburb of New York City. It’s close to the beach and on the water, which is something I greatly appreciated. There’s also a lot of fishing and surfing in the area.

Are you a fisher and surfer?

More of a surfer. I stand in the water with a reel every now and then and enjoy floating around for a couple of hours struggling to catch waves.

Cool! I was stalking you on LinkedIn and I saw you were involved in leading groups of at-risk teenagers in the desert. Can you talk a little about that?

Yeah, so I was a wilderness therapy guy in Idaho for three years. After college, I originally went to Utah to work in Park City as a snowboard instructor, and then the ski season ended so my snowboard instructor job ended. But I wanted to stay out West. I’ve always been interested in working with at-risk youth, particularly juvenile justice. It was a wonderful opportunity to work with at-risk youth in the desert with groups of about eight to twelve kids. The job varied a lot shift-to-shift depending on the kids. Some groups and some shifts are far more intense and stressful than others. And, yeah, it was just a wonderful experience to be with the same group for two weeks at a time. You’re able to do a lot of work with and really get to know a group when you’re with them 24/7.

When did you start thinking about law school?

Originally I started thinking about it in college. I talked to a lot of lawyers who said to take some time off between college and law school. So I did. I was only planning on going for a year and studying for the LSAT while I was working at the ski mountain. Naturally, that did not happen. I spent way too much time snowboarding and I found a job at Wilderness Therapy. I fell in love with it, and for a long time there that idea of law school exited my brain. The schedule for Wilderness Therapy is two weeks on, two weeks off, so during the two weeks off I’d primarily travel around living out of the back of my truck. And after a few years had passed, a desire came for more stability and the potential to have an indoor place to live. Another piece of it was a realization that I didn’t want to become a therapist, so within that field there wasn’t much more upward growth. There’s plenty of opportunity to make change as a lawyer, so I come to law school to work in either criminal justice or juvenile justice.

What’s one surprising thing about your experience at UVA so far?

One of the things that has surprised me about UVA to some extent is the diversity of experiences that different law students have had. And one thing I always heard about UVA that interested me is how welcoming everyone at the Law School is and how collegial the environment is. It has surprised me to some extent how much that is true. And another thing about law school in general is that, especially during 1L, you hear how much work it is, but there’s still plenty of time to remain a human and do the things you’re interested in outside of the Law School.

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite thing to cook?

Stir-fry.

If you could pick one song to play in the background of your life, what would it be? “Voodoo Child” by Jimi Hendrix.

Most unusual talent?

I’ll go with making a fire with a bow drill.

Is that hard?

It’s hard to learn, yeah, especially what kind of wood to use.

If you could take over any position on any team in professional sports and be a boss, what would it be?

Closing pitcher for the New York Yankees.

Self-driving cars—are you a fan or not a fan?

I would definitely be a fan. It would give me a lot of opportunity to watch movies and do other things in the car.

Favorite font?

I’d probably just go with Arial because it takes up more space than Times New Roman.

Favorite movie that most people haven’t seen?

Take Out from 2004. It’s about a Chinese immigrant who borrows money from the mafia and struggles to pay it back. It all comes down to how many tips he gets as a delivery man. And as a take-out man there’s not necessarily much room to change your service for tips. The only reason I saw it was because I went to a movie theater to see a different movie, and for whatever reason the film broke, so they said they’d show this movie for free.

---

hrs8f@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Chance Maginness '22

Virginia Law Weekly September 30, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Although it’s been nearly six months, many aspects of our “new normal” continue to present challenges that can be strange and frustrating to face. From sitting next to someone in class to hitting Bar Review, things that once seemed a given feel far away, or at least vastly different behind a mask and six feet apart. We’ve been forced to connect more creatively in our professional, personal, and—we’ll say it, you smokeshows, you—romantic lives. Indeed, like a professor explaining the holding five minutes past the bell, love continues on, so we at the Law Weekly thought it would be intriguing, pleasantly distracting, and (dare we say it) heartwarming to hear how couples and singles alike are handling romance in light of all these changes. You've heard of Love in the Time of Cholera, but get ready for Love in the Time of Corona.

This week's guest is Chance Maginness ’22.

Hi Chance! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. This week’s edition is a little different in that you’re not in a relationship. How would you categorize your relationship status—Single? Ready to mingle? Focused on yourself?

I don’t want to come across as desperate, Benjamin. That being said, I am single and ready to mingle, but not in a desperate way. I’m content with where I am, but I wouldn’t be opposed to someone scratching my back and giving me compliments. It’s a fine line to walk.

Pictured: Chance expertly practicing self-love. Photo Courtesy of Chance Maginness ‘22.

I’d imagine it’s a bit more challenging to mingle with the state of things right now. How has ye olde Corona been for you?

Definitely, but this is where the not desperate thing comes into play. Quarantine has obviously been bad for most people; but for me, it’s been good. I’ve come out on the other side a better person.

Elaborate.

Well, before everything went remote, I was really concerned with the social dynamics of law school and what others were doing and where I fit in, but now I’m far more focused on me. I mean, when the world stopped, I really had nothing to do but watch Tiger King (remember that?) and focus on myself for the first time in a while. I started getting into healthier routines with eating and exercising—I’ve actually lost about forty pounds since it started. I’ve started seeing a therapist to keep my mental and emotional health up as well. In many ways, I feel like I’ve started to hit all the boxes of “getting your life together.” I still consume enough cold brew to kill a horse, but you can’t win ’em all.

Good for you! Self-love is never letting anyone cap your coffee consumption. But seriously, that’s all pretty inspiring. Have there been any other silver linings (or challenges) from quarantine for you?

I’ve read a lot of books! It’s amazing and rare to read for pleasure in law school. Specifically, I’ve been reading up a lot on queer studies, which intersects with an independent research project I’m doing this semester. As for challenges, not being able to go to Bilt or Crozet Pizza with a double fresh zen in hand at Bar Review has really done a number on my psyche.

Michael’s Bistro’s zens > Crozet’s, but you didn’t hear it from me. Speaking of beverages, which one best epitomizes you and why?

A venti cold brew from Starbucks, with two shots of Kahlua (can I say that?). I’m full of energy and anxiety, which is the cold brew, but I’m also subversive enough to take the edge off, like the Kahlua.

We at the Law Weekly allow uncensored speech in regards to beverage hypotheticals. Back to the self-love though and getting in touch with yourself, what have you come to love or appreciate anything about yourself most?

I think it would be my relationship with my body. It’s much healthier now than it was, and I’ve learned to be nicer to it. There’s a fine and weird line that I tried to walk between body positivity and losing weight. I learned that what was more important for me was not necessarily losing the weight, but rather building a better relationship with my body so it can perform as best as it can for me. I’ve learned to listen to it and myself, and I really love that now.

Snaps for that. Let’s do a lightning round. Best Charlottesville date spot?

Carter Mountain. It’s really pretty and has amazing vibes to just relax in. If so inclined, you can pick apples or peaches too.

Dream location to quarantine in?

Somewhere in Estes Park in the Rockies. It’s beautiful and if I had to stare at the Pavilion dog park for two weeks straight, I’d lose my mind. Maybe London if cities are on the table.

What’s the first activity you’ll do when things go back to normal?

Inform my professors that I will not be in class for the week and head straight to Bilt or Crozet.

Which movie character are you and why?

I’m the Witch from Sondheim’s Into the Woods, in that I’m the catalyst of most stories. I’m always correct, and when nobody listens to me, I just leave. Actually, I’ve just listened to an outrageous amount of Sondheim musicals this summer.

Best advice for self-love?

Buy more mirrors for your house. You can’t hide from yourself when your reflection is staring back at you from everywhere you look.

Normally, this is where we ask couples to say something cute about each other as a surprise. You can say something to yourself, but that might ruin the reveal. Otherwise, take a free space:

If you’re reading this and you think to yourself, “how could I possibly love myself?,” that’s okay—don’t worry about it—you can just love ~ME~ instead. Follow me on Twitter and Instagram at @givegayachance.

And there you have it, folks. Many thanks to Chance for joining us on Love in the Time of Corona and teaching us about the importance of self-love. Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Empirically Speaking: A Law Weekly Chat with Professor Stevenson

Virginia Law Weekly September 30, 2020

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor

After a successful discussion with Professor Hwang a few weeks ago, the Law Weekly decided to continue its professor interview column with another new faculty member: Professor Megan Stevenson. Devon Chenelle ’23, Dana Lake ’23, and Jacob Jones ’21 joined me, and we all turned on our cameras for a Zoom conversation with Professor Stevenson last week.

Pictured: Professor Megan Stevenson brings a new and invaluable perspective to UVA Law. Photo Courtesy of law.virginia.edu

Professor Stevenson joins the Law School from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. She has three degrees from UC Berkeley, culminating in a Ph.D. in agricultural and resource economics. After earning her Ph.D., she spent two years as a Quattrone Fellow at UPenn before heading down to the D.C. area, and then, three years later, migrated to Charlottesville. Don’t let her area of study fool you, though. Professor Stevenson’s work and teaching focuses on criminal justice. This semester, she is teaching criminal law, and next semester, she’ll be teaching a seminar titled “Rethinking Criminal Justice.”[1]

I was really excited to meet Professor Stevenson because she has a bit of a unique background compared to many of the other professors at the Law School—she has a Ph.D., but not a J.D.—so I was thrilled when she agreed to join some Law Weekly folks for an interview.

We quickly found out that Professor Stevenson’s approach to the law involves a unique and valuable twist. While Professor Stevenson prepares for class just like other law professors, and she publishes research in journals,[2] she also brings an empirical approach to her work as a result of her training in economics. For example, she is currently researching the collateral consequences of incarceration, including how incarceration affects individuals’ long-term economic well-being. In my opinion, Professor Stevenson’s perspective is invaluable. In a law school environment, it is so easy for students to focus on memorizing “doctrine” at the expense of considering the data that results from the application of that doctrine in the real world. Professor Stevenson’s perspective has the potential to help counteract some of those tendencies here at UVA Law.

We also learned a little about Professor Stevenson’s life outside of the law. In her spare time, she enjoys practicing yoga and doing Pilates workouts. When asked if she has pets, she replied that she doesn’t, but she does have small children. She’s a Schitt’s Creek fan, and she enjoys listening to Motown and R&B. For law students wondering how they can get their urban park and post-Tiger-King big cat fixes in D.C. after law school, you should talk to Professor Stevenson. While teaching at George Mason, she lived near Rock Creek Park and the National Zoo—so close to the Zoo, in fact, that she could hear the lions roar.

In these interviews, I like to ask professors if they have any advice for students. It can be about law school, their career after law school, or life outside the law. I always get great answers, and Professor Stevenson was no different: She suggested that everyone learn about statistics.[3] She explained that we live in an empirical world and that there is great value in being able to discern how statistics are being used around you. To illustrate her point, she asked us to consider a hypothetical in which a community normally has a murder rate of one in 100,000 people per year. She explained that in a given year, if there were two murders, that murder rate would become two in 100,000 people per year—still a very small number that could be explained by random noise. She noted, however, that someone could sensationalize that data by proclaiming that the murder rate DOUBLED that year, and while that claim would be technically correct, someone with a little statistics knowledge would be better equipped to realize that the murder rate was still incredibly small.

Maybe I’m biased—I took a number of statistics classes in college—but I think Professor Stevenson’s advice is excellent and quite topical in light of the current state of the world. With so much information pertaining to so many different issues, and flowing from all kinds of sources (e.g., Instagram), it’s important for law students and non-law students alike to understand how numbers are being used and how different factors affect what’s going on in the world around them.

All in all, it was a real treat to meet Professor Stevenson. I look forward to seeing the impact she has on the Law School community and the legal profession more broadly.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu

[1] The course description is already on LawWeb, and it looks like it’ll be a great class.

[2] I’ll note that she publishes her work not only in traditional law journals, but also economics journals.

[3] For those of you, dear readers, who are inspired by this advice but don’t know where to turn to learn more about statistics, you’re in luck. Professor Stevenson mentioned that she’ll be teaching a statistics course either this spring or sometime next year.

