Hot Bench: Phil Tonseth '22

---

Phil Tonseth ‘23

Phil, Phil, Phil. The day has finally come for you to relinquish your editorial immunity and return to the general student body. That means you’re on the hot bench chopping block. Let’s get the basics out of the way: where are you from and why are you in law school?

I’m from Salisbury, North Carolina, like the steak. Why am I here? There was an opportunity, and I was looking for a career change. Before, I was doing HR for the Army.

You’ve been involved with the Law Weekly since 1L in different positions. Was EIC always in your plan?

Absolutely not. I never planned on joining Law Weekly in the first place; I was lured in by the free pizza. I enjoyed staying after meetings and talking to the 3Ls, and by the time elections came around, I realized I was having a lot of fun. No one wanted to be Production Editor when I was a 2L, so I volunteered, and then I somehow became EIC as a 3L.

You’ve made some changes to how things run around here. What change do you think has ended up being the most important? Personally, I am a big fan of how you redecorated our office.

My focus has been to make it fun. People want to read things written by people who care about what they’re writing. I’ve tried to make the paper more personable for both the readers and our editors. My dad worked on his high school newspaper, and when I talked to him about what made memorable pieces, it was always the ones people had fun with.

My favorite article you’ve written was in last year’s April Fools edition—UVA’s Law Weekly and Law Review Join Forces: VLR Cites Needs for Actual Readers. Do you have a favorite article or column you’ve submitted?

When I tell people I write for the Law Weekly, I immediately default to the COPA. NGSL v. IM Rec is my favorite. I was able to use what I learned in my Religious Liberty class, and I was so happy with it I sent it to my professor.

2Hell, My Journey Through Finals is probably my favorite non-COPA. I worked on it all week and workshopped all the puns with multiple people.

Were there any events you went to for an article that you ended up genuinely enjoying?

I only went to one event for an article, and it was my first ever article. It was about the primaries for the 2020 election. It was interesting, but I realized I couldn’t enjoy the event while focusing on outlining my article.

Of course, I loved writing about Barrister’s and other social events in my copyrighted stream-of-consciousness style. I don’t know how much I would remember from those events without the writing.

I feel like you’ve been involved with pretty much every club at this school at some point. What is your second-favorite organization?

It’s more that I know a lot of people who are in a lot of different clubs. I’m most involved in Libel and NGSL. I think I would choose Libel just because I love making people listen to my jokes. Hosting 1L softball with NGSL has also been something I enjoyed because I think that’s when a lot of people really connect with their section outside of class for the first time.

As any loyal Law Weekly reader could tell you, you’ve spent a lot of time out on the golf courses during your time here. You’ve even written an in-depth guide to the best local greens! What’s something in Charlottesville you think everyone should do before they graduate, besides taking some swings on the back 9?

I haven’t even done this myself, but the bus that goes down 151 and stops at all the breweries and distilleries looks like a great time. Even if you don’t drink, the views are incredible.

We’re always recruiting new editors. What’s your elevator pitch?

The Law Weekly is the best place to hear the goss, start new goss, and write about your favorite goss while eating Domino’s.

Managing Editor and bestie Stan Birch is also moving on to greener pastures. Any message you want to send him? Try not to make it too embarrassing, you’ll still have to see him around until May.

Part of me regrets asking you to become Managing Editor as a favor, because I knew writing for Libel in exchange would be a lot of work. But I think it worked out better than either of us expected. I don’t have any regrets.

Here’s your Lightning Round!

Favorite word?

Over yonder

Favorite type of weather?

Hot and humid. I want it to be miserable.

Favorite food?

Meat lover’s pizza, easy.

Why did you make me buy you a coffee for this meeting when you don’t even like coffee?

Social obligation. Fun fact, my strongest personality trait in negotiations is avoidance.

Did you shoot par at golf this morning?

I played well, but I’m not proud. Will I still go back tomorrow? Absolutely.

What are you going to do with your newly freed Monday nights?

Catch up on The Bachelor and watch more Animal Planet.

Dream job?

Zookeeper, maybe. I love zoos and aquariums. I wish I could change jobs every five years. Also, trophy husband.

Are your cats coming with you on your next adventure?

I’m not going anywhere without them!

Finally, any advice for the next EIC? I hear she’s nervous about filling your shoes.

Well, this is life advice: learn to be comfortable being uncomfortable. You’re going to have to make a lot of new friends.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: February 23, 2022

---

Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D./

Question:

Hi! I’m a 1L, and I’m kind of freaking out. It’s my second semester here, so I feel like I should be on top of things, but I’m not. I’m such a slow reader, and there’s all these clubs and events. I can’t keep up. I’m drowning, and I don’t remember the last time I felt not behind. What’s worse is that we aren’t that far into the semester. Do you have any tips on time management?

Answer:

I appreciate the honesty and vulnerability in your question. I would hate to be in your position. It truly sounds awful.

Your PAs probably said, “Do whatever works for you,” but it appears that you did that, and it didn’t work. You’re a slow reader, so your brain is broken, but that’s fine! For slow readers in the legal profession, not behind is a thing of myth. Luckily, not behind doesn’t exist in the legal profession anyway. The more you get done, the higher your expectations are for getting things done. Then, you take on more responsibilities, and so on. It’s like the hedonic treadmill, but for production instead of pleasure. Accept your fate—you aren’t behind, you’re simply a law student.

All that to say, it’s not that big of a deal to be a slow reader. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. To better manage your time, take a hard look at how you spend your days. Cut out activities that don’t directly support your goals. Some great advice I got from one of our deans is to stop calling your family and friends from home as much, since doing so can be a distraction. You might also consider sleeping less. People sleep about a third of their lives away, and at least a couple of hours each day would be better allocated to reading than sleeping.

The good news is that these tips apply beyond law school into your professional career. One drawback is that you will be sadder generally, but the juice is worth the squeeze.

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.  

Court of Petty Appeals: 2L v. COVID Protocols

---

2L v. COVID Protocols
74 U.Va 16 (2022)

Brown, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

On March 17th 2020, the NCAA made the unprecedented decision to cancel that year’s March Madness Tournament due to concerns about the novel coronavirus that was beginning to rapidly spread around the world. For many Americans, it was this moment that signaled the start of the pandemic that has quickly come to define so many parts of daily life. Of the many changes the virus brought, one of the most relevant to this Court is a seemingly endless stream of policy changes from institutions of higher education all over the country.

            This case focuses on a specific aspect of the Law School administration's response to the pandemic. Since the policies have become more controversial, the administration has consistently framed its COVID protocols as being mandated by the University at large and out of their control.

            Petitioner alleges that this is a misrepresentation of the power the Law School administration has in the implementation and content of these policies. Petitioner also alleges that these policies are not being adopted for the reasons the administration says they are. We will take both of these allegations up for review. 

Out of Our Hands

            While the rules regarding social distancing practices, masks, vaccination status, and asymptomatic cases have evolved greatly over the last two years, communications regarding these rules have always come either from the Main Grounds Administration or attached with the disclaimer that these policies have been put together for the entire University.

            While in most respects this is true—very few UVA Law policies have ever not overlapped perfectly with those on Main Grounds—it is incorrect to claim that the administration has not taken any matters into their own hands. In particular, the ban on eating and drinking in classrooms is a law-school-only protocol.[1]

            This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be a higher level of caution taken within the Law School than in the general community. But to have one of the most unpopular masking policies be a Law School choice, not a Main Grounds choice, and to frame it as something out of the administration's control, is not something that should go unnoticed.

Policies Adopted for Facially Hidden Reasons

            Throughout the pandemic, but especially during the period of the most extreme COVID precautions, each update has included statements about needing to stop transmissions and to protect the Charlottesville community. And yet, no Zoom option has been offered, despite this being the single best way to keep students who feel uncomfortable safe—and the Charlottesville community has always had a far lower level of restrictions on it for gatherings than the University.

            Once again, this is not to challenge any of the policies that have been implemented. This is a Court of law, not epidemiology or politics, but the content of the communications deserves review so that it is a one-time error.

Pazhwak, J., concurring

Justice Brown is correct in finding that greater scrutiny of the administration’s representation of its role in the design and application of COVID-19 mitigation policies, as well as its apparent reasons for adopting them, is needed. However, the inquiry he recommends on remand does not go far enough. According to publicly available information, approximately 97% of UVA’s student community is fully vaccinated,[2] and the booster requirement for students to return after winter break allows for an inference of a similar level of uptake of the third shot.[3] When boosted, an individual’s risk of severe illness or death from the virus appears to be lower than common respiratory illnesses or even driving a motor vehicle.[4] While such data and estimates are preliminary, and numbers should continue to be scrutinized and considered alongside the exigencies of the current Omicron wave, this information would indicate that the UVA community, by virtue of its high boosted rate, should be reaching a point where it need not be overly concerned with the virus, and COVID policies can finally be put to rest. While, as Justice Brown notes, it is not the role of this Court to decide on issues of epidemiology or politics, or judge previous precautions taken at different points in the pandemic, it is its duty to ensure a showing of a rational basis for policies affecting Law School students.[5] Communications to the appellant parties ought to include content sufficient to justify the paternalism they remain subject to on a daily basis, and should avoid passing responsibility or giving rhetorically attractive but substantively meaningless statements. This may help mitigate seemingly arbitrary policy choices, such as the continued presence of plexiglass screens[6] or requiring masking for those using cardio machines at the gym that are already distanced six feet apart.

Morse, J., concurring.

I concur with Justice Brown in the judgment that the administration should take greater responsibility for what is apparently a greater amount of autonomy in COVID-19 rule-making than they are willing to admit. However, I write separately to encourage the Law School administration to EMBRACE and EXPAND its power, at all costs. There is no basis for the Law School to be treated as the nerdy, bookish serf to the cool, preppy landed gentry of the TYRANNICAL MAIN GROUNDS.

For too long have we denizens of the North Grounds[7] strained under the yoke of Main Grounds. Enough, say I! Now is the time for us to rise up and throw down those polo-wearing, Sperry’s-sporting Main Grounds OVERLORDS! But why stop at independence? If we are to enjoy the fruits of the good and efficient administration of government, would it not be a crime to deprive others of those same fruits?

Today shall mark the beginning of a new era, one defined by the JUST and BENEVOLENT rule of the Law School. Tomorrow we take Darden[8], next the world!!

---

jwb4bb@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] Chief Justice T here. This claim hasn’t been substantiated. Yet, “we do what we want.”

[2] Caroline Newman, High Vaccination Rates Pave the Way as Students Move In, UVAToday (Aug. 18, 2021), https://news.virginia.edu/content/high-vaccination-rates-pave-way-students-move.

