Counsel's Counsel: April 5, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly April 5, 2022

Subject: “Should I Drop Out?”

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 2L. I am genuinely unhappy in law school, and I am on the fence about dropping out.

Since coming here, it feels like so much of my brain has become so full of legal nonsense that all of the interesting and funny parts are gone. Don’t get me wrong, I can make a passable Palsgraf joke, but it almost feels dirty when I do it.

I feel like the professional and social incentive structure of law school has made me extremely risk-averse. I have lost my adventurous, daring edge, which used to be a staple of my identity.

I don’t feel like I belong here. It used to feel like typical imposter syndrome, but recently it has felt deeper than that. I’m not only a first-generation law student—I’m the first person in my family to get a high school diploma. I know not everyone is a “multi-generation” law student, but I have never felt class differences as deeply as I have here. Bottom line, should I drop out?

Sincerely,

Wah Wah Wahoo

Answer:

I appreciate your vulnerability and candor. I’m sorry to hear that you’re going through a tough time. That being said, as a fellow Wahoo, I am invested in your success, so this response has a bit more tough love in it.

First of all, you are verifiably a badass. Admissions has an infallible system that only allows the coolest of cucumbers to grace the halls of UVA Law with their presence. I’m sure you know this based on your experiences with your colleagues. Cultured scholars and fine specimens, every last one. You, my friend and fellow Wahoo, are one cool cucumber.

And guess what: you’re a first-generation high school graduate, so you are an imposter! You don’t really belong here, but feed into that disconnect. I have found that a mindset of petty revenge justified by abstract ideals can be quite entertaining. In this situation, the abstract ideal would be class struggle, and the petty revenge would be a toxically-competitive mentality.

Look around at the rich kids. Dominate them. Spite their class with your successes. What is impressive for someone with your background is expected for them. Spite their class for the generations of your ancestors who were spited for their class.

Lastly, a lawyer’s most valuable asset is her ability to defer gratification. Some do it until death. That’s my plan, at least. Lawyers are creatures of unwavering commitment, so you can’t just quit now! Powering through this unhappiness will make you a much stronger and more competent lawyer.

As an aside, you would probably be an excellent writer for the Libel Show because you have a bone to pick. Let that be your outlet, but stick to the course.

Court of Petty Appeals: Comedy v. Libel Show

Virginia Law Weekly March 31, 2022

Comedy v. Libel Show
74 U.Va 21 (2022)

TONSETH, C.J. EMERITUS delivers the opinion of the COURT.

Libel. This is both the defendant and the claim.[1] After being forced to sit through a droning, monotonous, and frankly, not funny, show that wasted precious hours that could have been spent at Bar Review, the entity known as “comedy” levied this complaint against the Libel Show. This claim posits that Libel acted with actual malice against public figures–the actors who ~attempted~ to be funny–by ruining both the actors’ and comedy’s reputation through clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiffs claim this action was not mere negligence, but calculated malice with intent to inflict grievous emotional damage on all of those students unfortunate enough to be duped into buying a ticket that was $15 overpriced.[2] The Plaintiffs have beseeched this Court for punitive damages, a permanent injunction against all Libel participants from ever telling a joke again, and to bar the admissions office from considering washed-up theater kids during the admissions process. As the Law Weekly views itself as the prime judge of comedy within UVA Law, it is only appropo that the Court granted cert.

II.

This case’s libel claim is directed specifically at one person, with the actors who participated in Libel as co-conspirators to the initial criminal conduct. The true criminal here is the Head Writer for Libel, who, interestingly enough, had half of the show written about them.[3] The District Court for Petty Appeals found that of the twenty-plus acts performed during the show, only three elicited laughs beyond those students who either helped write the act, the planted actors who were paid to laugh at certain parts of the show, or those who were too intoxicated to realize the bits weren’t actually that funny. This Court holds that the District Court did not abuse their discretion when they found for the plaintiffs, as, while a 10% success rate for 3Ls reading for their second semester classes is something to cheer about, the bar does not equally extend to a 3L writing acts that are supposed to be funny.

In an amicus brief that was as confusing, unoriginal, and whiney as Libel itself, the Head Writer propositioned three defenses. First, that none of the skits, bits, or quips in Libel were false. Two, that those offended are snowflakes, K-JDs who had never been made fun of before in their “highly privileged” lives,[4]and the acts only added to the valuable public discourse of UVA Law. And, lastly, that any attempt to “silence” Libel, which is the longest running organization in the school, would have a deleteriously chilling effect on free speech and comedy. The Court shall address each defense in turn.

III.