Club Spotlight: Sidewalk Law

Virginia Law Weekly September 30, 2020

Kathryn Querner ‘22
Executive Editor

Sidewalk Law, one of UVA Law’s most recently founded student organizations, provides law students with the chance to get outside of the North Grounds bubble and engage with the broader Charlottesville community. The organization facilitates opportunities for law students to volunteer with local elementary schools, helping teachers out around the classroom.

Sidewalk Law is the junior version of Street Law—a Law School organization through which law students teach lessons on introductory legal concepts to students at local high schools. Due to the limitations of elementary students’ age and comprehension skills, however, Sidewalk Law will focus less on teaching law and more on providing general assistance to teachers. This includes working individually with particular students and completing other tasks to help out with teachers’ agendas. Because participants will engage in less specialized forms of assistance, Sidewalk Law welcomes students of all backgrounds, including those with minimal teaching experience or training.

Due to restrictions enacted by local public elementary schools to combat COVID-19, Sidewalk Law will not be able to facilitate in-person volunteer opportunities with these schools through the 2020-2021 school year. Because of the young ages of the students and the challenges of Zoom, Sidewalk Law executive board members and local schools determined that assisting elementary students virtually would not be a productive or effective endeavor. Students will be able to volunteer again beginning fall of 2021.

Eric Seifriz ’22, the founder and president of Sidewalk Law, founded the organization this past spring. As an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Seifriz volunteered weekly with an organization that sent students out to surrounding schools to assist teachers and build relationships with students and the local community. After graduating, Seifriz taught students in pre-K through twelfth grade. Seeking out teaching opportunities after arriving at UVA Law, he got involved with Street Law and went on to found Sidewalk Law. Seifriz also noted that Madison House, the UVA undergraduate counterpart to Sidewalk Law, has formed many relationships with local elementary schools which Sidewalk Law hopes to use.

Before Sidewalk Law came into existence, UVA Law did not have a group for students interested in education law and policy. Seifriz foresees Sidewalk Law providing a space and community for students interested in education law or policy career paths to socialize, network, and pursue education-related interests. Furthermore, if volunteering goes well next fall, Seifriz hopes that Sidewalk Law will eventually provide opportunities for additional services including tutoring and after-school enrichment programs.

Sidewalk Law’s executive board members are Seifriz, Director of Community Engagement Colin Lee ’21, VP J. Carr Gamble ’22, and Director of Outreach Caroline Spadaro ’22. Lee commented that the best part about involvement in the organization has been, “meeting other students who genuinely want to have a positive effect on the lives of youth.” In conversations with fellow Sidewalk Law members, Lee has found, “a strong commitment to K-12 advocacy—whether that takes the form of teaching, coaching, or mentorship. Ultimately, that is what Sidewalk Law is all about.”

Finally, as Sidewalk Law is the first organization of its kind to be established at a graduate school at UVA, its executive board hopes to work with other UVA graduate programs, including Darden, Batten, and the medical school, to expand the reach of the program and provide greater assistance to local elementary schools.

To get involved in Sidewalk Law—and this applies especially to 1Ls who are eligible to join the organization’s executive board this upcoming year—students can email Seifriz at es5eg@virginia.edu to be added to the listserv. As Sidewalk Law is so new, current 1Ls who choose to get involved next year will have the opportunity to really shape the growth and trajectory of the organization.

---

kmq8vf@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Quiet Studiers v. Noisome Zoomers

Virginia Law Weekly September 30, 2020

Quiet Studiers v. Noisome Zoomers
73 U.Va 6 (2020)

Justice CHENELLE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Questions over the proper usage of the Law Library have come to the forefront of both public opinion and this Court. Plaintiff brought suit seeking an injunction against the misuse of the Law Library for online classes. Applying the Proper Use Doctrine, the Court of Petty Appeals finds that a judicial order precluding the usage of the Law Library for Zoom classes is appropriate.

---

A spectre is haunting the Law School—the spectre of noise in the library. Across the carrels, over the stacks, and through the halls, one can hear the petulant greetings, questions, and cold-call responses of those poor souls so extremely depraved that they see no mortal sin in conducting their online classes—and with sound!—from the rightfully silent halls of the Arthur J. Morris Law Library. This act is an outrage against the natural order. It is thus with the hope of impugning this atrocious behavior and shaming the malefactors who perpetuate these woeful deeds that I write this opinion. After it is published in the illustrious pages of the Virginia Law Weekly, none shall dare to speak on a Zoom call in the library ever again, at peril of raising this Court’s ire and violating the injunction set forth herein.

The first argument this Court shall consider against this dastardly behavior is one calling into focus the necessity of respecting the rightful and proper use of certain areas, pursuant to the Second Restatement of Space Usage § 734. As Qoheleth opined, “all things have their season;”[1] so too do all activities have their proper place. The proper place of silence is the library, and the proper noise of the library is non-noise. If we were to mismatch activities and their proper place across Grounds, the fabric of campus life would be torn asunder. Could one imagine if the Corner were to become a place of sober self-improvement, the Pavilion a bastion of modest frugality, and the Darden School of Business a home to intellectual thought? Such activities would be signs of incipient Shakespearean madness throughout Grounds, just as surely as when Duncan’s horses ate each other in Macbeth. Thus, we must preserve the Law Library as a place of solitude, reflection, and above all else, quiet. I ask you, my dear reader: Must there not be one place in the entirety of Grounds dedicated to silence? And indeed, there is but one place where one may fairly and reasonably demand quiet: the Law Library. You are free to enjoy your ghastly cacophony literally anywhere else in Charlottesville—so why must you interpose your unholy caterwauling in the one place it is not welcome? Find yourself an empty classroom in the Law School building, an empty room in Pavilion (those study rooms I have scarce seen breached by a book), an empty room literally anywhere else on Grounds, or even an empty room in your own lodgings!

Furthermore, those who pollute the library with their classes’ noiseful Zoomery are engaged in a reckless disservice to their classmates who may require more peace and quiet in their study locations than they themselves do. Many can struggle with focus and concentration wherever they encounter errant sounds, and there are fearfully few places on Grounds where one can escape such sounds. It is thus a tremendous disservice to these individuals to assault their sensitive ears with the meaningless mumble of your online courses.

The library is a sacred place full of rite and ritual, and with that sacred investiture comes a long-held rule: that the peace and quiet of the space must not be disturbed, an observation first noted in Lucy Loud v. Steven Silent, N.H. 1873. This Court views itself as the guardian and protector of the aforementioned High Rule, assuming a role similar to that of the lonely guardian of the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Should anyone violate this injunction, the Court will intrude with great and terrible vigor on the sinister conversations of those who transgress against the sacred silence of the library. It shall terrify couples chattering over homework,[2] graduate students chatting away in their little nooks, and music-playing staff pushing around trolleys of books. I shall greet these varied malefactors with the same devastating syllogism. Question One: “Do you know where we are right now?” To which they will answer dumbly, “Uhhh, the Library?” Leading me naturally to Question Two: “So why the f*** are you talking right now?!?” With dumb stupefaction inevitably staring back at me, I know I have put these villains in their place. In light of this ruling, I eagerly anticipate publicly shaming all those who profane the stacks with their Zoomery.

----

Per the order of the Court of Petty Appeals, applying the Proper Use Doctrine, Defendants are thus enjoined from Zooming in the library. Should they violate this injunction, they do so at the peril of a public shaming.

It is so ordered.

Calamaro, J, dissenting:

While this is an issue of duty—to whom should we defer, the Zoom-caller or the library-goer—I find this case is ripe to consider an issue that should be near and dear to every aspiring attorney’s heart: avoiding the library. Namely, I contend that the library is a place to be avoided, it is a place to be looked down upon, and it is no more the right of a library-goer to experience quietness than it is for the Zoomer to take a call. Neither should be there.

The library is a house of horrors.

In I Am Legend, Will Smith enters a bank and stumbles upon a bunch of zombies standing around together, asleep. It is scary, and it is not nearly as bad as the library. Do you want to see and be seen by your fellow law students “StUdYiNg?” Then go to the library. Do you want to be uncomfortable, constantly, in those poor excuses for chairs, with poor lighting and a bathroom that is about fifteen steps too far? Go to the library. It is the perfect place for those things.

Or, you could stay home, buy a desk on Craigslist for fifteen bucks and choose to write a Virginia Law Weekly article there instead of at the library. You can take a call, listen to music, or even water a plant at home while you write—go crazy. Plus, you have all the coffee you could want at home, as well as a bottle of wine for those crazy nights studying Fed Tax. Do you know what doesn’t have these things? The library. The library has crap coffee, zero wine, and the ghosts of lawyers past (paintings) on the walls. Why would you want this? Go home.

If you’re in the library, you can’t work on building your own mahogany bookshelf for that classic “I have gOoD bRaIn” picture in front of your books you never open.

You and I both know that sitting in a poorly ventilated and stuffy area like the library is a recipe for disaster, even with a mask.[3] Everyone is on edge, no one wants to talk to anyone else, and it’s the library. Go home. It’s #COVID2k20. COVID is the perfect time to work on the skills that matter after law school and having your own set of reporters is possibly the most important of them all. How else are you going to take that definitely cool-looking, totally not cliché and a joke of a picture, picture in front of your reporter set? That is really how you know you’ve made it—having a bunch of reporters no one will ever read gathering dust on the bookshelf, just so you can pretend to have the best words possible for your clients. If that’s not the dream, I don’t know why you’re in law school.

Tonseth, J. dissenting:

The question in this case does not center on what rights law students have within the library as a whole. Rather, at the core of this issue, we must analyze whether the formation of UVA Law’s library was constitutional. The answer to that basic question is affirmatively no, with the only recourse being to abolish and demolish the Arthur J. Morris Law Library.

In the issue at hand, the Majority clearly favors a strong and seemingly unrestrained delegation of legislative power to the Executive. As such, although there is no constitutional grant of authority for UVA Law to establish a library, the majority assumes the library’s existence and establishment was an appropriate exercise of the Dean’s executive power. This assumption has proved the most obvious point to me about this case: The Majority is still struggling with basic reading and comprehension. Petitioners did not provide proof of the by-line in the UVA Law Constitution that established a library. Further, petitioners were unable to point to the establishment of a library in Thomas Jefferson’s Academical Village plan in 1819, when UVA Law was founded. Confronted with the counterargument that Jefferson did not intend to establish a law library, as he left his entire book collection to the Library of Congress after their collection was destroyed in 1812, petitioners demurred and simply turned off their Zoom camera, citing “technical difficulties.”

It is beyond my esteemed sense of self to let this abuse of power by the Majority go unchecked. While I am not advocating for the “complete deconstruction” of the administrative state, it is obvious that the Arthur J. Morris Library was founded on a faulty premise. Plus, using substantive due process to further coddle law students is bad precedent, so any “rights” the Majority makes up are all farcical. I dissent.

---

dnc9hu@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] Ecclesiastes 3:1

[2] I have never ever understood this dynamic of studying as date-night. I suppose it can serve well as an innocuous way to hang out with someone in the early stages of an affaire du coeur, but I don’t consider the studying version of myself, hunched over books, grinding my teeth, and sweating from my forehead, to be my most seductive look. Perhaps others can pull it off better.

[3] This is endorsed by Drew University of Science.

Hot Bench: Sam Pickett '21

Virginia Law Weekly September 30, 2020

Sam Pickett is the Columns Editor at Law Weekly.

Hi Sam! Welcome to the Hot Bench! Our readers have heard a lot from you as a journalist over the years, so I’d like to switch up our usual questions to probe deeper into what makes Sam tick. But first, tell us where you’re from and why you decided to become a lawyer?

I am from Indiana (crossroads of America, baby!!!) and, in one of the few serious answers I’ll give, I decided to become a lawyer, among other reasons, because of a desire to fight injustice. I feel that so often people are taken advantage of because they don’t know the law or how to maneuver within our legal system and being a lawyer gives me the opportunity to help people in a way that few other careers can.

Okay now the hard stuff, why is popcorn the best vegetable?

Easy, it comes from corn, which comes from Indiana, which is where I’m from. Also, you can put whatever toppings you want on it—it can be sweet or savory (like me)—and you can eat tons of it without feeling bad. Why eat lots of broccoli or carrots when you could eat a bunch of popcorn?