[3] See News Staff, UVA student reacts to COVID-19 vaccine booster requirement for spring semester, CBS19 News (Dec. 21, 2021), https://www.cbs19news.com/story/45508548/uva-requiring-covid19-vaccine-booster-dose-for-spring-semester (providing a copy of the booster mandate notice that went out).

[4] David Leonhardt, The Power of Boosters, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/briefing/boosters-cdc-covid-effectiveness.html

[5] See Law Students United v. Meatless Mondays 521 COPA (2017).

[6] See Tara Parker-Pope, Those Anti-Covid Plastic Barriers Probably Don’t Help and May Make Things Worse, N.Y. Times (Aug. 19, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/well/live/coronavirus-restaurants-classrooms-salons.html.

[7] Just to be entirely clear, Darden is NOT invited to the revolution.

[8] Darden will however have the honor of being our first conquest, which if I understand property so far (sorry, Professor Nicoletti) means their facilities will legally be our possession via the doctrine of acquisition by conquest.

Counsel's Counsel: February 16, 2022

---

Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.

Question:

I want to preface this with my gratitude that we get to do Feb Club this year. I’m a 1L, and I heard it got canceled last year because of COVID and everything.

Typically I think of myself as a pretty social person, but when I go to Feb Club parties (and events with law students in general), I feel a certain amount of distance between my classmates and I. There’s this tension. I want to be friendly, but I also want to be viewed as a competent and professional person. I want to let loose and be silly every once in a while, but when I do, I can’t shake the feeling that I am actively being perceived.

How do I balance being a social “party person” with having the people that I party with be my colleagues?

Answer:

Thanks for writing in! I’m sorry you’ve been feeling that distance, that can’t be fun. You are right that there is a tension that comes with having your social universe be largely made up of your colleagues. It extends beyond law school. I currently work at a large firm, and that tension very much exists there.

Like you, when I first came to law school, I had a relatively higher proclivity for silliness. I get why you wouldn’t want that tension to exist. It could be fixed with a cultural shift, but since we’re talking about lawyers, we know that will never happen. But you make trade-offs with all decisions in life, and choosing to go to law school is no different. Lawyers are not silly. Lawyers are serious professionals who handle serious matters.

Lawyers scrutinize everything, so rest assured that you are actively being perceived by your colleagues. Your colleagues are simply trying to suss out what they can get from you and the amount of effort it would take to get it. Based on these calculations, law students decide whether to talk to one other at parties. If you show any hint of silliness, they will see it.

My advice is to take comfort in the transactional nature of the social scene. There’s an honesty to it. When people want to be friends, take it as a compliment. It means that they think you are or will be influential and important. Moreover, the “colleague-friend” distance allows you to be competitive with your classmates guilt-free.

So, never forget that you are first and foremost colleagues. There will always be a distance between you. You can never be unadulterated friends, but learn to love it. Suppress any urge you have to be silly. Be risk-averse. Appreciate the fear that supports your career. As I mentioned earlier, I used to be a silly person, but I’m glad I made the trade-off. I would never go back.

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.

Hot Bench: Ashley Anumba '24

---

Ashley Anumba ‘24

Interviewed by Julia D’Rozario ‘24

So, Ashley, where are you from?

I’m from Rancho Cucamonga, California, near Los Angeles.

What was it like growing up there?

It was great! All I remember is good memories. Just friends, family, fun, sun…obviously a lot of sports. Just a lot of happy memories.

You’re an amazing athlete, which I wanted to ask you about! Can you speak to your athletic journey?

Sure. So, my family is filled with athletes—my cousins, siblings, everybody—we all did something, and we were all pretty good at whatever we did. I wanted to do soccer, that was my big thing. But I tore my ACL, broke my wrist, broke my tooth, had all these injuries…and I realized, I can’t do this anymore; I need to find something else. So, I went to track. I wanted to sprint. My sister did throwing events, and I thought, that’s for her, let me do something by myself. But the coach saw me, and told me, “you’re really strong, throwing could be good for you.” I tried it, and it turns out he was right. I was good!

I started in my sophomore year of high school, so I actually started pretty late. But even that year, I was one of the best in the nation. It got me thinking, if I took this seriously, how good could I be? And that’s been it ever since. I found a lot of success in it very early, and I just kept going. It was fun. Some of the best memories in my life so far have been with my throwing team.

That’s awesome! So, you’re intending to take part in the Olympics— you must have an intense training schedule! What’s that like, and how do you balance it with school?

The way I see it is: whatever happens in terms of making the Olympics or not, I’ve kind of been training for it for seven years! Even though I only train for about three hours a day, I’ve been doing this for seven years. It’s the accumulation of your time, your experience…that’s what really matters. So, balancing sports and school is much easier than I think many people would imagine. But yeah, I might be more tired than the average person…maybe!

The way that school is set up, especially in our first year, we have time built into our schedules for lunch. So, I always leave during that break to go train. Then, after our last class, I go train. I try to keep my practice for when I’m feeling best; my peak ability times are usually in the early morning or afternoon.

Long story short, I just make sure that I stick to a schedule, and that I don’t stray from it too often. Of course, I don’t socialize as much as the average law student. It’s usually just school and track. I’m in and out of this building!

What about your law school journey? What drew you to law?

I didn’t go into undergrad knowing I wanted to be a lawyer. I thought I wanted to work in local government. If anything, I thought I'd get an MPP. Things changed when I realized this wasn't the path for me. In my first semester of undergrad, I took ‘Intro to American Politics.’ It was the worst class I've ever taken…so I had to switch gears. Still, law wasn’t really in my mind.

But I started working at this job—a student-run business—just to make some money. Eventually, I became the executive director. Within that position, I worked with the school’s compliance officers. They taught me what I could and couldn’t do, and how to make sure the business was compliant. I was in the head position for a little over a year, and, when it was time for me to think about next steps, I just wanted to know more about what they did. I knew they were lawyers, but my understanding of the law was mainly litigation, which was not me. But seeing what they were doing piqued my interest, because I appreciated the work they did for me, and I liked the counsel role that they took on.

It was a little, student-run business; kids doing their thing, making some money. It wasn’t that important in the grand scheme of things, but they took the time to talk to me about what it is that they do, and I felt that it was something I'd like to do too. That was a big turning point for me. I did also study Health Policy and Law, so I had the academic side, but I had the practical side through my job. Those experiences combined made me feel that law school was it for me.

Time for a fun question! What is the best advice you've ever received, whether in sports, in school, or in life?

First is that everyone is on their own path. I’ve really held onto that for the past few years. I never wanted to be the best at anything, period. I just wanted to do my best, move along, and stay in my lane. And doing that has opened up so many opportunities for me. I think that a trap that a lot of people fall into is comparing themselves to others. I think it’s detrimental. So, I’m happy that this piece of advice—that everyone is on their own journey—has stuck with me for so long.

Also, be happy…celebrate the small wins. Since the pandemic, I've been more grateful for my life. Even though things are hard, I’m just so happy to be alive! To be doing what I’m doing, chasing my dreams. Even though this is absolutely wild, this position that I’m in, I’m just so amazed at myself. If there were a clone of me, and I could see myself as a third person, I’d be in awe of what I’m doing, and the life I’ve lived so far.

I’m just happy. I’m grateful. And I hope I always will be, no matter what I’m doing in the future. My life has been great so far, I have no complaints!

I think that’s something a lot of law students need to hear.

Yeah! Law school is hard. But it’s been fun! We’re learning so much; this is some fascinating stuff! I’m happy to have the opportunity to learn about something that’s so applicable to so many people’s lives.

Lightning round!

Favorite restaurant in Charlottesville?

Citizen Burger Bar.

What song is on repeat recently?

Let’s go with I Drink Wine, by Adele (I actually don’t drink wine).

Favorite song of all time?

Anything by Anderson .Paak.

What is your favorite food?

It depends on my mood!

What about your favorite thing to cook?

Seafood!

Are there any shows that you've been watching recently?

I've been watching everything under the sun. 2022 has been dropping some very good shows. I just started Ozark, which is good. Love is Blind just dropped season two, and I watched the first episode today, so that’s on the list. Also Abbott Elementary.

Pet peeves?

People who aren’t grateful.

---

jkd2dd@virginia.edu

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee: What Makes a Gym Bro?

---

Nate Wunderli ‘22
Sports Editor

Without big, Popeye muscles you cannot be a “gym bro.” In this day and age, there are plenty of people that hit the gym regularly. Clearly, just being a regular gym-goer does not make you a “gym bro.” So, is it how often you hit the gym, or for how long you stay that makes you a “gym bro?” Hardly. You can hit the gym all day long, drink raw eggs mixed with creatine and protein powder for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and follow every bodybuilder on Instagram and still not be a “gym bro.” So what makes a “gym bro” a “gym bro?” I’ll start with the obvious: big muscles.

Sure, big muscles alone does not make one a gym bro. That is just one of several indicators of gym broeyness. But being a gym bro is a lot about the vibe someone gives off, and if you do not have big muscles, you simply cannot give off a gym bro vibe. I’ve tried.

Gym bros must also be relatively unathletic. Being a good athlete is an automatic exemption, because it means you are actually using your muscles for another purpose besides just looking good. Gym bros are always after the look. Exactly what that look is depends on the gym bro, but they have one in mind, and it usually involves, you guessed it, excess muscle.

Gym bros also tend to talk about things, like, you guessed it, muscles. One cannot discuss muscles if one does not have muscles. Case in point: SpongeBob Squarepants. SpongeBob tried to be a gym bro before he had muscles, but it wasn’t until he transformed into MuscleBob BuffPants, with the infamous blow-up anchor arms, that Spongebob actually became a gym bro. Was anything else different about SpongeBob besides the massive arms? No. And would anyone dare to argue that MuscleBob BuffPants was not a gym bro? Definitely not.

I rest my case.

Sai Kulkarni
Culture Editor

What makes a gym bro? This is a question that has plagued society for eons. Or perhaps just me for the last week, but just go with the bit, dear readers. Some would say that a gym bro is defined by their physique and the clothes they wear. This is the view taken by some other members of this esteemed paper. But I choose to disagree with society. I like to push boundaries. So here’s my hot, bold take of the week: being a gym bro has more to do with how you talk about your workout habits than your actual looks.

Let’s not be limited, it’s 2022. Even men’s fitness magazines have bulky guys on the cover rather than just well cut guys. How we think about bodies, regardless of gender, has changed over the last few years (for the better). So focusing only on looks is rather reductive, my dear readers. Instead, I find myself perplexed by our societal perceptions of gym bros. Do we not all immediately think of the phrase “gym bro” when people talk about their workout habits?