Coloring this Court’s opinion, and my own personal judicial Phil-osophy[5] as an ardent originalist to the Law Weekly’s Constitution, this Court defaults to the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure at all turns, “we do what we want.”[6] To answer the defendant’s first defense, i.e. the lack of falsity in Libel, the defendant has a point. The vast majority of the skits were based on real-life events. However, this misconstrues the libel claim before us. The claim is that Libel falsely advertised itself to be a comedy show, and thus committed libel by being unfunny. Moving on. This Court finds sympathy for the second defense proffered. For all of the parties who complained about potential sketches, attempted to cancel certain segments of the show, or threatened to boycott, this Court shames you. If y’all can’t take a joke now, wait until you see your social life as a BigLaw junior associate. Toughen up, buttercup. However, the veracity of this defense doesn’t rise to the clear and convincing standard to show that no malice occurred. True statements hurting people’s feelings, in a comedy show, should be funny, not just honest. Strike two. Only a pithy response is warranted for the final defense. The only chilling that would occur by upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be this majority’s ability to enjoy a cold beer after a hard day’s work. This Court isn’t “canceling” Libel for committing libel, rather just calling a spade a spade, or a snowflake. Be better Libel.

IV.

“What is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said.”[7]Libel failed this aspirational goal through their shoddy production this year. While this Court holds that Libel must go on, those who volunteer for the writer’s room next year are ordered to attend improv classes, joke-creation seminars, and creativity colloquiums in order to present a show with attending next year. The show mustn’t succumb to mediocrity; we aren’t Georgetown here.

Mic. Drop.

BIRCH, J., dissenting.

To hold Justice[8] Tonseth to their opinion would be to remove the Justice, myself, and half of the court’s active members from the bench. Appearing in numerous sketches and writing another portion of the show, Justice Tonseth would be granting a permanent injunction on himself and his colleagues. It could be argued that this is his “last laugh” as he twinkles out of stardom and into the real world, but that would assume Justice Tonseth has ever been humorous.

Libel is not a case of libel. Libel is a case of slander. In what can only be imagined to be the height of humor in 1908, a show in which a bunch of people slander each other was given the name “Libel.”[9] No party who was not a member of the writing room, cast, or crew, had open access to any written libel. If a party did have copies of the show in advance and did not acquire it by being a member of the aforementioned groups, they have only their own illicit actions for their libelous claim.[10]

While the peak of comedy in 1908 remains a staple today, an improper claim cannot be given merit for confusion between libel and slander. While the majority ignores harm for the purpose of comedy, I wish they could teach many of the aggrieved parties the same issue. I might not have learned much in Civil Procedure, but I did learn that the “laity” must be kept in line through strict pleading rules.

KULKARNI, J., dissenting.

Libel was funny. Justice Tonseth is simply trying to milk this show for all it is worth. To him, all I can say is to ride off into retirement (read: the workplace) and leave determining what is funny to those of us who still have some time in the limelight. Personally, I think that Justice Tonseth is simply jealous of Justices Birch and Brown who, among other members of this paper, put a lot of effort into making people laugh. Despite exposing himself to three separate crowds and potentially breaking my back,[11] Justice Tonseth is insistent that Libel amounted to nothing. For shame dear colleague. For shame.

---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu

[1] You could argue that the claim should be slander, but you’d ruin the comedy aspect of this opinion.

[2] For those lucky enough to have avoided Libel, the cost of the drinking ticket was $15. The non-drinking ticket was only $12, but those students deserved to at least make money for attending as they couldn’t drink during the show to try and immediately forget how bad it was.

[3] Nepotism anyone?

[4] At least we have an abundance of silver spoons hanging around to use for the debutante ball later in the semester.

[5] This is a dad joke you should have laughed at.

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

[7] Free speech theorist Alexander Meiklejohn.

[8] You’re not a Chief anything anymore. That’s like Georgetown calling itself an “OG T-14.”

[9] Seriously, think about it. 114 years ago this joke probably made it all the way out to Oklahoma, the Forty-Sixth and newest state.

[10] *cough* NGSL *cough*

[11] This is not a joke. I am still in pain.

Hot Bench: Will McDermott '22

Virginia Law Weekly March 31, 2022

Will, thank you so much for sitting for The Hotbench! Let’s get the basics out of the way: where are you from, and why are you in law school?

Thanks for having me! I’m from Westchester County, New York (the suburbs of NYC). I’m in law school because I always felt like this career is where my skill set was best aligned. I naturally felt a calling to be an advocate for people. Even back in undergrad, whenever any of my friends had an issue with the administration, I was the one to draft their emails and strategize the best approach to achieve their desired relief.

What are your plans for after graduation?

I’ll be starting in the New York office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

You’ve been writing for the Law Weekly since 1L—what made you want to join?

The free Domino’s every Monday was certainly a nice perk. Aside from that, it has always been nice having the inside scoop on all of the drama going on at the law school. The Law Weekly GroupMe is typically pretty tapped into all the happenings around North Grounds.

My favorite article you’ve written is the brief but compelling call to action, A Modest Proposal: 2Ls Must Do Dandelion. Do you have a favorite article or column you’ve submitted?