If you were reincarnated as a dinosaur, would you rather have a spiky tail or thiccasaurus thighs, and why?

I’ve got to go with the spiky tail. If I were really committed, I could have thiccasaurus thighs right now. But a spiky tail? I can only dream of that. Plus, I would be able to smack people I don’t like, a huge advantage. Thick thighs would make me strong, yes, but not allow me to smack people as easily.

Have you actually been productive during 3L? if yes, why?

While I certainly don’t feel productive, I am in the Immigration Law Clinic, so I’ve had to maintain a certain level of productivity. As a 3L, however, I am more inclined to “call that a day’s work” at 2:00 p.m. and to avoid any kind of responsibility for the rest of the evening. Thank god TikTok didn’t take off until my 3L year.

Who is your favorite power ranger?

The red one. I don’t remember why, but red is my favorite color, so I think that’s a safe bet.

When you look in the mirror, what’s the first word you think of?

It depends on the day. Somedays, it is something loathsome. Others, it is something uplifting. There is no in between.

What flavor of ice cream are you on a Tuesday?

Cookie Dough (not chocolate chip cookie dough, that’s important), because it is delicious, but it’s not my favorite flavor. Similarly, Tuesday is a fine day, but not my favorite day.

Would you rather be the physicist Pickett, war general Pickett, or a picket fence?

Given that General Pickett fought for the Confederacy, I think it is a safe bet that I would rather be the physicist. Plus, in the 1996 Nobel Prize citation of physicist David Lee, credit was given to Pickett and his research group for their work on 3He. That’s pretty sick.

Being a picket fence, however, would be pretty nice given that I would no longer have to deal with the crushing burden of existing. I could just sit there, look pretty, and protect shrubbery from predators. I would love that for me.

If you were a kitchen appliance, which one would you be?

Definitively a blender. Like a blender, I’m multifaceted and serve a broad range of functions and, sometimes, I can be very loud. No, I will not explain further.

What would your “real housewife” catch phrase be?

“I’ve always had opinions, but now people know it”—me, discussing my time at the Virginia Law Weekly.

Who is your ‘spirit’ Supreme Court Justice?

Justice Rehnquist, not because of his opinions, which I generally don’t agree with, but because I heard he hated writing opinions, and I can relate to that level of not wanting to even do the bare minimum.

It’s the end of the world, what four other people would you pick to be on your apocalypse survival team?

Weirdly enough, I’ve thought about this before. I am assuming that I can have fictional characters, even though that was not in the prompt:

(1) Rick Grimes—This man literally dealt with the apocalypse. You need a steady captain and even though Rick could be super (I mean really, really) annoying in the Walking Dead, he is a good leader, and I think I could balance out some of his psychopathic tendencies enough to make him a valuable choice.

(2) Legolas—He’s quiet, great with a bow, and kind. What more could you want?

(3) The Mountain—Sometimes you just need some brute strength to protect your squad. His blind loyalty and viciousness could be very useful if we got in a fight with another team.

(4) Dr. House—I haven’t seen many shows with doctors, but I have seen House. Who knows what kind of weird diseases would appear in an apocalyptic world? We need a doctor to help keep the team in tip top shape. If he got annoying, we would simply tape his mouth shut. And if he limps, the Mountain will carry him. Although come to think of it, the Mountain will also probably be carrying me too (a la Bran Stark).

If you could change the ending to one TV show or book, what would you change? Spoiler alert.

The end of Game of Thrones. God, what a horrible ending. What would I change? Everything, but most of all Dany would NOT have gone insane. Or if she had, she would’ve killed Jon Snow. Jon Snow is, in my humble opinion, the absolute WORST. He is always moping around and talking about honor—like dear god, man, lighten up for just one scene. And Bran being the king? Absolutely not. And Tyrion should’ve been killed after he turned on Dany. Also, at least one major character should’ve died at the Battle of Winterfell. But one thing I wouldn’t have changed? Arya killing the Night King. That was awesome.

Knowing what you do now, would you go back in time to still come to law school?

Absolutely. Law school is very hard, but I have met some truly incredible people, particularly my wonderful girlfriend Maria, and learned a lot about myself. I often feel very fortunate to have so enjoyed law school.

Would your five-year-old self think of you as being cool, a nerd, or not recognize who you’ve become?

A: I think my five-year-old self would think that I was cool, but I’m not even sure what I think five-year-old me thought twenty-five-year-old me would be like. I think twenty-five seemed so old that I was like “I won’t ever be twenty-five.” But here I am, being twenty-five, and while I don’t feel cool, at least now I can rent a car?

---

shp8dz@virginia.edu

Antitrust and Big Tech, Part III: TikTok v. American Big Tech - Competition for Your Social (Media) Security

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

Beyond our national boundaries, Big Tech companies are vying to acquire the greatest commodity of all: your data, which includes information about your preferences, likes, dislikes, behavioral attitudes, and much more. The greatest example of Big Tech at the intersection of personal and international security is illuminated by the US-China relationship, which further illustrates that both the private and public realm are greatly intertwined. The dominant economic and social influences in the new technological economy will affect our norms, values, and realities. Importantly, the nation that dominates the global marketplace of the technological 21st century will set new standards with regard to human rights, privacy, censorship, and liberty itself, much like the US did in the early 20th century.

The struggle for this 21st century tech dominance was on display at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 30, 2020, one day after the Big Tech CEOs appeared before the House where they emulated their lack of commitment to the US side of the global economic struggle. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed the tech companies for fudging on questions regarding the Chinese Communist Party’s attempts to steal American intellectual property and commit cyber-attacks the day prior. Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) asked Pompeo how Big Tech CEOs could say they had “no experience or knowledge” of instances where IP theft had occurred on their platforms. Senator Pompeo speculated it might be “because there’s continued threats made to their businesses operating not only in China” but also those working in other parts of Asia and South Asia.

Big Tech is a big business. As with most businesses, their allegiance lies in their pocketbooks. Critically in this industry, however, the stakes of Big Tech’s business are greater than their bottom-line. Security, privacy, social and political influence, and the power to potentially manipulate, disinform, and divide the fabric of any society is on the line. This tension between private interest and public effect has been at the core of the stand-off between tech companies and President Trump in the “TikTok” saga especially, but encompasses relationships between Tech Giants and their Chinese-based manufacturers broadly (such as with Huawei). How does a market economy compete safely and allow intimate access to citizens’ information from companies where allegiances are directly tied to an oppressive government?

President Trump responded in what is shaping up to be a new “playbook” for Big Tech in navigating this challenge. In early August, he issued a series of executive orders proposing a ban on Chinese apps TikTok and WeChat, citing security threats because of China’s ability to access swaths of personal data of Americans. Access may be especially threatening in the context of an upcoming election where such data might be targeted in disinformation campaigns to affect outcomes. The threat of the ban spurred action on the part of American tech companies and ByteDance (the China-owned parent company of TikTok) to salvage TikTok’s presence in the sphere of American media.

On September 19, TikTok’s survival in the US seemed promising. President Trump had approved “in concept” a deal between Oracle, Walmart, and Bytedance, which grants the US majority stock ownership. The proposed deal would have granted 53 percent ownership by US companies and investors, but still did not entail majority control or voter rights for the American-based partners.The US Department of Commerce subsequently pushed the threatened ban to the end of the day on September 27. On September 20, however, Chinese officials did not affirm those terms. Instead, ByteDance would own 80 percent of TikTok Global, as well as maintain full control of its algorithm granting access to Oracle for monitoring. Prior to the Chinese announcement, Secretary Pompeo characterized the role of the Chinese company as a “passive shareholder” who would have “no decision-making authority [and] no ability to peer into” the activities of theUS company. Now, the situation is again fluid, and the struggle over terms of control will be critical to watch.

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Romney had cautioned against diminishing the dominance of American tech titans. He noted that China has successfully driven “a lot of Western companies out of business,” but not necessarily American ones. “The last thing we ought to do is try to knock down businesses in the US that are succeeding on the global stage. So we need to be careful . . . Alibaba would like to replace Amazon. TikTok would like to replace Instagram,” he said.

Big Tech’s influence on our social, psychological, and political spheres cannot be overstated. The algorithms used by Facebook (which hosts 1.98 billion monthly active users) and Google wield immense influence over our social networks and ultimately our sense of reality. Particularly, as we are physically limited in our interactions with people outside our immediate spheres, these constructs are more powerful than ever. Targeted ads, tracking, and sharing of personal information with other organizations, companies, and potentially foreign governments threaten our personal privacy and may threaten our notion of truth and reality itself.

What role should Congress, the Executive Branch, or an administrative agency play in defining who the ultimate influencer is in Big Tech? How does the US balance the tension between securing market dominance on the global stage in this information space, while upholding its own domestic liberties to ensure competition “at home” is robust?

As the infamous Party slogan in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 goes, “who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

Today, the competition over who will control our present is as intense as ever. We must be careful in choosing those who gain the power to control the narratives that shape and will continue to shape the course of our lives and society.

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Kolleen and Christian

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

This week's guests are Law Weekly’s own Kolleen Gladden ’21 and her boyfriend, Christian Sorensen ’21.

Hi Kolleen and Christian! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let’s start with some background—how did you two get together and what’s coming next as 3Ls?

Kolleen: Hi Ben! So, we started dating earlier this year, literally right before school went remote in the spring. We met earlier though. My roommate, Grace Tang ’21, was in Christian’s 1L section and I offered to drive them both to a section sunset hike. I was pretty bold—I asked Christian what type of woman he liked that very first meeting. I also got pulled over for speeding, so maybe a little too bold!

Christian: Bold, but also chaotic and quirky. We started talking more in the fall of 2L and bumped into each other in a parking lot late one night and literally stood there for an hour talking about everything under the sun, from her home life in Missouri to the time an escaped emu crashed into her car and dented the windshield.

[A brief digression wherein emus, their inexplicable location in Missouri, and their terrifying size were discussed.]

As for what’s next, we’re both going to end up in NYC! I’ll initially be clerking in Delaware before switching back to my firm in the city, and Kolleen will be looking for a fellowship up there.

Pictured: Cutest looking couple west of the Mississippi River! Photo Courtesy of Kolleen Gladden ‘21.

Emus, man. Let’s talk ’rona. What’s the situation been like for you two in the spring, summer, and now? You had just started dating before this all went down.

Kolleen: Exactly. Honestly, as devastating as this has all been on a macro level, it’s worked out well for us on a micro one. Even though we had just started dating, we just went for it and planned visits to each other and met each other’s families a few times over the summer.

Any challenges or silver linings?

Christian: Both a challenge and silver lining would be my study abroad in Australia being canceled this semester. I was excited to go, but am also grateful to have this time here to spend with Kolleen and friends.

Kolleen: I think there were some stresses this summer unrelated to our relationship that were challenging for me, but dating Christian made things way less stressful. Going through this with him has made things way better than if I was going through them alone.

Crikey, sorry to hear that mate but glad you can throw some shrimp on the barbie with your Sheila state-side. Speaking of exotic locations, if y’all could pick a “dream location” to be isolated in right now, where would it be and why?

Answer: Catalonia in Spain! Christian has been before, and you only ever hear great things about it.

Ah, Bartha-lona. Tell me, what do you admire most about each other?

Kolleen: His commitment to his friends and family. He gets together on Zoom once or twice a week with his high school friends and family to chat, which is something I like and similarly value. He’s also crazy considerate. I’ll mention an interview or event I have offhandedly, and he puts reminders in his phone about them. Sometimes he knows my schedule better than me!

Christian: I admire Kolleen’s willingness to help me try new things and grow. For instance, I’ve been thinking about reducing meat and dairy in my diet but haven’t known where to start. Kolleen has also been trying to do the same, and she’s been someone I can experiment and try this diet with. She’s always very supportive.

Let’s do a lightning round—best Charlottesville date spot?

Answer: It’s got to be Now and Zen. Iron Paffles is a close second and spiritual experience in its own right though.

What’s your song?