It’s not about how many protein shakes they drink, it’s about telling you the number and describing the gross ingredients. It’s not about the fact that they go to a gym, it’s about where they go to the gym (looking at you, patrons of The Gym™). And above all else, it’s not about how often they go, it’s about how many times they can mention that they go. Most of us are unlikely to ever really think about how long other people hit a lift session until they tell us. 

At the end of the day, thinking about gym bros gives them power. Talking about them gives them power. This article gives them power. But in understanding where that power comes from we can change our perspective. Much like the age old discussion of  “if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it…,” the new question should be: “if a gym bro brags about his workout and no one hears it, is he still a gym bro?” In reading this article, this blazing hot take, I hope you take the chance to change how you look at your gym bro friends. Give them a listening ear, that's what they want. Or don’t, if that’s the kind of friendship you have. At the very least, I hope this article makes you reconsider who you define as a gym bro. 

 ---

nw7cz@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: February 9, 2022

---

Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.

Question:

Hi, I have heard generally about journal tryouts from other 1Ls, but I haven’t heard much in terms of concrete, actionable tips that would help me during the process. I’m feeling a little behind. Is there anything I can do to optimize my journal tryout experience?

Answer:

Well, it makes sense why you haven’t heard any “concrete, actionable tips” from other 1Ls. First of all, they haven’t been through the process. More importantly, they are your competitors, so they have an incentive not to help you or, worse yet, to provide bad advice.

If there’s any group of people that reacts strongly to incentives—even slight ones—it is people in the legal industry. Doesn’t it seem odd that the vast majority of students do journal tryouts, despite having no interest in legal academia? That’s because having the resume line-item, which will have little to no value for most people, might provide some edge during the job search. Meanwhile, professors who clerked for the Supreme Court suck up to 2Ls on the VLR managing board because it might provide some edge in getting their articles published. It is part of the game.

In terms of “concrete, actionable tips,” definitely start studying for tryouts. I would start by memorizing the Bluebook sections. I used flashcards, but Quizlet will do. You’ll know you’re ready when you can glance at a citation and know which rule to flip to.

For the writing part, there’s a couple of things you can do. Personally, I did a few timed LSAT writing sections (like a dozen or so). It is like the journal tryout because it involves timed, persuasive writing on a prompt with two reasonable sides.

However, I learned a tip after my tryout that I wish I would’ve known earlier. First, pick any Supreme Court case decided in the last term, but don’t read the opinion. Then, read the appellate briefs for that case. Pick four cases from those cited in the appellate briefs and read their opinions. Then, write a mock opinion for the original Supreme Court case. Time this so that you start reading and finish writing your paper over a weekend. If your reasoning looks nothing like the Supreme Court majority opinion, you should be in good shape. I promise this will not be an immaculate waste of time.

I hope you have as much fun with journal tryouts as I did! It will be a weekend worth remembering.

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form.

Court of Petty Appeals: 3Ls v. Administration

---

3Ls v. Administration
74 U.Va 15 (2022)

Tonseth, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Facts

            Picture this. You’re a spring semester 3L. You didn’t learn until this past August that you’d need to take Professional Responsibility and the MPRE before graduation, let alone 6 practical skills credits. Luckily, you accidentally signed up for a course that filled the writing requirement as a 2L and the gunner you befriended out of sympathy as a 1L told you about the PR/MPRE requirement before it was too late. Coast is clear to graduate, right? In this sense, yes, without any help from the Administration. However, the claim brought today against the Administration is not for failing to properly notify students of graduation requirements. No, it is far more vile and hits too close to home.

            To the simpleton, law school should teach someone how to sue someone else and how to become a lawyer. As nobody on this esteemed Court has learned the first, it is not surprising that today’s claim arises from the second factor. Namely, the plaintiffs allege that the Administration conducted and continues to conduct a grievous breach of contract for failing to properly educate 3Ls on how to become legitimate lawyers. The 3Ls allege that through detrimental reliance, many are just now learning (including by reading this opinion) that deadlines to apply to take the Bar, to submit their applications to pass Character and Fitness, and to complete the required pre-Bar courses[1] actually exist and happen before the 3Ls will graduate.

            This complaint is not solely limited to Student Affairs, whose entire existence is to advance and protect the welfare of students. Nor does the buck stop at the Registrar’s office, whose failure to properly warn 3Ls of graduation requirements is only the tip of the iceberg. This complaint, and the defendants comprising the Administration, also include the Office of Private Practice (OPP) and the Public Service Center (PSC).[2] The 3Ls aim to take down the entire system, to which this Court is happy to oblige.

Analysis

            The Court’s analysis of the class action complaint is rooted in the law of contracts. The analysis from the plaintiffs is as follows. For a hefty and rising annual tuition fee, the 3Ls are trusting the Administration to prepare them to become future lawyers. In this view, the 3Ls view their tuition as consideration for a contract with the Administration, which the Administration has been greedily happy to accept. In return for this consideration, the Administration generally provides the required courses in accordance with ABA standards so that 3Ls can attain a degree.

            In their lengthy amicus, defendants argued strenuously against this logical sequencing. First, they claim that tuition is in no way consideration. This argument is as whimsical and flimsy as the ban on drinking and eating unless a student is in ScoCo. Even if this Court were to find that there was no consideration, the 3Ls have posited a valid alternative. Under the caretaking doctrine, the Administration is tied to the success of each 3L becoming a valid lawyer by promissory estoppel. In either case, the 3Ls have detrimentally relied on the Administration to prepare them to become lawyers. The Administration further argues that their duty to prepare the plaintiffs to become a lawyer stops at graduation. The Court is receptive to this line of reasoning, almost. If the Administration wasn’t quick to tout its clerkship numbers, frequently highlight UVA Law Grads, and solicit donations from alumni as soon as (or before) they get their first check all after these alumni become qualified lawyers, the outcome of this case would be different. The buck stops here.

            As the Administration has shown a penchant for piggybacking off of the success of its students post-graduation, this Court holds that their duty to prepare 3Ls to become legitimate lawyers extends until the 3Ls are officially sworn into the bar.

Remedy

            The Administration has shown a clear and continuous breach of contract with the class of 3Ls. 3Ls have for too long detrimentally relied on the Administration to prepare them to become official lawyers, to no avail. The fact that 3Ls have learned more about what they need to do to become qualified from Themis, Barbri, or Kaplan bar prep programs is a stain on the Administration that cannot be wiped away. Yet, the remedy is simple. Lawyers and law students alike love checklists. Most 3Ls will either be barred in D.C. or New York.[3] Therefore, this Court orders any of the named Administrators to create a checklist with the timelines for these two localities for the 3Ls. List what each 3L needs to accomplish to be qualified. The date and time of the bar in July (or January), the date to submit the Character and Fitness application, and how the Administration could help. With the amount of tuition the 3Ls have paid, there’s plenty of money to go around to make this someone’s full time job.

It is so ordered.

Brown J., dissenting.

            The Court’s complaints about the lack of guidance from the Law School about how one actually becomes a lawyer are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of what law school is meant to do. We are not put through the rigor of doctrinal classes, awkward section events, unclear COVID restrictions, and exhausting Zoom networking events in order to learn “how” to be a lawyer, we do so to learn how to “think like a lawyer.”

            As with any worthwhile dissent, this is based on the original public meaning of “law school.” Early legal programs were not meant to instruct students on how to be lawyers, they were just meant to supplement a legal apprenticeship. When Judge Tapping Reeve established the Litchfield Law School in 1784, he did so to provide laypeople a chance to understand the law and to provide entertainment for his apprentices.[4] Law school then was understood to not be something meant to give practical skills, and that original meaning remains the case today.

            Imagine what would happen if law schools actually tried to prepare all of us for a career in the law by building skills instead of telling us to go play softball. LRW would be graded, assignments would come periodically with little warning, and we might actually get told what a transactional lawyer does. This nightmarish world the majority hopes to bring in would push law school away from being an excuse to avoid getting a real job for three years into a trade school where we would learn practical skills.

            The legal world has been intentionally designed to be unintuitive and difficult to navigate for lay people. Law school is not exempt from this reality, nor should it be. As we are about to enter a profession known for its complexity, we should not be coddled by the administration in any way even if it would make the lives of students measurably better with minimal cost to the institution.

            For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

Birch J., dissenting.

            The majority’s opinion in this case completely misses the mark and I vehemently dissent. I join in my colleague’s dissent but must write my own as well for two reasons. First, to remain relevant. Second, the duty claimed by the injured party is not a duty that exists, nor has ever existed.

            The “contractual relationship” that is claimed can be boiled down to a simple exchange: a fancy piece of paper with your name on it in exchange for crippling student debt. Money for paper, that’s it. There are fringe benefits to having that particular paper, but that paper is what you are buying. To imply that the administration should be obligated to do a single thing more than this would upend the contract. Students have to put up with anything the administration does in the three-year vesting period, but softball has been provided to drown out the sorrow.

            The claim of “detrimental reliance” is even less substantial than the contract claim. Simply put, if a student relies on the administration or any of its subsidiaries, then they have dug their own grave. Much like going on a diet or trusting your ex when they say, “it won’t happen again,” reliance on something famously unreliable provides no basis for a claim. The students in question have been fooled once, twice, and 3L is the charm. You’d think they would have learned by now, but learning is not what law school is for.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu
jwb4bb@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu

---

[1] Looking at you, New York, and your required pro bono hours.

[2] Personally, I’d give the PSC a break. It’s hard enough to find PI students jobs, let alone tell them the requirements to pass the Bar in whatever state they’re lucky enough to find a job in. PSC can only do so much good for this world.

[3] While this opinion isn’t about the death spiral that is OPP and BigLaw funneling junior associates to these two tax heavy major markets, just to burn them out, this Court abhors BigLaw, save the new matching salaries.

[4] Attending a legal lecture as a form of entertainment may strike some as odd, a sign of how far our glorious profession has fallen. 

Hot Bench: James Ford '23

---

James Ford ‘23

Interviewed by Nikolai Morse ‘24

How does it feel to have been nominated by Sai and JP for this week’s Hot Bench?

It’s about time! I’m one of the more eccentric people at the law school. I have an interesting background, views, and style.

Tell me about that interesting background?

I’m originally from Florida. I came from a pretty working-class family. Did poorly in high school and figured out that my best chance to get a good college education was in the UK, because they rely heavily on standardized tests. I went to the University of Dundee in Scotland, where I got a Bachelor of Laws. I was published, won Best Honours Dissertation, and graduated with First-Class Honours. My education there has given me a unique view on what the study of law is.

How is your view of legal education different?