That was my favorite article as well. During 1L, I wrote an article about a Yankee game that I attended over fall break, which was also fun.

Do you still think the class of 2023 should be forced into doing Dandelion? We’ll be aged 3Ls hobbling around on stage.

Absolutely. It’s hard to wrap my head around how the class of 2023 could be okay with being the only class to not participate in such a glorious tradition. Y’all are certainly going to miss out on bonding with your own class and shared conversations with alumni forever. And it’s not Covid’s fault, a little coordination can get this done before you graduate. But the attitudes of vocal classmates will be influential, and it doesn’t help to hear things like: “I don’t want to do Dandelion because I only do what I want.” – Paige Kennett ’23.

You’re involved with a few different groups here at the Law School. What are they, and what’s your second-favorite organization?

I’ve had the pleasure of serving as the Chief Financial Officer of Rivanna Investments this year. It has been great for bolstering my background for corporate transactional work. But more importantly, that role has provided me opportunities to mentor 1 and 2Ls and become more involved in the community.

What Law School tradition do you think absolutely everyone needs to do at least once before they graduate?

(Aside from Dandelion), everyone should take a professor out for a meal. Covid has restricted our ability to do this, but it is truly an awesome opportunity and can make for great memories. It is always interesting to see professors in a setting more casual than a classroom.

Same question for Charlottesville as a whole. Have you discovered any hidden gems?

The rooftop at the Graduate Hotel is one of the nicest bars in town and many people do not know about it.

If you could go back to little 0L Will and give him one piece of advice what would it be?

There are many opportunities to have fun (aside from bar review and softball) through student organizations and on-grounds activities. While they might involve work, they can be the most rewarding experiences. For instance, this year I participated in the Transactional Law competition and the Libel Show. Both involved work outside of school but I have amazing memories from those experiences.

You were a 1L when the Corona Virus started and everything moved online, and now in your last few weeks things are beginning to return to normal. How do you think that affected your Law School experience?

Covid was a reminder to not take things like basic human contact for granted. In a way, I think it taught our class how to adapt when our entire realities are turned upside down. Similar to my response to the last question, Covid also motivated many of us to find creative ways to make human interactions that were not in person.

Do you have a finals plan or are you fully 3LOL?

At this point, just focusing on transitioning the Rivanna board to the 1 and 2Ls and doing my best to pass on my 3L wisdom.

Did you know there is a Law firm called McDermott, Will and Emery? It makes searching for you online difficult.

Ugh, I know. It was one of the only firms that I never considered, would be way too confusing.

Lighting Round!

Favorite word:

Loophole

Type of weather:

Spring

Favorite food:

Pasta

How do you take your coffee:

With whole milk, maybe a splash of chocolate syrup

Favorite case you’ve studied:

Dodge v. Ford. Henry Ford’s insistence that he “can’t keep prices down” is inspiring. So strong to his convictions, even though it hurt his ability to win the case.

Any professors you want to give a shout out to:

Prof. Jim Donovan. If you’re lucky enough to get into his class, absolutely take it.

Prof. Peter Lyons. It was great learning from a seasoned practitioner.

Any last words:

Some of my best advice, in law school and in life, is to only root your opinions of people in your actual personal interactions with them.

---
Interviewed by Dana Lake ‘23
wjm7ym@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: March 23, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2022

Question:

Hi, I’m a 1L. Everyone makes such a big deal about softball here. But, I came here for the books, not the balls. I’m torn. I want to be social and get some sunlight, plus my crush is a star on our section team, but I’m super unathletic. Is there a way I could make softball fun and get my crush to notice me for something beyond being horrible at hand-eye coordination?

Sincerely,

A Clumsy and Hopeless Romantic

Answer:

Oh, my naive 1L friend. Softball isn’t fun. It’s the alcohol that makes it fun. Drinking isn’t technically allowed on the fields, so you might consider filling a CamelBak with booze.

Just because you are uncoordinated doesn’t mean that all hope is lost. What you lack in athleticism, you can make up in another crucial part of casual softball—talking sh*t. Improving your trash-talk will get your crush’s attention because people like confidence and eloquence. Artfully disparaging your peers showcases a facility of speech.

Loads of classic baseball heckles exist, but the more creative, the better. Here are some oven-ready insults to get you started. Batters: (1) My GPA is higher than your batting average; (2) you couldn’t hit an Election Law textbook with a shovel; (3) maybe it’ll help if you hit the ball with your giant silver spoon. Pitchers: (1) You’re looking like Unlearned Ham-Hands out there; (2) home plate hasn’t moved since before baseball got an antitrust exception, and they still can’t find it; (3) I’ve seen more heat in a traffic court opinion; (4) we’re lighting you up like edits on your first LRW memo; (5) the right to arms is wasted on you. Umpires: (1) With these judgment calls, I hope you stay out of the judiciary; (2) your umping is below the curve; (3) this is intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) for someone who does so many cite checks, you need to get your sight checked. A versatile insult for any baby-faced player is You KJD-looking-a** m*****f*****.