Christian: I think it would be “Dizzy on the Comedown” by Turnover. Kolleen is big into music, and when we were apart this summer she would send me a song each day. This was my favorite and also one of hers.

What’s the first activity you’ll do when things go back to normal?

Answer: We’re on a mission to bankrupt Sushi King. Christian’s record is 28 rolls between four people. We haven’t been as a couple though, so we need to make a triumphant return!

A worthy goal! Walk me through an ideal day together.

Answer: So, this is an actual planned trip that we are crossing our fingers that we can still go on in December: We’d be in Hawaii and sleep in late. We’d get up and go for a run along the coast, or maybe a mountain path. From there we’d spend time in the water and on the beach, between the palm trees and in hammocks with many fruity drinks in hand.

Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Kolleen: I’ve been in a few long-term relationships with some really great people, but Christian has shown me there is such a stark difference between dating a great person and dating a perfect fit. Even if the standards for men were where they generally should be, Christian would be so far above it—he breaks them all. It’s been night and day with him. He is the most empathetic person I know, and it’s really a joy and honor to date him.

Christian: Kolleen is the strongest person I know. She’s accomplished so much but remained so humble in spite of having overcome so many personal things. For instance, she’s one of four recipients for the public service award in our class, but I didn’t even learn that from her and had to read about it in the Docket. She graduated college with two degrees—not majors—DEGREES! She won a ton of awards at school too. You would never hear any of this from her though. She’s so brilliant, smart, empathetic, and kind. Her drive, intelligence, and humility push me to be better.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty speechless by these answers, folks. Many thanks to Kolleen and Christian for joining us on Love in the Time of Corona and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Club Spotlights: Immigration Law Society and Virginia Employment & Labor Law Association

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Jen Kelso ‘21
Guest Writer

Immigration Law Society

If you’re interested in working in immigration law, or want to learn more about this important field, then join us in the Immigration Law Society!

The Immigration Law Society (ILS) is a new student organization this year, and we’re excited to get up and running. The ILS is open to all students, whether you want to pursue an immigration law career, engage in immigration pro bono, or just want to learn more about it. We wanted to form ILS to help raise the profile of immigration law and related opportunities here at UVA. We want ILS to provide a way to bring together students who are interested in immigration law and to provide educational programming, as well as share opportunities for volunteering, internships, and jobs.

Immigration law is critically important and affects millions of lives. In addition to the vast amounts of people it affects directly, it also intersects with several other important areas of the law, such as criminal law, family law, and labor law. Immigration law has also been shifting rapidly over the last few years. Since assuming office, the Trump administration has made every effort to change the law, twist it, and use it against immigrant communities. More than ever, it is crucial for lawyers to stay up to date with the most recent developments in immigration law to ensure they provide the best representation possible for their clients.

But even though immigration law has been changing so drastically, the Law School unfortunately does not currently have a dedicated immigration faculty member, and immigration law class offerings over the past few years have been unpredictable. Though a student organization cannot substitute for expert faculty, we want the ILS to begin to fill in some of those gaps. By planning educational programming–especially focusing on recent, cutting-edge topics–we want to help UVA Law students interested in immigration become lawyers who are well-prepared to advocate for their clients and who are aware of the latest important issues.

Even though this is an abnormal year, we still want to plan immigration law events to start the ILS off on the right foot. Among other things, we would like to plan speaker events over Zoom, including a Supreme Court case roundup to discuss the past term’s immigration cases; a legal Spanish bootcamp for people looking to expand their legal vocabulary and practice conversational Spanish; and an internship panel to hear about students’ past immigration law work experiences. We’d also love to hear what ideas you have for ILS events and activities!

——————

Hannah Morris ‘22
Guest Writer

Nicole Payne ‘21
Guest Writer

Virginia Labor and Employment Law Association

The Virginia Labor and Employment Law Association (VELLA) is a student-run organization at the Law School that seeks to educate the student body on all aspects of labor and employment law. Labor and employment law covers the rights, obligations, and responsibilities within the employer-employee relationship. Employment lawyers work on various complex issues ranging from wages to workplace safety to Title VII discrimination. They might represent employers, employees, and labor unions. As an organization, VELLA’s primary goals are to provide career and networking opportunities with alumni in the field and to educate members on new developments and issues in employment law. For example, last year, VELLA co-hosted a panel discussion with Professors George Rutherglen and Kim Forde-Mazrui on Title VII discrimination when the Supreme Court was hearing arguments regarding whether sexual orientation should be prohibited under federal law in the now landmark case Bostock v. Clayton County. VELLA also hosted a joint social event with Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Society to watch a UVA men’s basketball game.

Additionally, VELLA has worked diligently to revamp its pro bono project, allowing students to gain firsthand experience working with clients. Students have the opportunity to represent employees who are facing termination, discipline, or other adverse employment outcomes in an administrative hearing. Students can learn to interview clients and witnesses, practice opening and closing statements, and learn from an experienced supervising attorney specializing in employment law.

VELLA’s general body meeting for the fall semester will be held virtually in October, date TBD. This fall, VELLA is planning speaker events and is currently accepting applications for 1L representatives and other positions on the board. If students are interested in joining VELLA (no dues this year!) then please email Nicole Payne at nap4kq@virginia.edu. We hope you join us!

---

jlk8uc@virginia.edu
hdm8cs@virginia.edu
nap4kq@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. City Folk

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Students v. City Folk
73 U.Va 5 (2020)

Justice Graebner delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court is called upon here to adjudicate a most delicate and complex issue: What, if any, jurisdiction does this Court of Petty Appeals have over actions and transactions occurring off the premises of the Law School?

The gravamen of the complaint is as follows: Petitioners have observed students and probable students congregating in large numbers, especially at close proximity, without a mask and sued, seeking declaratory injunctions to enforce social behavior concerning gatherings. These complaints have been both on-and-off Grounds. With respect to the gatherings on Law School premises, we decline to review this issue, as the failure of people to not be idiotic[1] does not present any interesting questions of appellate review. However, we take up the issue of gatherings off-premises to clarify the question of whether or not we have jurisdiction. Petitioners argue that all gatherings observed are subject to our jurisdiction as by potential contact with law students, persons who work at the school, persons who may come into contact with law students, and so on. Respondents contend that the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to persons on the grounds of the Law School. For the reasons we will discuss, we hold that our jurisdiction is not limited to persons on the Grounds of the Law School but decline to extend it as far as to the Respondents.

At the outset, we recognize Rule 1 of Petty Civil Procedure.[2] Nonetheless, it is clear that this Court is not one in which any grievance may be aired.[3] Doing so would violate our understanding of the due process rights of all persons and give us way too much work. Without restraint on jurisdiction, virtually anyone could be haled in for a roasting without notice, ability to respond, or even knowledge of the forum’s existence.[4] As articulated in Mitchell v. Mitchell and Webb, our jurisdiction must be especially limited when the defendant is impossibly distant and could not possibly know of this forum or respond in person to this court’s roasting. To hale a defendant who cannot respond is most improper.

Further, practical considerations dictate some limits to jurisdiction. To allow unlimited grievances would be to convert this Court into a forum for an unworkably wide range of grievances and send us astray from our mission of adjudicating the petty[5] disputes which pertain to the Law School and are unworthy of any other tribunal. We, therefore, decline to follow the rule proposed by Petitioners in full. Such a rule would go well beyond any statutory grant of jurisdiction, increase the potential for judicial confusion, and as above increase our workload. Finally, this Court takes judicial notice of the numerous other fora available to petitioners for complaint, relief, and mockery. Excessive jurisdictional claims can only risk depriving these fora of potential claims, harming their dignity, and encourage students to forum-shop here. While Petitioners claim that all other fora available are insufficiently procedurally rigorous, we follow the counsel of Hylton v. Guyot,that mere procedural differences or habits of practice do not amount to a forum that deprives Petitioners of essential rights.[6] Just because one forum has a drier sense of humor than another or a higher standard for applying the “law school sucks, deal with it” common-law principle, that does not make it an inappropriate forum to resolve disputes or at least raise them. However, we need not examine if fora are procedurally insufficient for the reasons outlined below.

At the same time, we hesitate to endorse the Respondent’s restrictive jurisdictional theories. The claim that our jurisdiction is restricted territorially to the Law School itself is so absurd as not to require comment. We do not endorse such a cramped formalistic and territorial understanding of jurisdiction. The due process concerns highlighted above do not blind us to the fact that our paper is widely read off-grounds via the internet.[7] Even off-Grounds, there are at least some circumstances where active or constructive notice can be determined. The problems that arise for this school may come from many quarters, and it is the highest foolishness to claim that nothing matters outside of this School as much as some of us may like to pretend this. Nor do transactions at this school limit their effects to our Grounds, as much as we pretend to. An ill-advised frat party on Friday night may sicken a 1L at a critical juncture a week later; an ill-advised meeting in the Law School may do likewise for a librarian in Crozet two weeks hence. Certainly, even basic day-to-day matters in town are part of a stream of activity with the Law School, and the excessively formalist jurisprudence advocated by Respondents denies this. With this in mind, it is clear that this Court should exercise at least some jurisdiction over off-Grounds activity. However, the extent of that jurisdiction must still be determined.

We note that these due process concerns are weakest with respect to current and former students of the Law School. By affiliating with UVA and UVA Law in particular, they can be presumed to consent to our jurisdiction. Notice concerns are also far more limited with respect to current, or former students who are notorious enough to be sued in this forum—they should be reasonably aware of the possibility. Likewise, the practical concerns that we have addressed earlier are far more limited. Jurisdiction over current and former students presents a discrete set of potential cases unlikely to burden us, and we do not seriously entertain the possibility of a flood of non-students seeking to litigate in our courts.[8]

More vexing is the problem of jurisdiction over non-students. Here there is a more difficult danger to due process and a weaker connection to the Law School, as well as a greater danger of vexatious litigation and a greater risk of overloading our docket. At the same time, we do not wish to shut our doors to legitimate claims that are connected to the Law School. An exact test is nearly impossible,[9] but some degree of connection to the Law School is needed. The greater the proximity of the activity to transactions directly involving the Law School, the greater the probability the Court finds jurisdiction. Conversely, the more remote or attenuated the connection, the less likely. The exact analysis, of course, will vary from case to case and plaintiff to plaintiff. But as a rule, while claims against a person within our jurisdiction already will be heard as a rule, claims not against a person within our jurisdiction should clearly have some substantial effect within our jurisdiction.

Applying this rule to the instant case, we see first that all claims against law students for unsafe behavior are clearly availing. With respect to claims against non-law students, jurisdiction will be found to the degree that their unsafe activity was in proximity to law students or persons they knew or should have known would transmit to law students. This, we think, adequately answers issues of notice and availment raised by the due process concerns cited above. We, therefore, find for the petitioners with respect to claims against law students and persons in the above category, remanding all other claims to the district court to allow petitioners to remove residual claims to such other forums as are appropriate.

---

dg4mk@virginia.edu

[1] The Court understands that different people may have different risk thresholds, that some people may be cautious around things that are in fact perfectly safe, that one is unlikely to transmit while eating a picnic while masked with a friend a fishing rod’s distance away. Our concern is with people not doing these things, or the fools in crowds of dozens packed in tight spaces without masks. The court also does not wish to have its comments taken to excuse UVA’s foolishness in reopening, lack of transparency concerning outbreaks on grounds, poor coordination with business serving students, the lack of support to enable businesses to stay shut or reopen on a more limited basis and so on.

[2] “We do what we want.”

[3] See e.g. Jones v. One sandwich called “Reuben” (declining to adjudicate the quality of a sandwich purchased in Brandy Station for lack of nexus with any law student), Sentient Beings v. McConnell (holding that our jurisdiction did not extend to “admittedly truthful generalized complaints about a sitting senator, even one who closely resembles Palpatine).

[4] Yes, Virginia, there are people who do not know of this forum’s existence.

[5] We decline to address the question of whether or not a serious problem of public health is “petty” because, let’s face it, it’s not like anyone actually in charge of things is taking this seriously enough.

[6] See also In Re Aramark(outlining this court’s Forum non Conveniens doctrine).

[7] The court notes the widespread and high readership of our important journalism on whether cereal is or is not a soup. Your Justice sadly dissents on this issue, although this is hardly an important or courageous dissent.