Everywhere else in the world the law is considered an academic discipline. Similar to English, history, or philosophy. It is one of the humanities. So, the goal of your education is not to teach you a way of thinking, but rather to teach you what the law is in terms of its content and subject matter. The purpose is to be a legal scholar, rather than teach you common law reasoning, which I think is the goal of an American legal education.

What do you think accounts for those differences?

Two reasons. First, in Britain you’re expected to do an apprenticeship after law school, so the British legal academy expects you would get your practical training in that way. Second, you could probably trace the difference back to the emergence of legal realism in America and the idea that you can study law as a science by working through cases and deriving their rules.

Do you believe the realist method is uniquely American?

Interesting, because “Law AND”[1] is ascendant in the academy, but from a teaching perspective, we still follow the legal realist way. You aren’t told the point of the case ahead of time; you are asked to analyze it and derive the rule. The approach elsewhere is that the law is a distinct body of knowledge, and the way you learn it is by engaging with it.

How is the structure of assessment different in the U.K.?

You write more. Every class at my university had a paper which was 25% of your grade. And not a memo or case note, but a truly academic paper on a topic assigned by the professor. Sado-masochistic injury was historically illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act, and one of the papers I was asked to write asked whether it should still be illegal today—there’s an important normative inquiry. Your final is closed-book and handwritten. You’ll have some “problem” questions like we do here, but also questions on history and policy.

Why did you come back to the U.S. for your J.D.?

Originally, I thought I might want to be a legal academic, but I realized at a certain point that I did not enjoy writing legal academic papers and would want to be a practitioner. Since America’s legal market is substantially larger than Britain’s, and I am from here, it made sense.

What are you doing this summer?

I’m working for UVIMCO which manages UVA’s endowment. The endowment is huge—$21 billion—so they do lots of interesting things. My work seems like it will primarily be reading a lot of contracts the university makes with companies it invests in. It’s very transaction-focused.

I was told by some of my classmates to ask you about two (seemingly) unrelated topics: Communism and Tarot. Would you care to elaborate?

On communism: for me it comes down not to state control or centralization but unlocking human potential. Are people more free in a world where their lives are dictated by whether they are close to the imperial core or the imperial periphery, or would they be more free, creative, and capable of being more virtuous people if they didn’t have to live under that system? Currently in the U.S. there is an increasingly intricate system where upper-middle class families can send kids to the right prep school, the right universities, and to work for the right companies. The institutions of America have shown themselves to be incapable of dealing with this, because academics don’t want to talk about it and politicians are taking legal bribes from corporate interests.

Back to law school, the purpose of law school is not to teach you the law but to think like a lawyer. What is that, if not reproducing a certain kind of ruling class logic, to reproduce the method of thinking of those in power?

Would advancing Communism be a long-term goal for you?

It is actually federally unlawful to be a member of the communist party (though the law isn’t enforced), so it could be a problem if I joined a communist party before I pass the bar. The second problem is the financial aspect. My parents lost everything in ’08, so I have to earn some money. So, it’s important when you’re a leftist to think about how much you’re allowing your career to impact your values.

What about Tarot?

Some people at the law school know that I give tarot readings. My mom did this when I was growing up, which got me interested. I was in Dundee one summer and I started reading a lot of theology, a bit of occult history, and started meditating on tarot cards. Not sure if they have any kind of power, but they are rooted in a really interesting Christian theological system. When you understand this, and how specific the meanings of the cards are, when someone comes and speaks with you it gives you a structured way of jumping off into a broader conversation.

Alright, time for the lightning round!

Favorite food? Oysters.

Favorite class you’ve taken at UVA Law? Trusts and Estates, with Johnston.

Favorite place in Charlottesville? Clark Hall.

Favorite book? Moby Dick.

What is your spirit animal? Octopus.

If you could time travel, when and where would you go? The Holy Roman Empire, around the 12th century. I would be really interested in studying feudalism on the ground.

Favorite place you have traveled to? Sterling, Scotland.

If you could pick one person to win the lottery, who would it be? Myself.

---

cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] E.g., “law and economics,” “law and sociology,” etc.

Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students v. Law Professors

---

Law Students v. Law Professors
74 U.Va 14 (2022)

Judge Kulkarni delivered the opinion the Court.

Law school students are fond of the mantra that 1Ls are scared to death, 2Ls are worked to death, and 3Ls are bored to death. Yet, regardless of this mantra, petitioners from all three classes bring a claim of breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The subject of this complaint is the professors of the Law School, specifically those that failed to upload students’ grades by the established deadline. Once again, we are presented with a number of procedural and substantive issues surrounding this case.

The students bringing this complaint allege that in attending this Law School they enter into a contract with their professors. The students give up a month of their life to live in the library or their other study spot of choice; in return, their professors provide them with their grades by a set deadline in order to alleviate the inevitable stress that the students have accumulated. The 1Ls have been encouraged to be hyper-competitive for the sake of the unknown, mysterious curve and for a chance to be on the less famous organization with the words “Virginia Law” in the name.[1] The 2Ls range from those who are trying to build their applications for public interest jobs, those who want to flex on their friends,[2] and those who are simply too anxious to allow themselves some time off from working hard. It is baffling that there are any 3L petitioners, but this Court must admit that there might be one of them who eventually clerks for the Supreme Court.[3] This wide range of students has all claimed that in failing, and allegedly even refusing, to upload grades by the first date of Spring Semester, the professors have severely impacted their ability to “enjoy law school.”[4]

To begin with, the 1Ls have no standing. In order to make such a claim, they have to be valid petitioners. As this Court has held time and time again, 1Ls have no rights; this is a bedrock principle of our jurisprudence.[5] For the complaints brought by these students, our decision is simple: suffer in silence. Your grades have zero bearing on your 1L job. You will get one, and, if your parents are dedicated enough to buy you a 1L summer associate position,[6] then these grades matter even less. For those of you who don’t, live like the rest of us. Everyone takes these classes and everyone is suffering together. Maybe this shared struggle is exactly what you need in order to bond with your class for the tough times ahead.[7] As usual, this party’s claims are dismissed with extreme prejudice.

For the upperclassmen, however, the complaints have merit. Much of these students’ precious time has been wasted on something as mind-numbing as their grades. For many of us, these are the last one to three semesters to be young and fun. Keeping us hanging on the questions of whether or not we made median (and what median even was) in a given class takes away from this time. There is, indeed, a clear contract between these students and their professors. In return for turning down the gunning and asking of random hypotheticals to impress professors who have no interest in being impressed, the professors who teach 2Ls and 3Ls have implicitly agreed to hand down better grades and to hand them down faster. No professor at this level[8] actually cares about what grades they give; grading is as much a chore for them as studying is for the students. No student has spent the last two months of their 2L[9] or 3L fall semester working hard in the library without social interaction; without grade validation, such behavior seems pointless.

Thus, the professors who choose not to complete their grading within the time limit provided by the Law School are not just inflicting emotional distress upon their students, they are doing it to themselves as well by keeping themselves stuck in the previous semester. Rather than calculating what the median GPA is in a given class, handing out medians to 90% of the students and using a random number generator to assign grades on either side of the median to actually create a curve, these professors insist on slacking and making their own jobs harder. It is for the few students still competing for clerkships and public interest jobs that professors are inflicting the most harm. These students gave the professor the consideration of paying attention in class, and therefore, these students have the most explicit contract with their professors for swift grading.[10]

Thus, this Court finds itself forced to issue a clear and firm order to the professors of the Law School: abide by the grade deadline. Lift the stress upon the few students who care. Lift the annoyance from the shoulders of those who do not. And save yourself the emails from the registrar’s office and the most persistent of students to get your grading done faster. A failure to abide by the deadline going forward may force this Court to issue an even more drastic order: requiring fall grades by January 1st.

Birch, J., concurring.

I start by commending my colleague for now upholding the precedent that 1Ls have no rights, now that he is securely in their second year of Law School. It is a large turn in his personal jurisprudence, but I must acknowledge the necessary change. As to the other petitioners, my colleague has absolutely hit the median in the center.

While I concur with the majority, I should first note the worthiness of some delay. Having grades released, en masse, after the conclusion of many of the religious holidays that occur in December is a benefit for students visiting their families. “My professor hasn’t submitted them” is the best possible response for why you can’t talk about grades at the dinner table. However, when New Year’s Eve approaches, this is the perfect time to know and announce your median-ness, and claim that you’ll start fresh into a new year.[11]

The methods used by professors described in the majority are true to form and practice. The speed of these methods should not be the cause for delay of a professor's grades. If anything, these tried-and-true methods should be considered a windfall for simplicity and expediency, something that rarely is seen in Law School or the legal profession. Professors who provide too much information and thought into their grading, should have realized they chose a profession that shies away from math like this court shies away from 1Ls’ rights.

In addition to the secondary IIE claim that occurs at the start of the semester when grades are long-delayed, the delay itself extends and exacerbates the already present IIE claim deriving from many final examinations. The delayed grading of a semester impedes the ability for students who were emotionally harmed by the class and its resulting examination to begin the recovery process. Students need to be given the opportunity to move on, otherwise, how will they start to find meaning outside of being a 4.0 K-JD.

---

[1] The Virginia Law Review is clearly the less prestigious organization…but congratulations anyway to their newly appointed Managing Board.

[2] i.e. get a clerkship.

[3] Whoever you are, we know you will be biased towards all of us and we thank you for that.

[4] There is no such thing.

[5] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019).

[6] Or if you are a patent law candidate or in FedSoc.

[7] I am, of course, referring to journal tryouts.

[8] With the possible exception of Professor Bayefski and her Fed Courts class.

[9] Especially not the author of this case.

[10] I apologize for butchering consideration, Professor Verkerke. In my defense, I scored below median in your class.

[11] Even though you know you won’t.

Counsel's Counsel: Feb. 2, 2022

---

 Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.

Question:

I’m a 1L, and my grades last semester weren’t great. I’m concerned about OGI and clerkships because I’ve heard they care a lot about grades. I’m especially concerned because I’m a K-JD, and I feel like I can’t point to a lot of objective things except for my grades. I know I need to bounce back, but I’m not sure how. I think part of the problem is that I had a hard time getting interested in some of my classes. Part of it may have been my studying strategies. I’m really worried, so I appreciate your help!

Answer:

First of all, it’s great that you’re thinking about OGI and clerkships now. It’s never too early. This is your career we’re talking about, after all.

I’m glad you fully appreciate the importance of grades. While everyone loves an underdog in the movies, BigLaw attorneys eat underdogs for lunch (at their desks, of course). Unfortunately, since you are a K-JD, your identity has become your education. If you were writing in at the end of 1L, all hope would probably be lost. Luckily, that’s not the case!