Don’t forget—it’s more important that lawyers skillfully wield words than softball bats. You mentioned that you’re here for the books, so study up on the best insult comics. Draft your best burns and deploy them with reckless abandon. Best of luck swinging for the fences, both linguistically and romantically.

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

Court of Petty Appeals: City of Charlottesville v. Student Affairs

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2022

City of Charlottesville v. Student Affairs
74 U.Va 20 (2022)

LAKE, C.J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.

The issue before us is a mix of Land Use and Antitrust, two issues we love to misinterpret. The mixture of arbitrary common law and wanton infringement of constitutional rights is ripe ground for the Court of Petty Appeals. Here, Plaintiff City of Charlottesville alleges Defendant Student Affairs has improperly infringed on their best gig—the City Market.

I. Argument

Plaintiff has accused Student Affairs of improperly operating a produce stand at the Law School on two (2) separate occasions this semester, with apparent plans to continue through the spring. The City of Charlottesville claims this produce stand is a barefaced attempt by Student Affairs to impede the operation of the city market, a Charlottesville tradition hosted downtown every fall and spring. Plaintiff identifies two routes for the Court to find in their favor: the Charlottesville City Code, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Not In My Law School

The Charlottesville City Market is a large farmers market hosted every fall and spring at 100 Water Street. It brings together local craftspeople, food trucks, and fresh produce into one delightful parking lot.

Plaintiff points to the the Charlottesville City Code for the basis of their land use claim. “The city market shall be operated for the accommodation of any person desiring to make retail sales of farm produce, foodstuffs, art work or handicrafts grown or produced by them, members of their family or farm laborers employed by them upon property owned or leased by the seller.” Code 1990, § 8-2. This language, Plaintiff claims, gives the City domain over all non-grocery store sales of farm stuffs. They argue the “accommodation of any person” means the “accommodation of every person.” On review, Plaintiff acknowledges this claim is not based on any solid legal foundation, but feels strongly it is nonetheless correct.

Plaintiff is clearly empowered by the State of Virginia to establish a city market. Code of Virginia, § 15.1-880. We are less convinced Plaintiff has been delegated this right to the exclusion of all other markets. For one, this Court is a big fan of the market at IX park, which is not run by the City. While its website may be totally incomprehensible, this Court is a fan of anything with IX in the title. (It’s a joke, don’t come at us for the pronunciation.)

Busting the Trust

Charlottesville City Market has been the best game in town for fresh produce since 1973, and now the Law School has begun wading in with a ready supply of captive customers. Discovery has revealed the most recent produce stand signup sold out in about five minutes. Plaintiff alleges the Law School has been running their produce stand with predatory pricing with the intent of monopolizing the farmer’s market market.

Predatory pricing happens when a firm sells its goods below cost in order to drive its competitors out of business. Once it wins a monopoly, the predatory firm is free to jack up the prices unchecked by all but the most dedicated FTC commissioner. Student Affairs has priced their produce at zero (0) dollars. Discovery found its justification for doing so was “God forbid we ever do anything nice for you ingrates.”

The Court finds this reasoning persuasive. For one, while free produce may seem to be the great equalizer, findings show students who are slow typers or infrequent email checkers are routinely excluded from participation. Second, law students and their irresponsible loan taking are the backbone of the city market. The twenty dollar vendor signup fee is nominal—it’s the sweet, sweet six percent daily slot fee at the market that keeps this city running. Student Affairs may not provide enough produce for all, most, or even a good portion of students, but they do make me so mad when my form submission doesn’t go through or the stand starts a half hour early while I’m in class, that I am subsequently less likely to participate in other markets. Perhaps this is part of their monopolization strategy.

II. Conclusion

We find that the more farmer’s markets, the better. Free cookies might heal the soul, but they do nothing to help the population of Law Students in the early stages of scurvy. While pizza may be a vegetable and more than enough to sustain the average Law Weekly editor, this Court can only encourage more fresh produce on grounds.

We also find Student Affairs has yet to find the optimal distribution system. Have they considered, perhaps, a personalized “market share” service that can be ordered online and delivered? Unrelated, we find the use of the term “produce stand” is far too close to “farm stand,” a known trigger for a significant portion of former LRW students (great job getting your brief turned in, 1Ls). If the Law School produce stand is to continue, a more neutral term should be used instead.

To my haters in the dissent: I am taking names, and I do hold grudges.

Tonseth J. Emeritus, dissenting.

I’ve literally never decided a case while serving on this Esteemed Court in the favor of Student Affairs. Unfortunately for my haters, it seems as though today is the day that an old dog learns a new trick. The classic school yard taunt of “Up high, down low, too slow!” should govern here and is a blatant miscarriage of justice by the current Chief Justice to ignore this critical tenant.