[8] Although respondents included unsolicited materials on the standing of non-students in their brief, all petitioners are current students. We therefore need not address the question of when non-students have standing here in detail, and it is inadvisable to provide excessive dicta on this question. We also note that the question of whether uninfected plaintiffs have standing was adequately and properly resolved by the Court of Petty Claim.

[9] Mostly because we do not feel like working one out since that will take precious time away from yelling on Twitter, rewatching Tiger King because everything old is new again, and listening to emo music.

Hot Bench: Doug Mulliken '23

Virginia Law Weekly September 23, 2020

Hi Doug, thanks for coming on Hot Bench! Where are you Zooming in from and what time is it?

Capetown, South Africa—I live in the Muizenberg neighborhood. It is 6:33 p.m., South African Standard Time.

That’s a six hour difference! What are you doing in South Africa?

The short version is I moved here two years ago because my wife is from here and I had a postdoctoral fellowship at a nearby university. And then, COVID meant the borders were closed when law school started, so I was unable to leave the country to come to the United States.

Do you have plans to come to Charlottesville?

Yeah, I am trying to when borders open. Probably after Christmas, we’ll get to Charlottesville and get settled in before classes start in January.

What’s your wife’s name? How did you meet?

Her name is Inge Jansen. We met when I first moved to South Africa in 2010. We were both at a friend’s going-away party; we met at a dingy bar called Gandalf’s, which is a goth-metal bar. My wife struggles with the fact that she met her husband at a bar like that.

Where are you from?

San Diego, California. I grew up down the street from where they filmed Top Gun.

When did you start thinking about law school?

For practical purposes, probably the day after Donald Trump was elected. My dad is a lawyer and my brother went to law school, but I didn’t think of it as something I could do myself until that election. I was working on my Ph.D. when it happened, and I wasn’t going to stop, so I finished it and then prepared to switch to a career that would allow me to have a practical impact and contribute to society in a different way.

What is your Ph.D. in?

Hispanic studies and film studies.

Do you speak any other languages?

Yes, Portuguese and Spanish. I lived in Spain for a year, and Argentina for about five months. My Portuguese is pretty rusty now.

How does law school compare with other forms of graduate schooling?

The big difference between a Ph.D. and law school is that with the Ph.D., you have to figure it out on your own. One positive thing about law school is that if I read something and I don't understand it, I’m not stressed about it—I know we’ll discuss it in class.

How is taking classes entirely online?

Generally, it’s been fine. It feels like night school, but in terms of learning the materials, it’s fine. I think the big difference is how much harder it is to meet other students. If people don’t talk in class, I don’t really know who they are. And because there are fewer interactions, it’s hard to know who’s who.

Have you been able to get involved with clubs?

Yep, I’m a 1L rep for LALO and we’re having our first meeting this week. They co-sponsor a volunteer program with farmworkers and I’m excited to get involved when I get to Charlottesville. I’m in a couple of other groups, but it’s hard via Zoom. My wife joined UVA Spouses and she was on a Zoom meet-up and enjoyed meeting with them.

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite food?

San Diego Mexican food.

Favorite place in Charlottesville? (If you have one?)

I do have one! I’m a fake double ’Hoo—I have a Master’s from UVA. My favorite place in C’ville is a restaurant called Maya.

Favorite place in Capetown?

The beach.

Anti-Stress Hobby?

Before the pandemic, I used to play rugby and cricket.

Pet peeve?

When technology doesn't work the way it’s supposed to.

Favorite word?

You can’t print it, but ****. Another word would be welp.

Fun fact about yourself?

I’m the oldest person in the 1L class. At least I think so . . . I haven't met another thirty-seven-year old yet. Also, I have a tiny dachshund named Max.

What’s one movie that left an impression on you?

The first movie that left a big impression on me is an Australian movie called The Year of Living Dangerously from the 1980s, starring Mel Gibson and Linda Hunt. After watching that film, I wanted to be a foreign correspondent, but by the time I got to college that was a dying profession.

If you could pick one song to play in the background of your life, what would it be?

“Vivo” by Gustavo Cerati.

What’s your spirit vegetable?

Onion, but not for the Shrek reasons.

Do you care to elaborate?

Onions are the greatest vegetable. They mix well with every kind of cuisine. We should all aspire to be as versatile and adaptable as onions.

Where’s a place you’ve never been, but would like to go?

Russia. I’d love to do the Trans-Siberian Railroad. I find Russia fascinating because I grew up in the tail end of the Cold War. The Russians were the bad guys, and then they were the good guys in the ’90s, and now they’re the bad guys again.

If you could make one rule that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

“Think about others more than we do.” I think we lack that these days— thinking about others. And everyone struggles with it.

Is cereal a soup?

No. And a hotdog is not a sandwich.

---

dgm8p@virginia.edu

Club Spotlight: National Lawyers Guild

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Michael Berdan ‘22
Staff Editor

When protests for racial justice broke out across the nation after the lynching of George Floyd, lawyers and law students played a critical supporting role in protecting the rights to protest and public action. Lawyers also assisted in organizing and educating. Now, going on five months later, as this uprising continues to surge and resurge in various parts of the United States, protestors and activists are too often restricted, targeted, and arrested, and the glaring need for support from the legal community has not waned.

National Lawyers Guild (NLG), established in 1937, is one of the longest-tenured groups that organizes law students to lend support in moments like these. We are best known for the neon-green hats worn by our Legal Observers, who are seemingly omnipresent at the front lines of protest actions. Legal Observers do exactly that: observe. They keep track of the actions of protestors and law enforcement agents, particularly who is arrested, when, where, and under what circumstances. That way, each individual can be connected with bail and defense resources as quickly as possible.

NLG at UVA provides Legal Observer training to prepare students to serve under NLG of Central Virginia. We also present events and discussions around issues of protest, social justice, racial justice, immigrant justice, housing justice, and education. During the pandemic, NLG at UVA has used its voice, resources, and student activism in support of movements to protect the housing of vulnerable populations and to release detainees from the Farmville ICE detention center.

Last year, NLG sponsored a panel at PILA’s Shaping Justice conference, called Technology and the Criminalization of Sex Work, which gathered academics and sex worker activists to discuss the intersection of technology, surveillance, freedom, and sex work, and the movement for decriminalization. NLG will also be sponsoring a panel this year, on a topic to be announced later in the year. Last November, NLG also presented—with the support of Women of Color, IRAP at UVA Law, and LALO—an event addressing the mobilization of ICE agents in Central Virginia and the impacts on the community. Activists representing several dimensions of the problem convened to share stories and ideas, and galvanize support for the immigrant community of our region.

The mission statement laid out in the Preamble of the NLG Constitution guides our work: “To use law for the people, uniting lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers to function as an effective force in the service of the people by valuing human rights and ecosystems over property interests.” We have seen the tension between human rights and property rights very clearly over the past few months. Some of you may be among those law students who jumped in to help, in one way or another. Some of you wanted to, and didn’t know how—we invite you to join us in the National Lawyers Guild.

In Solidarity,

The Executive Board of NLG at UVA

Ida Abhari - Michael Berdan - Kunchok Dolma - Dominique Fenton - Emily Hockett - Zach Kuster - Nooreen Reza - Eliza Schultz - Wes Williams

---

mwb4pk@virginia.edu

You Buy Cantaloupe? That’s a Trash Fruit! A Zoom Lunch with Professor Cathy Hwang

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor

Last Tuesday, Marlyse Vieira ’22, Christina Luk ’21, and I logged onto Zoom for lunch with Professor Cathy Hwang. Professor Hwang is a new face around the (virtual) Law School, and she has a light-up picture of the Death Star in the room where she lectures for our Corporations class, so I figured she might be a good bet for our first professor interview of the 2020-2021 academic year. When she agreed to let the Law Weekly interview her on Zoom and consented to some eating on camera, I knew we were in for a treat.

Professor Hwang joined UVA Law all the way from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Prior to teaching in Utah, she was an academic fellow at Stanford, but she wasn’t always an academic. After completing her legal education at the University of Chicago, she worked at Skadden for several years before making the transition to academia. When asked what led her to teaching, Professor Hwang explained that, while at Skadden, she found that she really enjoyed mentoring her more junior colleagues and, at the same time, did not see herself staying to become a partner,[1] so she decided to head down the academic path. This semester, she’s teaching Corporations, and, next semester, she’ll be teaching Deals, as well as Mergers and Acquisitions.

Pictured: Professor Cathy Hwang has become an immediate hit with students. Photo Courtesy of Professor Hwang.

Marlyse, Christina, and my lunch conversation covered many of the usual academic and professional topics. We learned that Professor Hwang is working on an article about the collaborative process of establishing corporate intent and how contracts reflect numerous interests in a corporation, not just those of the two head honchos at the top making the deal. She explained how she prepares for class and reflected on how much she likes the freedom of being a professor, because she gets to structure her time as she pleases. As a new professor, Professor Hwang felt a great deal of kinship with students who are also starting their careers. She offered this advice:

“Right now, we’re each on the cusp of the rest of our career. It’s time to start thinking about what’s important to each of us in life, how we want our lives to look, and how we can maximize our happiness.”

Professor Hwang espoused the value of trying a personal values card sort if we’re having trouble figuring out what’s important to us.

We also ventured into other fruitful topics. Professor Hwang does not like grapes. She’s pro-watermelon, and anti-honeydew and cantaloupe. We learned that she played clarinet in her high school marching band and took flute lessons at 7:30 in the morning while she worked at Skadden. In her spare time, she enjoys hunting for Clorox wipes, skiing, watching the Tour de France, and playing Animal Crossing. She also enjoys shoveling snow. In response to a question about what she’d like to do in Charlottesville, when we’re not all cooped up at home hiding from COVID-19, she said that she hopes to visit the local wineries and breweries, see a polo match, and check out the Downtown Mall. The usual Charlottesville things.

It is very difficult to do Law Weekly’s lunch with Professor Hwang justice.[2] She’s a great conversationalist, very relatable, and quite funny. She offered customized career advice for one of us on the Zoom call and told us about how she came to think of cantaloupes as a “trash fruit.” I had been a little worried about how things would go, given that we couldn’t eat in the world-famous Stone Dining Room or one of the other outstanding restaurants in the immediate vicinity of the Law School (Sedona, anyone?), but our conversation exceeded all of my expectations. 10/10 would not give Professor Hwang a bad Yelp review. She is an excellent addition to the Law School community.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu

[1] She would’ve made a great partner, though.

[2] For those readers in her corporations class this semester, her Law Weekly interview was a lot like a Zoom class with her, except that I didn’t constantly fear being cold called.

Love in the Time of Corona: Noah and Bryn

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

Although it’s been nearly six months, many aspects of our “new normal” continue to present challenges that can be strange and frustrating. From sitting next to someone in class to hitting Bar Review, things that once seemed like a given feel far away, or at least vastly different behind a mask and six feet apart. We’ve been forced to connect more creatively in our professional, personal, and—we’ll say it, you smokeshows, you—romantic lives. Indeed, like a professor explaining the holding five minutes past the bell, love continues on, so we at the Law Weekly thought it would be intriguing, pleasantly distracting, and (dare we say it) heartwarming to hear how couples and singles alike are handling romance in light of all these changes. You've heard of Love in the Time of Cholera, but get ready for Love in the Time of Corona.

This week's guests are Noah Mussmon ’22 and Bryn Maxson, a graduate student working toward her master’s degree in kinesiology at UVA.

Hi Noah and Bryn! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let’s start with some background—how did you two get together?

Bryn: Hi Ben! We met on Bumble in the spring of 2019 while both here at UVA for undergrad. We messaged each other, played two-truths-and-a-lie, and the rest is history.

What’s the coronavirus situation been like for you two?

Noah: We initially stayed here in Charlottesville when things went remote in the spring and were basically living together. I had a summer internship up in NOVA and Bryn also came with me up there. We’ve spent literally every day together for the past six months, which sounds like a lot on paper, but has been wonderful. It’s brought us much closer and showed us we can live with each other through the good and bad.