I was in a similar position after my first semester, and coming back from bad grades is tough. As for advice, mindset is essential. What really helped me was viewing classes less like an educational experience and more like a means to an end.

Some people have a genuine curiosity about the world that keeps them interested across subjects, but those people are rare. Typically, people in the legal field are driven by competition, anxiety, and deep-seated insecurities. So, it yields much more consistent outcomes to (1) reduce your education mentally to a transaction—you trade time for results; (2) view your colleagues as obstacles to actualizing your potential; and (3) channel any anger you feel from step #2 into your studies.

In terms of studying strategies, change everything. You were probably told to “Do whatever works for you,” but that didn’t work, so it won’t work this time. If you studied in a study group, study alone. If you studied in the library, study in ScoCo. Leave no stone unturned.

It also wouldn’t hurt to be wealthy. As with most things, having money is an advantage in law school. If possible, it is time to invest in Quimbee, commercial outlines, a bookstand, and a second monitor. Go golfing with your professors. Plus, you can use your parents’ legal contacts for networking in case OGI falls through.

I believe in you, and I wish you the best of luck in your studies!

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum: Google Drive v. Outlook

---

Caleb Stephens ‘24
Staff Editor

A Sunny Outlook

Daily a deluge, a torrent, a veritable flood of emails arrives on my metaphorical doorstep. For the past year and a half, I have battled in vain against this plague upon my mind, a clutter in my soul, a pox upon my existence. You too, dear reader, doubtless have experienced this same disaster of which I speak: the endless automated announcement emails from the University of Virginia, clubs, Lexis, Westlaw, and sundry other sources.

            Finally, beleaguered students are being given weapons with which to do battle against this flood: the indispensable Outlook Rules. For the uninitiated, Outlook Rules allow one to set up automation to sort emails into folders based on the text, email address, keywords, or any such sorting system one can imagine. While Gmail does have tags and folders, they do not enable auto-sorting in such a manner, only sorting into Gmail’s tab system. Many has been the day when I could not find an email because it disappeared into either promotions or updates, without any apparent rhyme or reason.

            To adopt a more casual tone, while Gmail features are more intuitive and straightforward, the lack of customization makes it less user-friendly than Outlook. While Outlook admittedly is complicated and arcane, once the user learns how to use the features, it opens up worlds of possibilities. Automated email sorting is only the beginning of the special features. Much like other Microsoft programs, it does have a steep learning curve (hello there Excel), but once that curve is surmounted, the features quickly won me over. There is a reason that most businesses use Microsoft Outlook, despite its often-outdated interface.

            That all said, it is a major inconvenience that we now have two completely different Microsoft accounts, both of which are completely necessary for everyday usage. If these both could be integrated, it would fix many of the problems inherent in trying to remember which of the two Microsoft logins is correct. But hey, at least I won’t have links to addresses attempting to open in Google Maps, only to be told that my UVA Google account is not permitted to use that feature.

Mason Pazhwak ‘23
Events Editor

An Overcast Outlook

While other law students may have reasons why they are either overjoyed or outraged by the switch from Google’s Gmail to Microsoft’s Outlook as our school’s new email platform, I am here to represent the email checker that was neutral, and perhaps even indifferent to the change. When I use my email, I do not set complex email sorting rules, connect external applications, or appreciate having multiple inboxes for different types of emails. All I do is open my inbox in a browser or on my phone, go through and read my emails linearly, move a few important ones I will need to reference later into a simple, intuitive folder hierarchy, delete the others, and get on with my day. Both Gmail and Outlook allow me to do this extraordinarily well. In fact, I can’t think of a single time where I have been unable to get this done on either platform. It is almost as if both were created and continue to be updated by multi-billion-dollar companies that have teams of highly paid designers and engineers who spend hours making user experiences as easy and intuitive as possible. Or even more simply, it is that an email platform doesn’t need that many unique features to be effective, and a whole range of different platforms would be largely interchangeable for most people.

            Perhaps my email use is less complicated and well thought out than some, and as a consequence I spend a few extra seconds sorting around like a caveman. Conversely, maybe I do more than others, who just read and delete while I waste my time moving things into my folders. All I can say is either platform works fine for my purposes and likely the purposes of most, and I can’t see how either changes the game for me. The only major difference I have felt so far is having to log into a new website. Now, if I were to bring in other factors external to the email platforms, such as the merits of the full set of Microsoft and Google tools, I am sure I might find something to gripe about. But as far as the emails go, I am going to pull a Switzerland and take a nice seat on the sidelines as other power users duke it out.

Michael Berdan ‘22
Opinions Editor

A Dark and Stormy Outlook

When I was notified that there would be a transition, I was livid. Really? Changing whatever it is you’re changing, right now? In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Whatever? Surely I wasn’t the only 3L who let out the true soul’s call of all 3Ls: the exasperated sigh that evolves into a belch, groan, and whimper all at once. The way things were prior to the change was just fine, probably, so why does the administration have to go under the hood and start tinkering?

            The main issue I have with this change—whatever it is—is that it’s out of step with the Law School’s established pattern of doing the absolute least. Time and again, the Law School has shown its desire to not change, to not make bold course corrections, and to not innovate. When the safety, mental health, and educational benefits of remote learning were staring them in the face, they forced everyone back to the in-person status quo. When Thomas Jefferson’s history of slavery, rape, and violence was brought to light by historians, this university decided to hang tight with their man. When job markets tanked, they continued to plod ahead with tuition increases year after year after year!

            I will concede, however, that I do appreciate that in this change, the Law School has stuck with its default modus operandi of not seeking or caring about student input. The change was made, as is tradition, as is normal, without asking its 900-some, tuition-paying students what they think, or what they would prefer. It was made with the apparent assumption that we could not possibly comprehend or opine on the complex dynamics at play in deciding whether to change whatever they changed. We can at least take solace in the fact that the switch was made by an opaque bureaucracy, not by any democratic means. And that makes this change—whatever it was—a little more palatable.

 ---

cs8ws@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
mwb4pk@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA

---

 UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA
74 U.Va 13 (2022)

Peterson, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

            Today, the Court is faced with an important question. One which has bearing on both the health and the wallets of not only students, but also faculty, spouses, children, and all manner of relations and acquaintances of the UVA community. Petitioners request that the court enjoin all fines, both present and future, which were levied because of so-called “Meter Violations” at IM-Rec facilities on Grounds. Further, petitioners request that the Court order repayment of all previously paid fines, with interest, that occurred in metered parking areas specifically meant for IM-Rec facilities. The Court responds to petitioners’ requests with righteous enthusiasm.[1]

Facts

“IM-Rec Sports is the obvious choice for the UVA Community. . . . IM-Rec Sports is convenient and affordable for anyone affiliated with UVA.”[2]

Clearly, respondents pride themselves on their community’s ability to provide for their mental health and wellbeing with “convenient and affordable” access to the facilities necessary for many of us to stay active and healthy. And one might actually think this is the case, as “[f]ull-time, current students are automatically members [of IM-Rec facilities] through student fees.”[3] However, as petitioners have astutely pointed out to the Court,[4] permission to use the facilities is not everything when it comes to accessing the gym and its various amenities. Access itself is an important factor, and one which the respondents have quietly left out of their “convenient and affordable” package. Yes, that’s right, I’m talking about parking. IM-Rec facilities all have plentiful parking spaces–I certainly have never seen them full. These parking spaces are not, as one might expect, included as part of the gym membership (as they would be at literally[5] any other membership-based gym). Instead, like the rest of respondents’ parking, one must pay to park through the ParkMobile app. For reference, one hour and thirty minutes at North Grounds Rec Center costs $2.60 in parking, if one doesn’t want to get ticketed and is using the gym between 7:30 AM and 5 PM Monday–Friday.

Analysis

Petitioners’ claim is as follows. Respondents have promised that if students pay up, they may use and enjoy the facilities and IM-Rec to their hearts’ content. Respondents claim, on the other hand, that their signage at the parking locations as well as their answer under the “FAQ” section in response to “[h]ow does parking work?”[6] has put petitioners on notice, making them responsible for any fines incurred while trying to exercise the gym-use they were promised mere lines above this statement.

            Today, the Court finds the most apt analogy to be the topic of our previous opinion,[7] the public trust doctrine. When a piece of property is held for the use and enjoyment of the public, additional property which is actually necessary to achieve that use and enjoyment is also considered to be held in the public trust.[8]

            In this instance, the application of this doctrine is clear. Access to the gym is necessary for students to make use of the memberships, memberships which they have paid for in the form of tuition. And while formally these students do have access to the gym through their memberships, this court is no stranger to looking through the form of an arrangement to its substance. At a rate of $2.60 for each hour and a half session at North Grounds, if a student wanted to go three times a week during the paid hours (as I intend to) they would have to pay roughly $31.20 a month in parking alone. This turns the “convenient and affordable” gym membership included in tuition fees into three times the cost of a membership at Planet Fitness, which only charges $10 a month. And guess what–Planet Fitness’s membership includes parking.

Conclusion

The Court sides with petitioners. Respondents are enjoined from all future enforcement of their metered parking. Further, respondents must refund, with interest, all parking tickets previously levied. The case is remanded to the District Court of Petty Affairs for determination of respondents’ duties consistent with this opinion. Further, the Court awards petitioners with attorney’s fees, because the Court has that power and thinks that respondents should understand what unnecessary fines feel like as well.

Querner, J., concurring

For many Law students, going to the gym is difficult enough on its own. Finding the motivation, time, and energy to get to the gym, then putting oneself through a grueling workout, can take a heroic level of effort. Imagine, then, an exhausted student, post-gym, who wants nothing more than a warm meal and a shower, coming to find that she owes a $60.00 parking ticket to IM-Rec facilities.

One might ask, why should she not pay the $2.60 parking fee for her hour-long workout? At the outset, that seems to help the student avoid owing $57.40. However, drawing the math from Justice Peterson, if the student attended the gym three weekdays per week, she would still owe $31.20 per month in parking fees! Going to the gym, while often exhausting and difficult to fit into a busy student schedule, is a time where students can decompress, de-stress, and build healthy, sustainable habits.

However, considering that many students are not within a close enough vicinity to NGRC or AFC to walk up, the costs of parking are a barrier to these students accessing the multitude of benefits of going to the gym. And, the parking fees are a barrier to all students on days when inclement weather makes it challenging to walk up to the gym. Therefore, to further the purpose of the IM-Rec gyms—which is to provide the physical and mental health benefits of gym-going equally to all students—I concur with the majority that Respondents are enjoined from all future enforcement of their metered parking.