For one, the amount of free food in this school is redonkulous. If I could do the math, and cared to, I guarantee aggregating the costs of food I’ve had provided by the school would equal to close to a years worth of tuition. Requiring “fresh food” options just seems like we’re pandering to a vocal minority. There’s plenty of grass already in Spies Garden, stop asking for more greenery.

Two, I’m anti-trusting of the majority’s opinion. They both want the produce stand, but also for students to support outside produce stands. Seems like a double standard to me from someone who wants double proportions.

This is just a bad decision that I pray gets discarded to the annals like the idea that 1Ls deserve rights. For this, I dissent.

Kulkarni J., dissenting.

I write separately to dissent from the court deciding this case on the merits. From what I remember from civil procedure,[1] courts tend to find a way to dismiss cases on procedure when possible. As our name suggests, we only deal with petty issues. Things like property debates and antitrust issues with the City seem too far out of our purview. Chief Justice Lake goes out of her way to connect this to the student body–the reality is that I can’t imagine anything that the average law student cares about less than fresh produce. As she admits, we all know that pizza is our favorite vegetable. Amongst the minority of us that do cook, we tend to find our vegetables rotting in the refrigerator from lack of use. In my personal opinion, the effect on the student body writ large is too small for this court to take up this case in the first place. I respectfully dissent.

Stephens, J., concurring in disposition.

While my esteemed colleagues in the majority opinion speak well and broadly in their analysis of the land use statutes of the City of Charlottesville, some may find the conclusion to be “vague and unconvincing.”[2] I would urge the majority to consider the small potatoes, which can be found to be delicious and tasty, far better than the free pizza which is so graciously provided to the chambers of this esteemed Court.[3] While these potatoes were both excellent and free, land use statutes are nothing at which to sneeze.[4] However, rather than finding that the City of Charlottesville is the governing body, I would urge the majority to reach the same finding on the basis of the Clean Waters Act, under which the Law School Grounds are probably considered a “wetland” of the Rivanna River, and the produce is almost definitely considered “fill” material after it has resided on the students’ shelves until going bad and being thrown into a landfill.[5] Under this standard, the farmers’ market should be ordered to cease operation and pay daily fines until proper certification is acquired from the Army Corp of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.

---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
cs8ws@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu

[1] Which is more than most classes–Professor Bamzai I promise I do pay attention in your classes!

[2] We believe this is either a quote from Justice Scalia or K2-S0, but simply cannot be bothered to find out which is responsible.

[3] Any queries seeking to have any Justices recused due to connections to Domino’s will be redirected to our waste disposal technicians

[4] A separate, though related, inquiry regarding the market’s impact on seasonal allergies has been summarily dismissed.

[5] 33 USCS 1344(a)

Hot Bench: Jonathan Peterson '23

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2022

Jonathan Peterson ‘23. *Photo courtesy of Camille Boler ‘23.*

First things first, what do you like to be called? I hear people call you Jon, Jonathan, and JP.

Honestly, this is one of the hardest questions for me. I actually flubbed this one in an OGI interview. To people who don’t know me well, I usually introduce myself as Jon, but JP is also great. Mostly only family and friends from high school call me Jonathan.

Tell me about yourself. Where are you from?

I’m from here in Charlottesville!

What’s it like being from around the Charlottesville area? What are your favorite and least favorite things about Charlottesville?

I’m lucky enough to love the outdoors, so growing up here was great for me. This dovetails with my favorite thing about Charlottesville; its location is great. If you like hiking, camping, biking, and most other outdoors activities (at least those you would do in the woods), Charlottesville is a wonderful area to grow up in. Least favorite? Probably that there isn’t much to do other than what I just talked about. Especially when you’re not legally allowed to drink. Kind of felt like I was stuck going outside or doing nothing in high school.

What led you to come to law school?

I was considering going for my PhD in philosophy and, full disclosure, I had a professor tell me that “if there was anything else” that could possibly make me happy, I should do that instead. So I came to law school! The brighter side of that story is that I figured that if I wanted to do good things (which, despite my BigLaw future, I still intend on) I might be able to make a larger impact with a law degree and applying my own personal philosophy than just doing philosophy.

What’s your favorite pre-law school job you had? Any formative experiences that you have drawn on during law school?

Ooohh this is a fun one. This is hard to apply to law school, but I was a camp counselor for five- to six-year-olds after my first year of undergrad. I absolutely love kids, and getting to spend five days a week hanging out outside with them was a blast. I also interned at the Public Defender Service in D.C. during undergrad as an investigator in the juvenile division, and that was incredibly formative. I already had pretty strong views on the criminal justice system in our country, but that experience definitely helped to solidify them.

What are your post-law school plans?