Growing closer together seems to be a common silver lining for a lot of couples I’ve interviewed. Any other specific silver linings?

Noah: We got a kitten named Pelapi!

Bryn: We also watched a TON of movies together, a disproportionate amount of which star Reese Witherspoon. If anyone out there is ever wondering whether to watch her 2010 rom-com How Do You Know, don’t.

You better hope for both our sakes that Elle Woods doesn’t read this column, Bryn. Let’s do a lightning round. Describe each other in a word or phrase.

Noah: Bryn is super energetic. Even when I’m exhausted from schoolwork, all it takes is seeing her to change my entire mood.

Bryn: Thoughtful. Noah is always doing little things for me that will never fail to make my day. For instance, two weeks after our first date I mentioned to him that I was bummed out that I wouldn’t be able to go home to my family’s house for Easter that year. He put together an Easter basket for me and left it outside my apartment for me to find that morning.

Pictured: The beautiful couple taking a quick break from hiking to pose for an adorable picture. Photo Courtesy of Noah Mussmon ‘22

Best Charlottesville date spot?

Noah: I’m partial to the Virginian on the Corner. We had our first date there, and it’s such a staple in Charlottesville. It’s got a lot of history and character, as well as great food and fun times.

Bryn: The rooftop bar at the Graduate on the Corner. There’s a beautiful view of Charlottesville from it, and they make one hell of a Moscow Mule.

Spirit vegetables? (Animals are overplayed, we at the Law Weekly are avant-garde interviewers.)

Noah: Are potatoes a vegetable? (Starts to Google.) Actually, I don’t care, Bryn’s a sweet potato. She eats them constantly, and she’s sweet.

Bryn: Two can play at that game. Noah’s a red onion because he eats them all the time. He also has many layers.

Noah: I’m pretty sure that’s a quote from Shrek, are we really going to put that in?

We’re really going to put that in. It’ll be all ogre the Law School, Noah. What do you admire most about each other?

Noah: I would say Bryn is very full of life. She brings out the best in people around her.

Bryn: I admire Noah’s dedication. He can put all his energy into what needs to be done, and I’m always amazed by his motivation.

First activity you’ll do or place you’ll go when things return to normal?

Noah: I want to go to a movie without worrying about that stray cough from two rows back.

Bryn: Travel! I want to go hiking in Utah, I think.

Lightning round over! Paint me a word picture of your favorite memory as a couple.

Answer: Early on in our relationship we went out to Gap View Ranch & Kennel in Harrisonburg, Virginia. It’s a golden retriever breeder with dozens of dogs and puppies that you can go and play with. That alone was magical, but afterward we explored Harrisonburg and ended up finding this empty arcade where we just played games with each other for the rest of the afternoon. It was such a pure and fun day and one of the first full days we had spent together as a couple.

That sounds…golden. Let’s pivot back to coronavirus. How did you keep things running smoothly with all the time spent together?

Noah: I actually worked in person at my internship, so during working hours we had a built-in period of time to do our own thing. Otherwise, we just fell into established roles after a while for our “new life” and things pretty much ran themselves. Bryn would make the popcorn, and I would clean the pot. We got pretty in sync.

Bryn: We also went for a lot of walks in the evening after Noah came home from work! He also occasionally needed time alone after work, which we got good communicating about. Once or twice, I caught him just lying on the bed in his suit staring at the ceiling.

Now That’s What I Call Law School, Noah. Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Bryn: It’s kind of cliché, but Noah has been my rock during this uncertain time. I’m particularly stressed about my own future and career, but Noah always brings me back and reminds me things will be ok. He’s the best teammate and partner I could ask for, and I’m always certain about that.

Noah: I just want to say thank you to Bryn. She’s stuck with me through the highs and lows of law school so far and is always so patient and supportive even when I’m not at my best or most fun. I love you, Bryn.

I swear I’m not crying; I’m just chopping onions! Many thanks to Noah and Bryn for joining us on Love in the Time of Corona and sharing their coronavirus experience. Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: COVID-19 Reporting Procedures

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Leah Deskins ‘21
Professor Liaison Editor
With contributions from Michael Berdan ‘22

In Defense of Non-Compliance Reporting

This summer, the University sent a survey to graduate-level students asking, among other things, whether we would be willing to encourage compliance with public health measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the event that we witnessed behavior that did not comply with those measures. Admittedly, this question was probably geared toward graduate students serving as teaching assistants and in positions commanding some authority over undergraduates. I nonetheless worried that the Law School would potentially put a burden on students to police compliance with the University’s public health measures. It is one thing to command one 1L to wear a mask, but that huge group of students (1Ls or otherwise)? They’re not going to listen.

Naturally, I was relieved to hear about the University’s COVID-19 noncompliance reporting tool. Administrators would deal with noncompliant students. Great. However, I recently found out that not everyone shares my view. Specifically, not everyone shares my view that students shouldn’t have to confront blatantly noncompliant students before potentially submitting a noncompliance report.[1]

I respect that others may not see the world the same way I do. Healthy debate is a good thing—and if you, one person, feel comfortable going up to a group of twenty-five unmasked, not socially-distant strangers (or not strangers, they could be people you know, too) hanging out and blatantly ignoring the rules, and if you feel comfortable asking them to kindly comply with the University’s public health measures, that’s wonderful. But not every student is comfortable with that. And think about this scenario: If students are engaging in that kind of behavior, they know they’re not complying with the University’s public health measures, and they are already aware of the possibility that they could be reported. Given the extensive and repeated warnings, guidance, and explanation we have been given from University and Law School administrators—not to mention having lived in this pandemic world for the past six months and having common sense—we can all recognize when behavior is clearly, obviously wrong. I'm not talking about close calls: questions of mask material, five-and-a-half feet, or sixteen people at a gathering. I'm talking about large groups of people, without masks, within arm's reach. This is no-brainer noncompliance.

I’ve tried to be safe these last six months because I want to protect the people I care about and my community more broadly, and I don’t want to contribute to any further dragging out that this pandemic has up its sleeve. And I don’t think that we all have to be perfect in practicing good public health habits. We’re all human, after all, and accidents happen. But as adults, we should be accountable to ourselves and our colleagues to follow the most essential rules the best we can. If you feel comfortable going up to any noncompliant folks you see and asking them to adhere to University rules, do so. If you don’t, be mindful of what they’re doing that’s noncompliant, give the benefit of the doubt as much as is reasonable, and make an assessment for yourself about whether you want to submit a noncompliance report. The University is doing the right thing by allowing us to choose how we encourage others to keep our community safe and healthy, and any well-intentioned efforts by students toward that end should be supported.

Drew Calamaro ‘21
Satire Editor

Don’t Be a Snitch

Throughout this column, I use the term “snitch” to refer to people who report others on the online portal for breaking the university’s COVID-19 rules. If you report others through this portal, you are, in fact, a snitch. Either own the fact that you are a snitch, or don’t snitch on people, and you won’t be called one.[2]

1. Direct confrontation will always provide more utility to the community than a drawn-out process of reporting to the UJC.

From a utilitarian standpoint, reporting people’s actions to the UJC has zero effect on COVID-19 spread. If the behavior is that bad, then put a mask on, and confront the people transgressing on what you believe to be the rules. Why do this, you ask? Well, for one, you can probably do so safely, since most of the time you are likely reporting the behavior that is directly in front of you. Wearing a mask and standing at a safe distance doesn’t mean you can’t shout. Furthermore, if you think that the behavior is so terrible that it’s worth reporting, maybe you should try to stop it right then and there. Stop the activity, and you stop the spread; that means one less way for you to contract COVID-19.

Contrast this with reporting to the UJC. You are relying on a largely undergrad-run organization to read your report and follow up post-hoc. The people you have reported have already gone into their respective communities, where they have likely spread COVID-19 to the people they are living with. While you could have helped #stopthespread right there through direct intervention, you instead chose to hide behind a phone screen and report others. Whether this shows an utter lack of moral fortitude and lack of conviction in what you are actually doing, I will leave to others to judge.[3] However—and I reiterate—if this behavior is so bad that you think it’s reportable, then confront it, and make a true effort to stop it before it harms people. Exposure and time matters, and if you can stop a gathering from going on longer than it should, then that is a win.

2. Punitive thought processes should not rule the day in a community.

One thing that I think many can agree on is that, despite acting stupidly, we do not want to see anyone develop COVID-19. We know that around 1 percent of individuals under the age of thirty who contract COVID-19 may also develop long-term illness as a result.[4] We also know that COVID-19 causes significant heart damage, which could require lifelong monitoring in anyone, even in children. Are the “rule-breakers” really so bad that they don’t deserve to be reminded of these potential health issues? The answer, of course, is no. For God’s sake, or humanity’s sake, go tell them to stop what they are doing if you think it’s that bad. Just because, in your mind, they don’t value human life, doesn’t mean you get to stop as well. You are a law student—go talk to someone, understand what is going on, get the facts, and then tell them what the rules are.

Those who choose to hide behind screens may find this to be an odd way of thinking. But there are more important things than just being morally right. There are more important things than saying to yourself, “I won’t give them the benefit of the doubt because of X.” There are real lives at stake, not just the rulebreakers’, but their roommates’, their family’s, and yours. Put the phone down, go up to them, and stop the behavior. If you love your fellow humans, do that. And have the guts to tell them in person that you’re reporting them if they don’t stop.

3. You have also broken the rules.

In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees[5] brought a woman before Jesus who had committed adultery. They told him, “This woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus took some time, bent down to write on the ground,[6] stood back up and said, “Let he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The Pharisees all left, one by one, beginning with the older ones, until Jesus was left alone with the woman. He tells her at the end that he does not condemn her, but that she should “go, and from now on sin no more.”

This dramatic scene is literally life and death. And I am sure the pro-snitching side feels the same about COVID-19. However, unless and until you report yourself for all of your violations, you should not snitch on others who you think may be breaking the rules. Otherwise, you are a Pharisee. Have you ridden in a car with someone you are not living with without wearing a mask? Have you had a visitor over to your apartment for more than ten minutes, and not worn a mask? Then you have broken the rules. Report yourself. Or ask someone else to report you. My point is, at some point, you, too, have broken the rules.

I have yet to find a single person who has both snitched on others and who has reported themselves for their own violations. In speaking to pro-snitches, I am struck by their lack of self-awareness. They are able to justify every “minor” violation they accrue, but when it comes to a group of people gathered outside, that is a big deal. So far, most of the violations that I have heard reported have been outdoor activities. Never mind the fact that you are twenty times more likely to catch coronavirus indoors than outdoors,[7] any large outdoor group is now totally subject to snitching by people who do not believe they have broken any rules worth reporting themselves. My point with all of this is that snitching breaks down a community, it rewards nameless and faceless reporting, and doesn’t actually stop bad behavior at the root. It simply drives it into the shadows. Have a backbone, be utterly and completely morally righteous, and go stop it where you see it. Otherwise, just carry on with your life, stop worrying about others’ behavior, and start worrying about yourself.

---

lcd4ew@virginia.edu
mwb4pk@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu

[1] The University has indicated that it would like students to encourage other students to comply with the public health measures in the event that they see their peers behaving in ways that are noncompliant. However, the University does not require students to confront their peers about noncompliance.

[2] Judas owned it. That’s why Dante put him in the literal mouth of Satan in the Ninth Circle of Hell in the Inferno.

[3] I am the others. I am footnote-Drew. I judge that it does.

[4] Derek Thompson, What Young, Healthy People Have to Fear From COVID-19, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-young-healthy-people-have-fear-covid-19/616087/.

[5] Hypocritical religious teachers.

[6] Probably cramming for a final.

[7] Hiroshi Nishiura et al., Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2.

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Labor, Generally

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Students v. Labor, Generally
73 U.Va 4 (2020)

Pickett, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

I. Introduction

As a 3L, there are few issues that fire me up enough to make me actually do something. Just as an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, a 3L at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by severe injustice. And it is such an injustice that forces me to return to the bench for the first time since I sued the global pandemic that persists to this day.[1] Today I descend from the Ivory TowerTM to place an injunction on UVA Law students performing labor on Labor Day.