Also, I agree that IM-Rec must refund, with interest, all parking tickets previously levied upon students (I concur with this holding mostly because of the ticket this Justice received at AFC last spring). For these reasons I concur.

Tonseth, C.J. concurs.

It is with the gusto of being refreshed after a two month hiatus from North Grounds that I eagerly join the opinion of this esteemed Court. However, I must urge the Court to go further in their ruling. If I knew how joinder worked, I’d explain how I believe that this decision should equally apply to the Law School itself. As I never really learned Civ Pro,[9] let’s just act like I can add the Law School as a party to this suit and move on with our days.

            How does this case apply to the Law School, you may ask? Hasn’t this Court and the Law Weekly already complained about the excessive parking fees charged, with the asinine fees imposed for parking during exam periods, when our ~trusted~ PAs told us parking was free?[10] The lessons from these past complaints are easily understandable: 1) Don’t trust your PAs; 2) Don’t trust UVA’s Department of Parking and Transportation to actually care about students; and 3) and 3OH!3 made bangers.[11] Today’s decision failed to expand on our prior decision in NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports 73 UVa. 9, 2020 to the detriment of every student at North Grounds.[12]

            At this point, you’re probably wondering what this over-the-hill 3L is rambling about. Let me do you an educate real quick. Law students are incredibly vain. They post their summer associate positions on LinkedIn in the hopes a partner will see, they post Instagram pictures of their winter vacations to Vail with the “Live, Laugh, Love” caption, and complain that their firm gave them Airpods, for free, with Sidley written on the side because it’s “bad for the brand.” In this same vein, I would apply the Court’s public trust doctrine to the Law School. What is the remedy for this? Not paying back parking fees, or reducing parking costs. No, something more valuable to the vanity of a law student. I’m talking about a gym in the middle of Spies Garden.

            You’re probably thinking, this is crazy. But, what’s a better way to improve student health and reduce any potential parking fees? Make a more accessible gym, where students can either show off their new Lulu leggings on the stair stepper, or simply go shirtless and do crunches hoping that cute 1L notices them. Incredibly vain? You bet. Cost effective? Check. Improves mental and physical health? Win-win.

---

jtp4bw@virginia.edu
kmq8vf@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] In no small part due to the $45 ticket that Justice Peterson currently has yet to pay, which has resulted in another $35 of late fees.

[2] UVA IM-Rec Membership, https://recsports.virginia.edu/membership (last visited Jan. 23, 2022, 11:32 PM) (emphasis added).

[3] Id. It is of further note that full-time employees receive only a $50 subsidy on year-long memberships, leaving them with an annual $340 fee, or roughly $28.33 per month

[4] And made very clear by Justice Peterson’s ticket, which is next to him as he authors this opinion.

[5] I believe this may actually be a case where I am using literally correctly, and not just hyperbolically.

[6] UVA IM-Rec Membership, https://recsports.virginia.edu/membership (last visited Jan. 23, 2022, 11:32 PM) .

[7] See UVA Student Body v. Ivy Gardens Pool, et al., 74 U.Va 12 (2021).

[8] See generally Matthew v. Bay Head Improvement Association 95 N.J. 306 (holding that the public must be given access to privately-owned dry sand to access waters held in the public trust).

[9] S/O Professor Harrison.

[10] “Parking and the Student-Centered Law School,” Michael Berdan. https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2021/4/14/parking-and-the-student-centered-law-school

[11] IYKYK.

[12] Let the kids play.

Hot Bench: Reidar Compasano '23

---

Hey Reidar, thanks so much for taking the time to talk to us! This back-to-school Hot Bench special is all about winter break.

Where did you go over break?

I was back in Washington over break. I stayed at my mom’s place, which is in a community called Normanna Park, deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

Mind telling us about one or two adventures you got up to out there?

There was a ton of snow, so I spent lots of time around the house. My favorite adventure was cleaning my mom’s basement. I have this irrational fear that someone else is going to clear things out down there, and I wanted a first look at a lifetime of stored memories. Outside of working around the house, I spent my time catching up with family and friends and lounging in front of the fire. 

Word on the street is you got a 3D printer for Christmas. How did you manage to fly it home, and what’s your favorite thing you’ve managed to print so far? Any future projects you’re looking forward to?

I did get a 3D printer for Christmas. Shout out to my grandma for picking my name in the gift exchange two years in a row. I managed to get it back to Charlottesville in a tote, which I checked at the airport. My favorite thing that I printed so far is this weird tool that allows tables to adjust to a certain angle. I couldn’t figure out its name to look up a model, so I ended up designing one in CAD. So far, it’s only semi-functional, so I’ll likely be entertained by that for a while.

I heard you signed up for a J-Term. Which one are you doing? What made you choose it, besides having fewer credits to take as a 3L?

I signed up for Corporate Law of HBO’s Succession with Hwang and Lyons. With the hype of Season 3 fresh on my mind, it just felt right to try and snag one of the two spots available for 2Ls once the add/drop opened. After considerable time on the waitlist, I was thrilled to see an email from Mr. Dugas saying that I got in.

How was the switch to virtual? Would you have made different winter break plans if you knew earlier the course would be online?

The switch to virtual was disappointing but understandable. The course being online wouldn’t have affected my travel plans. With bad internet at my mom’s and no quiet place to attend class, another week in Washington just wouldn’t have been practical.

How has the Charlottesville weather compared to out west?

The weather in both places hasn’t been great. The main difference is that I walk a lot of places in Charlottesville, so I’m exposed to the elements more often.

Anything you’re looking forward to this semester?

I’m looking forward to my classes. Last semester was my first exposure to “this is what you’ll be thinking about on a daily basis,” which makes the abundance of reading a whole lot easier. 

Lightning round questions 

Favorite food?  

Pizza.

Favorite place in Charlottesville?

Wool Factory.

Anti-Stress Hobby?

Woodworking.

Favorite word?

Complicated.

If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

Near a warm beach or lake.

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

Walking Tall.

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?

Index funds, student loans, chef.

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

“Liar” by Taking Back Sunday.

What is your least favorite sound?

Glass breaking.

What’s your spirit animal? 

Tiger.

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

Oman.

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

One minute of self-affirmation per day.

---

rac5jx@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: UVA Student Body v. Ivy Gardens Pool

---

UVA Student Body v. Ivy Gardens Pool, et al.
74 U.Va 12 (2021)

Lake, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner comes to us today with a complaint rooted in the common law, which is our favorite sort of complaint. They’re already off to a great start. We granted review of this case to resolve whether the District Court of Petty Affairs was correct in dismissing the petitioner’s complaint for failing to state a claim. Upon review of the limited record, and relying, as we always do, on sound precedent,[1] we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Background

Based on the limited discovery that has taken place, it was determined that Ivy Gardens, The Pavilion, and other joined parties closed their apartment pools on or around September 27 of this year. Petitioner relies on the public trust doctrine to argue the pool closures were improper, and requests an injunction that would have them immediately reopened. Respondent was uncooperative with legal proceedings, but did make comments alleging that petitioner is a “troublemaker,” “nobody wants to go swimming when it's thirty degrees out anyway,” and “if your silly law newspaper keeps suing us, we will be contacting a real lawyer to serve you a cease and desist.” Given these facts, a closer look at petitioner’s argument is clearly warranted.

Whose Water is it Anyway?

The public trust doctrine holds that some submerged lands are held in trust by the state for the enjoyment of its citizens. Affected land can’t be sold or leased to private parties except in very limited circumstances, like improvement to the land for the benefit of the public. A pool is certainly an example of a submerged land, and closing a pool for half the year would not seem to be in-line with citizen enjoyment. Petitioner has presented strong evidence that pools are way more fun when they are accessible and people can swim in them, as opposed to sitting sadly on the deck throwing rocks at the vinyl cover. Respondent has pointed out that North Grounds Recreation Center (NGRC) is open year-round for indoor swimming, and the lower court found this alternative to be a suitable substitute for loss of apartment swimming facilities. We find the court erred in their judgement. Swimming at NGRC brings with it substantial risks not present in apartment pool swimming, including the chance of running into a professor during a midday workout.[2] The strength of petitioner’s claim is situated squarely in their application of public trust doctrine.

         The public trust doctrine consists of wishy-washy water law handed down from ye olde Byzantine days.[3] As American philosopher Kanye West once asked, what’s the basis?[4] Is this doctrine based on an inherent right of citizenship, or is it rooted in the Ninth Amendment? Like so many other aspects of the law held together by Lepage-brand tape[5] and judicial clerk tears, it’s better not to worry about it. As far as this Court is concerned, the declaration of independence may well have said “we hold these truths to be self-evident, yadayadayada, life, liberty, and the pursuit of navigable waters.”[6]

         With the doctrine’s authority established, we turn to its application in the instant case. Our beloved sister Court has long held the State’s own submerged lands in trust for the enjoyment of their citizens.[7] While the cowardly dissenter in this case may point out Ivy Gardens is a privately owned development and not a state agency, we argue that the University of Virginia’s purchase of the land in 2016 transformed Ivy Gardens into something “public entity adjacent.” That’s good enough for us. Our focus is instead on what submerged lands this doctrine covers. The English common law requires a body of water to be subject to the ebb and flow of the tide to be part of the public trust. The United States, on the other hand, has actual water like the Great Lakes and Mississippi River to deal with so we don’t have such a dumb requirement.[8] We follow a simple, all-American standard: if a submerged land was susceptible to navigation at the time of statehood, it belongs to the State as part of the public trust and must therefore be protected from private influence for the benefit of the public.

         Was Ivy Garden pool susceptible to navigation at the time of Virginia’s statehood on June 25, 1788? The record is shockingly silent. For this reason we must remand for full trial and discovery.