This summer I’ll be heading to work for a firm in San Francisco. I’ve been saying this lately, but I think long-long term I could see myself doing something with animals. I don’t know how far down the road that really is, and plans change. But I’ve always had a passion for the outdoors and animals. I also have no idea what that would really look like in practice. Maybe it’s just a dream job sort of situation.

What do you like to do for fun? Any hobbies?

So I recently got a new game, Elden Ring, that has been taking up some of my time. I also absolutely love playing softball here at the law school. I really enjoy surfing and skateboarding, as well as hiking, running, and when I’m not forced to read hundreds of textbook pages a week, reading for pleasure. Oh, and writing for pleasure too–both creative and like, journaling.

What’s your favorite game and why?

I’m gonna treat this as my favorite video game. It’s got to be Dark Souls. The game is pretty widely held to be one of the harder games to get the hang of, but I invested a lot (too much) time into it in high school, so now it’s a breeze for me. Because I know it pretty much from front to back, the game is actually quite relaxing for me now. It can be good to destress by just playing some.

Time for a lightning round. If you could be an expert in anything, what would it be?

Can I say languages generally? I would love it if I could speak a ton of different languages. I would hate to be an expert in one of my hobbies, because half the fun of a hobby for me is seeing progress. Suddenly being an expert would ruin it.

Pet peeve?

When people put the Brita back in the fridge completely empty or with like, only a mouthful of water. Absolutely infuriating.

Favorite Charlottesville Restaurant?

Oh this one’s tough. It’s a toss-up between Roots and Vivace. Roots because, come on. The El Jefe is top tier. Vivace is a wonderful sit-down restaurant though. Or my mom’s house.

What is the best advantage to being really tall? Biggest disadvantage?

Definitely concerts and other crowd events. I can see everything. It’s like being an omniscient being. Biggest disadvantage is hitting your head on things and the fact that airplane discomfort is directly proportional to height. There just isn’t enough leg room and I’m too cheap to shell out the money for exit row seats.

---
Interviewed by Jeffrey Horn '23
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

LL.M. Spotlight: Raneen Farooq

Virginia Law Weekly March 16, 2022

Raneen grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan. She graduated with a LL.B. from King’s College London in 2018 and spent an additional year in London to complete a LL.M. specializing in corporate transactions and negotiation. Prior to starting the LL.M. program at UVA, she worked as a pre-litigation settlement negotiator on the General Motors in-house legal team and passed the July 2021 New York State Bar Exam.

Court of Petty Appeals: Butthurt Barristers v. Dirt-Cheap Deans

Virginia Law Weekly March 16, 2022

Butthurt Barristers v. Dirt-Cheap Deans
74 U.Va 19 (2022)

MORSE, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.

I. Holding

It is a wise parent who knows their own child.[1] The case before us today asks whether the University of Virginia School of Law knows their children (a.k.a., students) at all. Petitioners, the entire student body of the Law School, urge this court to find that the Law School’s failure to provide as much “stuff” as Darden students receive demonstrates that the school either doesn’t care about making law students feel special, or doesn’t know them at all. As petitioners assert, “obviously we want more fancy stuff.” Respondent, the Law School Administration, argues that it is in the business of running one of the leading law schools in the country and its legitimate business interests trump “students’ feelings about whether their toys are as shiny as Darden’s.” Respondent further argues that even if they are at fault, Petitioners seek an inappropriate remedy, and students should just dump their feelings of deep personal inadequacy on an unsuspecting Uber driver like normal people do.

We disagree and affirm the district court’s finding that the Law School is guilty of negligent supervision and intentionally inflicted emotional distress (“IIED”).

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioners filed this suit after becoming aware of significant differences between the resources that Law School students receive compared to Darden students. For evidence, the petitioners point to the fact that Darden students receive free, high-quality coffee every day until noon, get way tastier free snacks,[2] tons of swag,[3] have their own freaking hotel, and generally have “so many fancy banquets and open bars.” The Petitioners argue that the difference in the quantity and quality of free stuff, contrasted with the Law School’s great rankings,[4] amount to negligent supervision and IIED.[5] The Law School contends that while its only actual obligation is to provide a world-class education, it does offer several coffee options at various prices, free snacks most of the time, and cookies on some Fridays.

Petitioners initially brought suit in the District Court of Petty Appeals, which decided for the Petitioners and awarded damages in the form of “snacks, coffee, and other free stuff at least as nice as Darden’s.” The Respondents won a reversal on appeal to the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals, which noted that “this is getting ridiculous” and that the courts were not designed to resolve “petty temper tantrums from over-privileged graduate students.”[6] The students appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari on the question of whether a Law School has an affirmative duty to make its students feel special and whether a disparity in amenities and “swagoo” relative to another graduate school can violate this duty.