II. Facts

It was Friday, September 4, 2020 and Jeg McJones was looking forward to the weekend. She was excited about the extra day off, though she was disappointed that she wasn’t going to be able to wear white anymore (it is her favorite color).[2] Jeg was talking with another law student, Christina, about the long weekend when Christina informed her that there was no long weekend—we don’t get Labor Day off at UVA Law.

Jeg was shocked. How? I mean, she labors, right? Not in the traditional sense, maybe, but many would agree that sitting on her phone in the library with a book open, pretending to be productive for two hours, is, in fact, work.

Disgusted by this injustice, Jeg decided to file suit in the Court of Petty Appeals. She seeks an injunction against labor on Labor Day, which I modified to “Labor, Generally” since it sounded better.[3]

III. Textualist Argument

While there is no law that explicitly says workers must be given Labor Day off, it has long been held in the Law of Common Knowledge that “there shalt be no labor on Labor Day.” According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, labor is “an expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory” (emphasis added). Since performing work for law school counts as “labor” under this definition, law students should not be forced to work or attend class on Labor Day.

Law school requires both physical and mental effort. Physically, law students expend effort in various ways. They carry massive textbooks to and from classes. They cry at spontaneous times, running to reach the bathroom before other people see them. They scream into the endless void and they complain loudly to anyone who will listen. They press “join meeting” on their computers, and they press “leave meeting” on their computers—an endless cycle that makes them feel dead inside. These are all expenditures of effort.

Mentally, however, is where law students really expend their efforts. They maintain a willful blindness to the world around them as they try to figure out what a tort is. They struggle to accomplish anything given the overwhelming weight of the dread that fills them anew each morning as they attempt to maneuver the new reality of life in a pandemic. And perhaps most impressively of all, they manage to remain calm despite continually receiving emails talking about “strange and unusual times.”

On this textualist basis alone, I would grant the plaintiff’s injunction. But, there is still more to say.

IV. Substantive Due Process Right Not to Labor

I don’t remember much about Con Law. That is not the fault of my professor, Dean Goluboff, but instead the fault of Con Law, which, to be quite honest, is made up entirely.[4]

I do, however, remember there being a connection between substantive due process and history. And here is some history: Labor Day has existed for a long time and yet the Law School has not celebrated it. I don’t know if I can claim to be surprised given that UVA just started giving us MLK Jr. Day off last year (2019-2020) and is only now critically examining the racist legacy of Henry Malcolm Withers, the namesake of Withers Hall. Regardless, there is a history of no labor on Labor Day and that is enough for me to declare it a right for law students.

It is worth noting that there is a larger problem with Labor Day in society writ large. If this Court had a larger jurisdiction, I would give everyone a paid day of vacation, especially those who work so hard every day just to stay afloat. I guess you will all just have to nominate me to the Supreme Court so I can work my real magic.

V. Conclusion

I have seen enough through both my textual and SDP analysis to declare an injunction against UVA Law students performing labor on Labor Day. Instead, they must spend the day relaxing or doing something besides schoolwork. And to those who wish to use the day to get ahead, I encourage them to get a personality and/or a hobby.

Tonseth, J. dissenting.

Again, as this Court’s sole remaining bastion of actual textualism and the proper administration of the judicial system, I vehemently dissent.[5] I did not think that during my tenure on this Court I would have to work to protect the forgotten hard workers at this Law School, but here I am.

Through his analysis of substantive due process, Justice Pickett makes up an entirely new “fundamental” right.[6] It seems mighty rich, especially from the pricey Ivory Tower he rules from, that Justice Pickett issues an injunction against labor while he pays to attend school. It is almost as though he wishes to change the adage of “hard work pays off” to “B-pluses get BigLaw jobs.” I cannot willingly stand for the grave injustice of granting special privilege to be lazy. In the wise words of T. Jeff, “It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing.” Do more, Justice Pickett.

In the textual argument posited by the majority, there is a major flaw. I concede that labor is performed by law students in the natural course of their education. However, the only “labor” performed on Labor Day itself is performed by either 1Ls or upperclassmen who unwisely chose not to schedule a recurring four-day weekend into their class schedule. Between “emotional distress is a harm inherent in the choice to attend law school” and 1Ls always losing, I textually find no support for the majority’s argument.[7]

It is a strange and unusual time when Justice Pickett comes down from his Ivory Tower to do the hard labor of declaring that Labor Day should be recognized as a holiday.[8] Due to Con Law being all made up, I have a completely different yet valid argument. As such, I dissent.

---

shp8dz@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] Of note is that coronavirus is currently acting in defiance of an injunction imposed by this Court in Coronavirus (La Cerveza Mas Fina) v. Coronavirus (El Virus Menos Fino). We are waiting for you to finally perish, COVID-19.

[2] This is a lazy Labor Day joke, but go with it.

[3] If I could, though, I would definitely put an injunction on all labor.

[4] Spoiler alert 1Ls.

[5] John Does v. Open Bathroom Doors, 73 U.Va 2 (2020). Tonseth, J. dissenting opinion.

[6] But did he? Still waiting for the Supreme Court to release the full list.

[7] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019)

[8] He probably wakes up every Monday feeling like Garfield.

Hot Bench: Jake Greenberg '21

Virginia Law Weekly September 16, 2020

Jake Greenberg is the Business Director of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

Where are you from?

I’m from a small town called Old Tappan in the northeast corner of New Jersey.

Are you taking classes here in Charlottesville?

I’m actually in Minneapolis, Minnesota this semester. Not quite ready for the cold weather, but I have spent time here during the past two winter breaks so I am used to it.

When did you start thinking about law school?

I wasn’t set on a particular career path for some time, though law was definitely on my radar. In high school, I had really loved classes in different areas including English, history and biology. In college, though, I really began to think about how I could apply some of my wide-ranging coursework in the social sciences, business, and environmental fields and how I could turn my social justice interests into a career. I felt that law was the best way to go about it. So, I became part of my college’s Pre-Law Society and ultimately found my fit.

What’s something you know now that you would tell yourself coming into Law School?

Fight the instinct to write out every detail to every case. That may be helpful on cold calls, but you are better off focusing on learning the essential lessons and preparing to apply those on the exam.

What kind of impact do you hope to have as a lawyer?

Going into law school, I wrote in my application about how the 2008 recession impacted my family and my community. It made housing and the economy unstable, and also made me aware of how fragile some things I take for granted are. Today, the issues are even greater, unfortunately, and I am hoping I can help by working in the affordable housing field.

What organization(s) are you most involved with, and what’s driven your investment in them?

I am most involved with the Jewish Law Students Association and the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

I have been passionate about JLSA to help continue fostering a sense of community for Jewish students at the Law School. Having attended a majority Jewish undergraduate college, Brandeis University, I felt a sense of community with others who have both shared and different experiences and perspectives, and I wanted to carry a bit of that experience to the Law School. In addition, I have been excited about the club’s work to support other religious groups, like MLSA, as they have started and been excited to plan events together.

I am also very involved with the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. As Business Director, I have been excited to bring more of my business background to the organization and work on social media marketing, the website, and outside printing companies. I am always excited about ways to help with organizations in ways people don’t normally consider but are necessary for helping them drive their ultimate work.

Let’s do a lightning round! Favorite mask?

I have a soft-cotton Washington, D.C. mask. I needed one while I was visiting D.C., so I ran into a CVS and got it there! I like wearing it because it makes me think of my siblings, who live in the area, and because I am looking forward to moving there next year.

Favorite place in Charlottesville?

It has to be a toss-up between the Downtown Mall and the Ragged Mountain Natural Area—both are ten minutes from my apartment and represent the mix of small city and outdoors and nature that make Charlottesville so great.

If you had to do a humblebrag, what would it be?

I can, in fact, ride my bike with no handlebars.

If you could pick one song to play in the background of your life, what would it be?

Perhaps “Starships” or “Super Bass” by Nicki Minaj. Sorry, I can’t pick one, sometimes I just need dance pop music to lift me up. Todrick Hall does a great Nicki Minaj/Disney mashup that I definitely recommend.

Where’s a place you’ve never been, but would like to go?

It would definitely have to be Argentina—Buenos Aires in particular. This is likely because of my enjoyment of Evita, and also the architecture, diverse culture, and food I have read about there.

---

jfg2gc@virginia.edu

Love in the Time of Corona: Scott and Billy

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Ben Stievater ‘22
Events Editor

This week's guests are Billy Hicks ’22 and Scott Simmons.

Hi Billy and Scott! Welcome to Love in the Time of Corona. Let's get some deets about #Scilly. How did you two get together?

Scott: Hi Ben! Very modernly, we met through social media about two years ago when Billy was at UVA for undergrad and I was at Longwood. For a few months, our dates consisted of alternating travel from Charlottesville to Farmville on the weekends as we got to know each other. We moved in with each other last year when Billy started 1L.

Pictured: Billy and Scott dress up and dazzle in their suits and bowties. Photo Courtesy of Billy Hicks ‘22.

Has COVID-19 changed the dynamic of living together or your relationship at all?

Billy: To be honest, not really! We’d already been in a groove and had learned a lot about each other over the course the past year. We joke that we’ve been quarantining with each other for almost a year-and-a-half already. One dynamic that did change for a bit was that we went and lived with my family for a short period, but luckily coronavirus hasn’t affected us too much. We did get a puppy though!

*10-minute interview break to play with aforementioned puppy*

Fittingly, I’m going to need you guys to hit me with each other’s’ spirit animals.

Scott: Billy is a bee. He’s the most hardworking person I know and is always concerned with the welfare of everyone else in his “hive.”

Billy: Scott would be a dog. I know, it’s generic, but hear me out. Scott is always comfortable no matter what we do, as long as we’re together and having fun. He’s equally as excited to go new places as he is to stay home to cook or watch a movie with just us. For him, it’s not the activity, but the person.

A match made in animal heaven. Let’s jump back to Corona. It sounds like you two were able to adapt pretty quickly due to your prior pseudo-quarantine experience with each other. Do y’all have any practices in place to keep things running smoothly?

Scott: Well, even before coronavirus, we made it a practice to prioritize Billy’s school work. We were both realistic about the demands and importance that 1L would have for Billy, so we always tried to schedule plans around that and to be flexible if work ever became overwhelming.

Billy: More specific to coronavirus was our time with my family. It was strange to go from having just us to many others in the mix—our little routines and daily lives changed. We tried to be good at carving out time for ourselves though to preserve some of the stability.

Let’s do a lightning round! How would you each describe the other in a word or phrase?

Scott: Selfless. Billy will do anything for his friends and people who need his help. He’s also incredibly humble. Like I said, Billy is one of the hardest working and smartest people I know, but you would never hear that from him.

Billy: It’ll sound cheesy, but Scott’s perfect, at least in my eyes. He is such a joy and loves to have fun. He has this innate understanding of people almost immediately upon meeting them and uses that to make the fun inclusive for all. His emotional intelligence is off the charts. As he’s alluded to, I can get lost in my work sometimes. He’s the perfect person to remind me of the importance of staying balanced.

(Having had the privilege of being friends with #Scilly since undergrad, I second all of this). Best Charlottesville date spot?

Scott: Commonwealth Sky Bar downtown. It’s a cozy but elegant atmosphere that’s rare to find in Charlottesville.

Billy: Pippin. (Scott rolls his eyes). What? You don’t like going to Pippin with me? We go a lot. But it’s got as much wine as you want, beautiful Blue Ridge views, and just a great vibe. What’s not to love?

Wine about it, Scott. Sorry, that was bad. What’s the first activity you'll do or place you'll go once all the social restrictions are lifted?

Answer: Throw a big party! Just a big hurrah with everyone we love and care about.

Let's get abstract. Is there a feeling, sight, smell, image, color, etc., that you associate with each other? Why?

Billy: Long car trips. The first year of our relationship we always seemed to be in a car. We really settled into our road trip roles. I love driving, and he’s the perfect co-pilot. He’s always got the best music or podcast for the mood and trip.

Scott: Bowtie pasta. That was the first meal Billy cooked for me on one of our dates. He’s an amazing cook.

Last question: What is one thing you would want to say, in public, possibly in front of the whole Law School (or at least our readership), to each other?