Justice Pazhwak, dissenting

There are many who have suggested that the law ought to conform to common sense. If that were true, I might be out of a job, so this Court will dismiss that notion out of hand. That being said, there are times when even this Court must attempt to inject some kind of common sense into its opinions, so here it goes. The temperature of outdoor pool water objectively gets far colder during the off-season months when they are traditionally closed, and while I have no doubt there are some who would enjoy dunking themselves in freezing cold water and give some apparently scientific reason for why it is good for the body and mind, most people do not have such a drive to take the plunge, or perhaps even the right level of preparation to survive it.[9] It is mystifying that Justice Lake, who has spent time in Alaska, and understands that swimming in extremely cold water, is, well, really cold, could find the petitioner’s argument for enjoyability persuasive. Moreover, the residents of North Grounds (excluding Darden students) have enough challenges on their plate without the temptation to conquer the cold water plunge in their neverending need to live a life of achievement. Thus, those who would enjoy the outdoor pools being open year-round are undoubtedly limited, at least from a swimming perspective, and this Court should not have found that the threshold for citizen enjoyment had been met as a condition for invoking the public trust doctrine. Yes, it could be argued that there are other ways for a pool to be enjoyable besides swimming, and some might cite the fact that Chief Justice Tonseth enjoys hanging out by them as often as he can. However, I believe the onset of cold weather dissuades even individuals like Chief Justice T[10] from such behavior, especially if he is wearing shorts that provide less than adequate heat retention.[11]

         Even if we were to take the petitioner’s argument for enjoyment seriously, Justice Lake’s holding involves an extraordinary application of the common law public trust doctrine as a basis for remanding this case to the lower court to determine whether the Ivy Garden pool was susceptible to navigation in 1788. To get to that conclusion she stretches the doctrine to its utter extreme, disregarding or dismissing its contours to apply it to swimming pools. I think Kayne West was in there somewhere? Justice Lake is clearly myopically interpreting the common law to attain a certain legal result in the instant case, and while other judges have used this approach to arrive at much lauded opinions that get put into casebooks for future law students to read and scratch their heads over, in this case I believe she goes too far and would set a dangerous precedent on this usually consistent, rational, and objective Court.

         Finally, Justice Lake writes that the “cowardly dissenter in this case may point out Ivy Gardens is a privately owned development and not a state agency.” I thought it important to break down my dissent to this portion of her opinion into two parts. Firstly, I assume that I am the so-called “cowardly dissenter” to whom she is referring. After having a clerk research the test for this designation, I cannot deny her finding that I am indeed a dissenter by virtue of writing a dissent. However, after examining the test for a designation “cowardly,” I found no legally cognizable doctrine under which I could be placed under this definition, unless Justice Lake actually meant cowardly to mean courageous.[12] An alternate theory is that the inclusion of “cowardly” was an attempt at ad hominem[13] to deter me from addressing this part of her opinion, or to prejudice others against my dissent. If so, this was a nice try by Justice Lake. However, after I spent some time repeating an age-old adage to myself regarding sticks and stones, I decided that a Justice of the Court of Petty Appeals has a duty to apply the law based on sound precedent no matter the attacks levelled against them, even by their respected peers. So, under multiple theories this “cowardly dissenter” designation clearly holds no material weight beyond recognition that I am a dissenter. Instead, to address the second part of Justice Lake’s statement regarding the appropriate designation of Ivy Gardens, I will channel the tenacity of a Justice Clarence Thomas dissent and firmly object to attempts to erode property rights by this Court and all courts! Assuming that the public trust doctrine is appropriately applied, Justice Lake’s assertion that Ivy Garden has become “public entity adjacent” by virtue of UVA’s purchase, and therefore subject to a taking by the public for the purpose of year-round operation, is what I would call a “communist takeover adjacent” legal innovation. While creating such a property designation and using it for a taking might fly in the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, or Cuba, sadly for Justice Lake, this is America! I thus respectfully dissent.

---

[1] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019) (“We do what we want.”).

[2] The risk of irreparable psychic damage is too high for us to agree to such a substitution.

[3] See L. Szeptycki, WB302E if you need more details.

[4] Kanye West, Jesus Walks, The College Dropout (2004)

[5] This court holds antitrust litigation close to its heart.

[6] Probably included in secret lemon juice code on the back.

[7] Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842)

[8] Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892)

[9] https://theconversation.com/diving-into-cold-water-can-be-deadly-heres-how-to-survive-it-119341

[10] EIC

[11] See Knee Length or Just Above the Knee Length Shorts v. Short Shorts, Law Weekly (Sept. 29, 2021).

[12] See Courage the Cowardly Dog v. Cartoon Network, 21 U.Va 64 (2009). (describing how a dog labelled as cowardly was actually courageous).

[13] No opinion is complete without some Latin

Seven Wonders of the Law School: Clark Hall

---

Monica Sandu ‘24
Staff Editor

At the intersection of Brown and Hunton Andrews Kurth Halls lies a hidden gem of the law school. The Clark Hall Murals aren’t hard to miss, but they can be criminally easy to overlook. 

Though currently the home of UVA’s Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall was originally constructed in 1932 to house the Law School.[1] The murals we see today are reproductions of the 1934 originals created for Clark Hall by famed American muralist Allyn Cox.[2] Clark Hall is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and its Memorial Library—home of the original murals—is “one of the Commonwealth’s most significant 20th-century architectural interiors.”

As described by the NRHP: “[T]he three large panels in color depict a passage from the 18th book of the Iliad. . .The primitive trial over the blood-price of a slain man. . .Opposite, on the east wall [in three panels], is Moses delivering the Tablets of the Law to the Children of Israel.” In short, the murals represent scenes in the development of civil and moral law, respectively. 

I see these murals as the descendants of Baroque art, and in particular, French Academy history painting. The Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture[3] held near-complete control over artistic production in the pre-Revolutionary regime. History paintings, the most prestigious genre, were massive works often containing dozens of figures arranged across a flat and highly organized visual plane, depicting scenes from either religion or antiquity. Foremost among these académiciens was Nicolas Poussin, who founded the school of French classicism, with strong figure drawing, use of distinct primary colors, and highly-ordered horizontal organization of figures across a canvas in relation to a central action.

The Poussiniste influence is reflected by the central positioning of both Moses and Achilles in the Clark Hall Murals, as well as the subject matter itself. Furthermore, the figures’ nudity—doubtless among the first things many people notice—arises from this same tradition. The focus on the solidity of the underdrawings emphasized the physical expression of emotion via the human body itself.[4] Furthermore, history paintings, like the murals we see, almost always depict a snapshot in time, where the audience are onlookers into a moment interrupted, yet with subjects unbothered by our presence.

Overall, the Clark Hall Murals, both in their original form and in the homage that we find within the Law School today, are definitely worth checking out. Spend some time tracing the behavior of the characters, make order out of the cacophony of bodies and color, and appreciate a small slice of UVA’s long artistic—and legal—tradition. 

---

ms7mn@virginia.edu

---

[1] Where the Law School would remain until 1974, when it moved to North Grounds.

[2] There’s a short biography of Allyn Cox next to the murals themselves; I’d suggest checking it out if you’re interested.

[3] Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture.

[4] As opposed to facial expressions and softer colors found in the work of artists like Peter Paul Rubens and the later Baroque and Rococo movements.

Hot Bench: Eveling Clark

---

Eveling Clark

Interviewed by Phil Tonseth ‘22

Hi Eveling, welcome to the Hot Bench! I know students see you around the school and bookstore a lot, but I’m excited for them to get to know you more.

First off, where are you from? 

I was born in Mexico City, Mexico, but my dad was in the U.S. Army and Navy, and we traveled and moved around a lot.  By the fifth grade, I was already in my eighth different school, and I had been to 47 of 50 states.  We eventually moved to southern Indiana, where my dad was from, and my dad built his dream underground house on my great grandparents land.

You worked at Harvard before coming to UVA. Can you tell me about that experience, and why you decided to make the move back here?

I was a buyer for the museum bookstore, and it was an amazing experience.  I met a lot of famous people, and would go to the different museums on campus on my lunch break. I left Harvard after my dad died, as I wanted to be closer to my mom.

UVA gives its employees the ability to take paid days off to volunteer. Why do you take advantage of these and how do you use those days? 

My mom and dad were Park Rangers at Shenandoah National Park (SNP) for 20 plus years.  I have always volunteered at SNP, even before I came to UVA. It was instilled in me to always give back. I have seen so many budget cuts over the years, and saw the effects on my parents being given a heavier workload.  I would go to work with them on my vacation and saw the effects firsthand.

We’ve chatted a lot about golf in our interactions. What’s your favorite thing about the sport, and what other hobbies do you have outside of work?

My husband plays, and I am just a beginner.  I have not even been on a golf course yet, but I enjoy watching it and going to the driving range and hitting the ball as hard as I can.  I also enjoy hiking, museums, plays, opera, symphony music, and historical sites.

In seeing classes shuffle through UVA Law frequently, you’ve seen your fair share of things. What would be your best piece of advice to give to students?

Trust your gut, as you know more than you know.  Listen and ask questions when needed, and help when someone is needing help.

Let’s do a lightning round! 

Favorite food? 

Pizza—as every Saturday was family game night, and we had pizza. 

Favorite place in Charlottesville? 

Mr. Jefferson’s home, Monticello

Peanut butter, jelly, or both? 

Both

Biggest Pet peeve? 

Rude people

If you could live anywhere, where would it be? 

La Jolla, California.

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it? 

I would pay off my bills, quit working, get a new car, and build my dream house with a heated multi-car garage with a drain so I can wash the car. I would also build a house for my brother and his family next door, and donate money to help cats and dogs find homes.

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

Conviction of The Heart by Kenny Loggins

What is your least favorite sound? 

Bus brakes screeching as they stop outside my place all the time.

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

Covadonga, Spain.  My ancestor was the first Christian king of Spain in 717-737 A.D., Don Pelayo. He helped defeat the Moors, and built a church at the site of the Battle of Covadonga.  He is buried close to the church in the mountains where the terrain helped him win the battle.

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

Everyone should be nice to others, as people are going through a lot that others don’t know about.

Court of Petty Appeals: The Bois v. Cuffing Szn

---

The Bois v. Cuffing Szn
74 U.Va 11 (2021)

Tonseth, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Background

            Let me set the scene. It’s Friday night and you’re out with the bois (or girlz) at Bar Review. You’re feeling your outfit, your hair is perfectly coiffed, and you smell good. Your chakras are aligned. You introduce yourself to the cutie at Bilt, strike up a conversation, and enjoy the night. Fast forward to the next day. Fresh off of a hangover, you grab lunch with your crew, chat about your evening, and plan out your debauchery for the ensuing day. This is a rinse and repeat for the next few weeks, beginning in August until this week. Then, enter cuffing szn.[1]

Issue

            The complaint today comes from a crew of gents, eager to enjoy their ultimate year of debauchery with their friends before entering the real world, minus one boi. This said boi, eager to repeat the success of his early Bar Review encounters, has become detached from his wolf pack. Knowing that cuffing szn was right around the corner,[2] the detached boi wanted to ensure he could continue his successful escapades into the cold months when midriffs and short shorts[3] would become a mere distant memory. Therefore, he returned to his old haunt and became what his crew called a “simp”. While simp-ing[4] is a generally acceptable lifestyle, Petitioners here assert that they have been irreparably harmed by cuffing szn forcing their now detached friend to only spend time with his newfound love interest, to the detriment of their debauchery.