III. Discussion

We will address the question in two parts. First, we find that the Law School does have a duty to make its students feel special. The source of this duty is found in long-standing principles of common law. As Justice Holmes articulated, “The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong.” [7] Clearly, the student body, which comprises the largest portion of our community, feels that the Law School should make them feel special. In fact, some of the plaintiff class went so far as to demand a one-on-one relationship of one-sided support and affirmation, including a requirement that each administrator follow them on Instagram and “finally accept my find-my-friends request.” While even this Court is reluctant to extend judicial coverage to anything that the student body decides it wants, we are comforted by a highly non-formalist theory of contract law which supports finding a duty when it aligns with majoritarian preferences.[8]

Next, we turn to whether the alleged disparities between what Darden students receive and what Law School students receive can violate this duty. We may as well ask ourselves whether a three-legged dog swims in a circle.[9] In this case specifically, the relevant instrumentalities of the Law School are fully under the Law School’s control. Whether there are Friday cookies, regular Cheez-Its or amazing Cheez-Its, or a hotel,[10] are all decisions made by the Law School Administration. Their failure to rectify the imbalance in snacks, major construction projects, columns, and Patagonias is more than sufficient to constitute a dereliction of their duty to make students feel special.

At its end, this case turns on an eternal question: what does a child need to do in order to receive parental approval? The student body has argued persuasively that they are willing to do anything to receive this Law School’s approval, including wear Sperrys (or Allbirds), Patagonias, talking loudly about “streamlining” and “right-sizing,” group projects, making a Powerpoint presentation, and playing an obscene amount of golf.[11] It is only right that the Law School should respond in kind and make students feel loved in what science tells us is the most effective way possible: give us more and nicer stuff.

Accordingly, this Court reverses the Circuit Court’s decision and orders the Law School to provide more free stuff, more fancy banquets, more horse racing,[12] and no less than one unnecessarily large hotel directly across the street from the Inn at Darden.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Sc. 2. That’s right, a Shakespeare quote in the VERY FIRST LINE.

[2] This suit was filed prior to the Student Affairs office introducing the new Cheez-its. During oral argument, Petitioners acknowledged that these were “nucking futs” and “worth every dime of tuition.”

[3] There were repeated references to a “Darden Patagonia”. When pressed on the point in oral argument, it was unclear whether Petitioners wanted their own Law School Patagonias, or if they just wanted the Law School to purchase Darden Patagonias and provide them to law students free of charge.

[4] The Petitioners devoted an exhaustive (and truly exhausting) fourteen pages of their brief to an analysis of U.S. News & World Report rankings among law schools and business schools.

[5] Worth noting here is the Law School’s argument that these two counts amount to an illogical conflation of mutually exclusive causes of action, violating the maxim that “even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” The students responded that they feel both stumbled over and/or kicked, depending on the day.

[6] The Circuit Court erred here not because it mischaracterized the nature of this suit, but because it failed to recognize that since our primary source of subject matter jurisdiction is pettiness, we are in fact impelled to hear this case because it is so, so petty.

[7] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law, 1881.

[8] Or at least, what we think majoritarian preferences ought to be. Shout out to Professor Gulati, hopefully this is the correct takeaway from Nanakuli and Vokes!

[9] The answer is yes. Quick thanks to the Texans (or as I call them, Cowboy Cardozos) who have truly enriched and expanded my vocabulary.

[10] This would of course house all the family and friends who TOTALLY want to come visit the over-caffeinated law student in their life.

[11] Former Chief Justice Tonseth is, indeed, missed.

[12] Horses are very fancy. Plus, this is Virginia.

Hot Bench: Lauralei Singsank '24

Virginia Law Weekly March 16, 2022

Hey Lauralei, thanks for taking the time to talk to us! I wanted to interview you for this Hot Bench because you recently became Virginia Law’s first Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”).

Where are you from, and where did you go to undergrad?

I grew up on Maui, Hawaii, and studied music and political science at the University of Oregon. I worked in Portland for a year before moving to Charlottesville.

I went to college in Hawaii, but what was it like growing up in Hawaii?

It was great, and my upbringing is part of why I ran for VP of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Hawaii is the most diverse state in the country, and moving to Eugene, Oregon gave me more appreciation for Hawaii’s diversity. My background has influenced my perspective on what’s important in building a diverse student body or workplace.

Tell me more about Hawaii’s diversity.

There’s a certain comfort being in a place where basically everyone comes from different cultures or has different family dynamics. The comfort of knowing that you have an incredibly diverse group of people allows everyone to get to know others and their cultures better. There are so many ways to interface with the world. If you’re in an environment where (a) diversity isn’t a focus or (b) there’s a power dynamic that discourages people from talking about diversity, then it prevents everyone from growing and learning from everyone else’s past, culture, or family history. Ignoring diversity keeps us siloed away in whatever mentality we grew up in. It gets harder to break out of it the older you get. So, growing up around people who were nothing like myself was so beneficial.