Scott: Billy draws incredible people with great values to him because he is one of those people. I’m so thankful to be a part of that circle and to have met Billy and them.

Billy: I love you.

Scott (looking at Billy blankly): That’s it?? Kidding. I love you, too.

Thank you to Billy and Scott for keeping it #Scilly and joining us on Love in the Time of Corona! Are you a couple that’s been separated or getting creative during this social isolation period? A single who’s desire to mingle has been curtailed by COVID-19? A platonic friend or member of a family who wants to share how you’ve been making it through this together? Love comes in all shapes and sizes, and we want to hear about it! Email bes4cf@virginia.edu if you or someone you know might like to be featured on Love in the Time of Corona.

---

bes4cf@virginia.edu

Antitrust and Big Tech, Part II: Private Power and Democratic Government - Where Will 'We the People' Be Swayed?

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

In the early 20th century, the responsibility of the government to prevent “private power from destroying democratic government” prevailed over the power of industrial titans. Today, whose hands influence the trajectory of democratic governance? On July 29, 2020, this was answered when the House Antitrust Subcommittee held an investigatory hearing examining the “Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google.” The nearly five-and-a-half-hour testimony of the respective CEOs demarcated the progress of a nearly year-long investigation spearheaded by Chairman Cicilline (D-RI). He began by reflecting on how being “too big” might be a problem weighed against the benefits created by Big Tech, emphasizing consequences of the abuse of these platforms’ market-power (exacerbated by COVID-19), especially in eCommerce, social media, and other essential platforms. Over a million investigative documents were gathered through this Congressional action, which may provide the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division significant amounts of data to spur potential proceedings.

The hearing was refreshingly bipartisan in nature. Though many concerns were shared across the aisle, conservatives largely focused on political censorship of social media platforms, freedom of speech issues, and international security concerns about China’s increasing technological influence (e.g. TikTok, Huawei, and the use of Chinese Uighur concentration camps in tech manufacturing). Alternatively, Democrats focused on the stifling of competition. They emphasized how eCommerce platforms were so powerful that they risked becoming “bottlenecks,” extracting rents from competitors, harming small businesses, stifling innovation, and abusing their market power to self-preference their own products.

“We would not submit to an emperor; we should not submit to an autocrat of trade . . . with the power to prevent competition,” Senator Sherman declared in the early 20th century, substantiating the free competition principles of our nation’s market economy. Beyond stifling competition, these platforms have the power to regulate speech, mold our understanding of reality, and provide information on elections. Are our 21st century laws sufficient for this era characterized by heightened economic and social power held by Big Tech?

The diffusion or mere regulation of such power speaks to the heart of what role the legislature versus the administrative agencies harbor in antitrust law. Traditionally, the government’s natural role in a system of “free private enterprise” was that of a patrolman policing the highway of commerce. Yet, although legislation exists against monopolies and restraints of trade, the enforceability of such legislation is highly debated.

This issue was at the root of contention between Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Chairman Cicilline emphasized the need for not only the increased enforcement of antitrust laws but also for new legislation to police technology platforms, which Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) likened to “modern-day railroads,” harkening back to the break-up of railroads, big steel, and big oil.

Conversely, Representative Sensenbrenner argued that although greater antitrust scrutiny of tech platforms is a necessity, current antitrust laws are sufficient to meet the challenge. His approach reflected strong consideration for the role of antitrust law in promoting innovation, and that current law was sufficient in balancing the need to promote competition and incentivize innovation. Rather than the law itself, his view indicates that the underenforcement of the law is the challenge. The current law has led to great innovations and advancements which need not be stifled by new regulations in the future.

Illustrating this point, Representative Sensenbrenner alluded to the Obama Administration’s approach to antitrust, wherein Facebook gained approval for the acquisition of Instagram. This approval is being looked at with suspicion in today’s shifting view. Representative Sensenbrenner advanced that the law itself was not the issue at the time of the approval, as the outcome of acquisition could have just as likely gone the other way. This concern reflects a broader debate which casts front-and-center the effect of the “Bork revolution” on antitrust enforcement standards, where the “consumer welfare standard” shifted antitrust enforcement standards to not regard “big” as inherently “bad” if dominance is to the benefit of consumers. This alternative, more rigorous enforcement standard under the “Brandeis” movement, which is more focused on protecting the ability for competitors to enter the market, could change the trajectory. Depending on the dominant “standard” viewed, the outcome for enforcement action could differ without additional Congressional legislation.

Philosophizing aside, there is critical agreement that antitrust enforcement of digital platform operations is necessary. Whether the buck-stops-there will be a key feature of our time. Some legislators advocate that digital eCommerce platforms (such as Amazon’s Marketplace) should be regulated by a likened version to the § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, where eCommerce platforms would need to treat third-party sellers on their site with greater fairness. This would create the responsibility (or burden) for sites like Amazon to police its platform to comply with new regulations. Yet it may speak to “fairness” principles, benefiting smaller businesses’ ability to compete in rankings on these online-sites.

Where power must be exercised, “It should be located in the government, not in private hands,” it has been said. Yet, with the growing polarization in and decreased efficacy of public institutions, do Americans trust the government to be honest stewards of such power? With tech platforms playing a key role in the manipulation of information and the facilitation of our civil and political discourse, are their private incentives any better? Can a well-educated “We The People” determine such things when efficacy in the news and media itself reflects that 78 percent of Americans recognize the spread of misinformation online is “a major problem.”[1]

In next week’s article, we’ll assess how the rise of illiberal democracies may affect our view of regulation of these Big Tech platforms. Is American-owned Big Tech the only alternative or might a cure worse than the disease emerge if BigTech in the U.S is replaced by Big Tech in a illiberal nation with a less-transparent governing regime?

As for TikTok . . . we’ll explore that in a week’s time!

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

[1]https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/American-Views-2020-Trust-Media-and-Democracy.pdf

Club Spotlight: Regional Networking Clubs - Coast to Coast

Virginia Law Weekly September 9, 2020

Peyton Pair ‘22
Guest Writer

Southeastern Wahoos

Southeastern Wahoos seeks to provide a space for students interested in the Southeast, both professionally and personally, to interact with employers, alumni, and fellow students. The Southeast has a vibrant legal market filled with UVA alumni and a family-friendly atmosphere with a low cost of living. Major markets include Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, and Nashville.

We plan to offer events with firms, student panels, in-house counsel, and public service. In fact, we are hosting our first student panel on September 9 to discuss their work as summer associates in the Southeast. Furthermore, we will provide resources and guidance to first-year students who want to spend their first summer in the Southeast. These resources include resume review and learning to craft a cover letter geared toward the Southeast.

Beyond career-oriented programming, we plan to offer plenty of social opportunities, like SEC football game watch-parties and happy hours, once the pandemic is brought under control. We encourage everyone, even if you’re just curious about the Southeast, to attend events and get to know your fellow ‘hoos. Simply email Peyton Pair ’21 (pair@virginia.edu) to join the email list and receive updates about future events.

—————

Garrett Engel ‘21
Guest Writer

Lone Star Lawyers

Lone Star Lawyers (LSL) works to create a network for students interested in the Texas legal market by connecting them with employers, alumni, and fellow students working in the state. LSL helps students find employment opportunities in Texas and provides a social atmosphere for students interested in Texas and alumni working in Texas to interact. LSL focuses heavily on its mentorship program which strengthens the competitiveness of UVA students who want to work in Texas by allowing 2Ls and 3Ls to guide 1Ls through the application and interview process. We help students “put their best foot forward” when they interview with Texas firms and teach them why Texas might just be the best place for them to start their legal career. In the past, LSL has held firm sponsored events such as our annual back-to-school happy hour, a “Taste of Texas” BBQ, professional and practice area focused panels, grab-and-go breakfasts (and lunches), and dozens of regular happy hours.

LSL is gearing up for many events this semester both social and professional in nature. On the professional side, we plan to host great firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, White & Case, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Vinson & Elkins. Socially, not only do we plan to hold opportunities to safely social distance in person, but LSL is hosting “office hours” every few weeks and continuing its Fantasy Football tradition under the leadership of Dillon Tan ’22, our VP of Social Outreach. We are excited to serve the Law School community again this year. If anyone has any questions or would like to join LSL, feel free to reach out to me directly at sge7uk@virginia.edu.

—————

Luke Versweyveld ‘22
Guest Writer

Heartland ‘Hoos

Heartland ‘Hoos is an organization for students who are from the Midwest, are interested in practicing in the Midwest, or both. The purpose of the group is part social: connecting students from the Midwest; and part career-oriented: connecting and networking with employers across the Midwest. “Heartland” is loosely defined, and if you believe you belong to the Heartland, we are happy to have you in the group. The largest market we serve is Chicago, but we have members interested in markets all across the Midwest, including Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, and more. Wherever our members are interested in, we are happy to act as the intermediary for networking in those markets.

Connor Day ’22 and Luke Versweyveld ’22 came up with the idea for Heartland ‘Hoos in the library last fall. Both are interested in practicing in Chicago, and they were surprised there was no student group serving the third-largest legal market in the country.

The Executive Board includes:

● President – Luke Versweyveld ’22

● Vice President – Connor Day ’22

● Treasurer – Paul Koltz ’22

● Marketing Coordinator – Katie Graves’ 22

● Event Coordinator – Bilal Askari ’22

We will be hosting elections to replace our executive board at the end of this semester. Any interested 1Ls should reach out to Versweyveld at the email below.

Heartland ‘Hoos will be putting on a “Chicago Day” panel on Friday, October 16 from 3-4 p.m. Five top Chicago firms have already committed to attending this event. We will have a panel format where students can ask questions about the attorneys’ respective firms and the Chicago market during the first half-hour. The second half-hour will involve breakout rooms for more individualized communication between attorneys and students. If you have any interest in practicing in Chicago, you won’t want to miss this networking opportunity.

Any questions about membership or participating in Chicago Day can be directed to Luke Versweyveld at ljv3hq@virginia.edu.

—————

Kathryn Querner ‘21
Executive Editor

West Coast Wahoos

West Coast Wahoos is a regionally-focused student organization at the Law School that seeks to create a network for students interested in legal markets on the West Coast, and to provide these students with networking and employment opportunities as well as alumni resources.

According to our Co-President Nachi Baru ’22, West Coast Wahoos’ goal is to get West Coast firms connected with members, to teach members what West Coast firms are looking for, and to teach members how to market themselves specifically to West Coast firms. Although the West Coast Wahoos’ primary market focuses are in California—specifically San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego—the organization provides for career connections and networking opportunities with all markets west of and including Colorado. So, students interested in markets including Denver, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, and even Honolulu would benefit from joining West Coast Wahoos.

Although the Office of Private Practice has established that 1Ls cannot begin attending networking events until October 1, West Coast Wahoos will be sending out information regarding general meetings and mid-semester 1L networking events through its listserv. And for the 2Ls, West Coast Wahoos will be hosting a networking event with attorneys from Jones Day in mid-September. This is a panel event followed by breakout rooms to give students the chance to more personally connect with the attorneys, and further information regarding this event will be spread via email in the coming weeks.

Baru emphasizes that, despite the pandemic’s negative effects on the economy, he has been in contact with many firms that are still expressing interest in speaking with and hiring UVA Law students. In fact, given the need for virtual networking, Baru explained that even more firms are now expressing interest in networking, as those organizations that were previously constrained by the travel time and expenses from the West Coast to Charlottesville now have the opportunity to network virtually with students.

West Coast Wahoos’ Chair of Career Development Ian Hurst ’22 also expressed that he loves the culture of West Coast legal organizations, and that West Coast Wahoos is a great way for students to learn more about West Coast markets. Further, Hurst adds that it is never too early for students to start developing their networking skills, and West Coast Wahoos provides a host of events that give students the opportunity to network and work on building connections and networking abilities.

To be added to the West Coast Wahoos listserv, students can email West Coast Wahoos’ Student Outreach Chair Sami Ghanem ’22, at sg3wu@virginia.edu.

---

pair@virginia.edu
sge7uk@virginia.edu
ljv3hq@virginia.edu
kmq8vf@virginia.edu