Analysis

            As cuffing szn is an ethereal concept, this Court has recognized the respondent in this case as the detached boi, serving as the intermediary and cuffing szn’s representative. However, the detached boi was unable to arrive timely to oral arguments, as his newfound love interest “really needed that Bodos to get through PR.” Strike one. If you’ve ever listened to a friend gush over their new love interest, you know it gets real mushy and normally lacks any coherency on why they actually like the person. Common phrases such as “they’re so funny,” “we always make eye contact across the room,” and “she even saved the last bag of gummies from the Snack Office for me” were all woven into the detached boi’s defense of his recent absence. This added nothing to his case, typical for a law student trying to explain away a bad answer on an exam. Strike two came about when the detached boi asked to admit a late amicus brief to the docket, written by none other than his boo-thang. The copious amount of time they spend together are efforts to “soften his rough edges,” “reduce his dependence on Bud Light and his Juul,” and “help him focus on studying instead of golfing.” This Court rightfully rejected any attempt to have this amicus admitted, but its damage had been done. Alternatively, the detached boi requested a motion to strike the amicus from the record, knowing how poisonous its contents had been. However, as the Court and I don’t really understand the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine yet, and one can’t unhear things, strike two.

            At this point in the opinion, you may be wondering when any actual legal analysis is going to be presented. But here, just as in any opinion written by Justice Breyer, the expectation that there will be any logical analysis in my opinion is “so absurd that it to my knowledge has never been contemplated.”[5] Well, the final strike in this case comes down solely to the detached boi’s being. Ever since Fall Break, the detached boi has resembled Casper.[6] Nary a call, a text, nor a simple wave in the hall. What used to be a blossoming bromance amongst the bois is now a sad time, as detached boi is only seen when wandering the halls, waiting until his love interest is out of class. Three strikes and you’re out cuffing szn.[7]

Conclusion

            The Court urges the detached boi to reconsider his choices. Everyone loves love, but don’t forget your “ride or dies” in the process. We miss ya bud, we’ll be waiting on the first tee for when you decide to come back to the pack.

Stephens, J., dissenting.

The Court of Petty Appeals serves a grand, even essential, purpose in the University of Virginia School of Law, declaring judgments, acting as final arbiter for the people, and ensuring that justice is served. As such, it has one of the most restrictive dockets in the world, deciding around two dozen cases a year. Due to this limited docket space, it is imperative that issues relevant to the larger student body be considered, and not act as a mere intervenor in private disputes. Due to this, I dissent from the majority opinion in this case.

Frankly, I do not understand how the Chief Justice garnered sufficient votes to grant certiorari, much less a majority opinion. Having read the briefs and the opinion, I still do not understand what this case is about. The language of the majority makes less sense than James Joyce’s Odyssey, and reminds me of nothing more than an Alzheimer’s test image. As such, I maintain that it should be dismissed with prejudice and all parties should be found in contempt of court. Additionally, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (c )(3) I would order both parties and their attorneys to show cause that they did not violate Rule 11(b), specifically (b)(2), that their arguments are “warranted by existing law by a nonfrivolous argument.”

Kulkarni, S., concurring.

In a rare event, the Chief Justice and I are in agreement. Cuffing szn is a pox on the houses of all groups of bois and girlz that must be derided when it appears. Disappearing from group events because “I am going over to their house” or “we have a dinner date” or “he’s making me vegan pancakes” should be no excuse to abandon the people who should mean most: your crew. But I write specifically to remind our colleague Associate Justice Stephens that here on the Court of Petty Appeals, we are governed by the most important rule: “We do what we want.”[8] If the Court as a whole wished to discuss this important issue then we will. We are not, as Justice Stephens, asserts, some grand forum. We are, by our very nature, petty.

---

[1] For the uneducated amongst us, I point you to UrbanDictionary: “During the Fall and Winter months people who would normally rather be single or promiscuous find themselves along with the rest of the world desiring to be "Cuffed" or tied down by a serious relationship. The cold weather and prolonged indoor activity causes singles to become lonely and desperate to be cuffed.” https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cuffing%20Season

[2] Not “The Corner.” The only cuffing there is by University Police, if Tim Longo could ever actually provide any identifying information in his crime alerts.

[3] Including his—equal opportunity here.

[4] If you don’t know what this really means, enter UrbanDictionary again: “A man who puts the hoes before the bros.”

[5] Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), Scalia J., concurring.

[6] Yes, this is a direct reference to ghosting. For the last time, UrbanDictionary has my back: “The act of suddenly ceasing all communication with someone the subject is dating, but no longer wishes to date (here, be friends with). This is done in hopes that the ghostee will just ‘get the hint’ and leave the subject alone, as opposed to the subject simply telling them he/she is no longer interested. Ghosting is not specific to a certain gender and is closely related to the subject's maturity and communication skills.”

[7] Obligatory baseball reference, go Braves!

[8] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U.Va 96 (2019).

Counsel's Counsel: Nov. 3, 2021

---

A new column, for the hopelessley confused LawHoo. Join us for answers to the big questions on love, life, and the law.

Question:

I’m a 2L, and my boyfriend (who also is a UVA Law student) broke up with me last week. The short story is that he said he wants to stay friends but that he has severe trust issues that stop us from getting more serious. I am confused, and it hurts to not be trusted. Of course, the emotional situation is tough, but I’m really concerned about school. We sit right next to each other in a class that is completely packed and has a seating chart. Before the breakup, I helped him a lot with this class because he struggles with the material—stuff like giving him case notes and leading study sessions. I felt awkward about sitting next to him, so I skipped the past few classes. Obviously this solution is unsustainable, but I don’t know what to do. Any advice is appreciated!

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Answer:

Thanks for writing in! This sounds like a tough situation, and I’m sorry that you’re experiencing discomfort because of it.

First of all, your ex’s reason behind the breakup is flawed. It isn’t a red flag to be distrustful; it’s a red flag to think that it’s a problem.

Law exists to protect people from each other and from themselves. Law rests on the assumption that people categorically can’t be trusted to be decent on their own. Lawyers are warriors of distrust. For example, transactional lawyers create agreements to cover every conceivable contingency because their clients do not fully trust their business partners. Litigators validate that distrust by finding ways for their clients to avoid upholding their end of the bargain.

The limits of human dishonesty cannot be contained by language. I would caution against criticizing his lack of trust, as it is prudent and fuels our profession. Rather, I would criticize his response to it.

In terms of a solution, you should communicate strength and assert dominance. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu writes “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Luckily, you know yourself and your ex. He broke up with you, so he may think he won the relationship, but you can win the aftermath.

Skipping class was a good first move. Now, he probably realizes how much work you put into writing briefs and helping him study. He probably sees that he relied on you too much. Without you, he is worse off in a tangible way. But you can’t skip class forever.

Once you’re back in class, stay in your seat. It’s okay to feel awkward around an ex with whom you have a close professional proximity, but he can’t know that. One thing that communicates confidence is competition. Here, the solution is quite simple. Manila folders have long served as the tried and true anti-cheating technology in grade schools around the globe. Bring a manila folder to class and set it up between you two to block your notes.

The purpose of this approach is not actually to obscure his view. He has been relying on you for this class, so you know he isn’t a threat. The purpose is to make your absence—which he chose by breaking up with you—register on an emotional level.

The manila folder is a clear symbol that you (1) are over him, (2) will not be his on-demand wellspring of academic success, and (3) are a competitive force to be reckoned with. If you can stand up the folder in a precarious way, that would help. That way, if he accidentally knocks it over, he will feel that he encroached onto your territory.

You can forgive his lack of trust, but never forget how it made you feel. Hold onto that feeling, and let it fuel your studies. Best of luck!

Hot Bench: Rachel Dalton '23

---

Rachel Dalton ‘23

Interviewed by Dana Lake ‘23

Where are you from? 

I was born and raised in Columbus, OH. A Midwestern gal through and through. 

When did you start thinking about law school? Was there a single moment that made up your mind, or was it a long-term thing?

I started thinking about law school during my time teaching. I taught English as a Second Language in Columbus for four years before Law School. I was especially interested in the legal issues my students faced—special education rights, immigration rights, and equity for children of color and low-income students. I interned with an education law attorney in Columbus during one summer and that sealed the deal for me. 

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

I think I would tell myself that Law School is difficult not only because of the intense school work, but because of the identity shift and the imposter syndrome. Then, I would tell myself that everyone I've ever asked ALSO has imposter syndrome, and that it’s going to all be ok. 

What is your favorite organization you’ve been involved with? Any stories you can share?

The First Generation Professionals group. I had a pretty rough transition back into school, moving away from home for the first time ever, and feeling like no one here had a background like me. Learning that other students had lower-middle class backgrounds and non-legal families was a game changer. 

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

I want to use my place in the law to expand equal justice for all. The law is a tool that can exclude or include voices at the table, and I want my career to continue expanding who is included. 

I hear you make some really specific study playlists. What’s your favorite one so far?

OMG, I love my study playlists. I make one for each class based on what I think my professor would like and listen to it as I outline and prep for finals (and during the exam too). I actually still listen to my Foreign Relations playlist. It was a lot of 2000s pop punk bops like Avril Lavigne and The Killers as well as 90s hip-hop. My millennial is showing, I know. 

Lightning round questions!

Favorite food? 

Anything spicy. Flamin’ Hot Cheetos are a current fave. 

Favorite place in Charlottesville? 

Woolen Mills. I love the Wool Factory, the walking trails, and the hybrid coffee/wine shop. I've already planned my end of semester celebration date for the new restaurant Broadcloth, so I'll report back in December with how that goes. 

Anti-Stress Hobby? 

Yoga: the hotter, the better. Also stress baking.  

Favorite word? 

Certiorari. No one can spell it or pronounce it and I just love that. 

If you could live anywhere, where would it be? 

Boracay Island in the Philippines. The best mangoes and the most beautiful beaches I’ve ever seen! 

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

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I watch the extended editions every winter with my brother, and yes, The Two Towers is the best one. 

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it? 

Pay off my Law School loans, buy a house with a yard for my pup, Jax, and buy a wine fridge. I’d also buy lifetime supplies of my favorite curly hair products; that stuff is expensive. And take Weekend Thursdays on a bar trip. 

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

The Jeopardy theme song. Jeopardy slaps, I watch it most nights with the hubs, and I feel like it’s just a classic. 

What is your least favorite sound?

Any kind of rattling when I’m driving. 

What’s your spirit animal? 

Well, my Patronus is a dolphin. So maybe that? 

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

Literally all of South America. Patagonia and Buenos Aires specifically. 

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

You can ask a maximum of two (2) questions per class session and an absolute ban on personal hypotheticals.