We’ve both lived in Hawaii, and every day you can hear as many as ten languages and interact with people from dozens of cultures. How do you promote diversity at a place like Virginia Law that is less linguistically and racially diverse?

One challenge with how we talk about diversity is that it often gets boiled down to racial diversity only. Racial diversity is crucial, and we should foster that by facilitating more events like cultural celebrations. However, more needs to be done for the students that are already here. We should look at other forms of diversity within the law school, such as economic diversity. Like many others, I’m a first-generation law student.

If you don’t come from money, you can feel out of place here pretty quickly. This is the first time I have been exposed to so many people whose families are all doctors, lawyers, etc. One thing that doesn’t get as much attention as it should is the prohibitive cost of popular events such as Foxfield and Barrister’s. A great way to start creating a support system for all students would be to bridge these economic barriers more efficiently. Basically, our diversity efforts should account for who our student body actually is and amplify all kinds of diverse voices.

In my research, I couldn’t find any other law schools with student Vice Presidents of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. What does it mean to you to be the first VP of DEI at UVA Law (and possibly the first one at a T14 law school)?

It says something about the student body and administration here to institutionalize a position that helps diverse student voices be heard. I would love to see this position become permanent, because longevity is so important. Reliance on one person is dangerous for any organization, because if they leave, then you have to start over from the ground up. So, I’d like to create institutional knowledge and streamline communications between diverse student voices and the administration.

I’ll be working with Dean Jefferson, UVA Law’s chief diversity officer. I’m excited to see what vision he has for the school, since his position will last beyond my time at UVA. I hope to bring together affinity groups to determine what can be done for the next decade, not just the next year.

I also looked for student VPs of DEI at other law schools, and I was shocked that I couldn’t find anything. I’m hoping that we can spearhead some efforts that spread to other schools.

What brought you to law school? Do you plan to practice in Hawaii?

I always knew that I wanted to go to law school. Both of my parents are public servants. My mom was a police officer, and my dad was a social worker.

I’d love to end up back in Hawaii, ideally in the government. I plan to get whatever experience I can on the Mainland before returning to Hawaii. Partially, I want to do my best to prevent Hawaii’s “brain drain” [the phenomenon of young, educated people leaving Hawaii because of its limited economic opportunities], especially on Maui. There are so few Maui-Native attorneys on Maui, and having that kind of local representation in your community is important.

What’s a piece of advice that you would tell your past self before law school?

Keep an open mind, but be honest about your own strengths and weaknesses. We’ve been told our whole lives to keep as many career options open as possible, but there are diminishing returns to keeping doors open. The further I have gotten into law school, the more I have realized that generalizing too much can cause you to lose track of what you’re passionate about. It’s good to get comfortable shutting doors to focus on the ones you care about.

Lightning round questions!

Favorite place in Charlottesville?

Riverside Lunch. It has the best fried pickles and $3.50 cheeseburgers you’ll ever have in your life.

Anti-stress hobby?

Pickleball. I play an inordinately large amount of pickleball. I play every Sunday morning. Charlottesville is actually home to the 16th best women’s player in the world, so there’s a solid scene here.

A place you want to visit?

Japan. I visited in middle school, and I would love to go back. My family’s from the Fukushima area, and they had a farm that was destroyed during the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown. It would be interesting to see how the region is now.

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

One scene from The Devil Wears Prada left an impression. Andy (Anne Hathaway) decides to work in fashion out of desperation for a job, and Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) gives this monologue about how the fashion industry will “get you” even if you think you’re better than it. Miranda says that every item of clothing was at some point influenced by fashion industry experts. Just because you’re not conscious of the effect they had on your life doesn’t mean that it’s not happening. Basically, pretending that it’s cool to be ignorant about fashion benefits nobody and only shows your ignorance to these cultural influences. I feel relatively uneducated about fashion, but it made me think more about why I buy the clothes I do.

Least favorite sound?

The squeaking that comes from wet boots walking on a tile floor.

Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s suppose that you woke up tomorrow on an island with the Virginia Law student body, and everyone else in the world mysteriously disappeared. What role do you think you would play in rebuilding society?

If it’s a tropical island, I would be so good at growing agriculture. I grew up on a flower farm, my dad grew up on a corn farm in Minnesota, and my grandpa is an expert gardener. At the very least, having more flowers would make our island society more beautiful.

I could also be a solid lumberjack. Over quarantine, I learned about Hawaiian kiawe wood, which is valuable because it’s dense and burns for a long time. I chopped down trees, split the wood, and sold it.

---
Interviewed by Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe '23
lks3ea@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: March 16, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly March 16, 2022

Question:

Hi, the 1L job search has been simultaneously exciting and nerve-racking. I feel that I am obsessing over tiny details too much. I put together my documents, but I keep going back and forth and editing them. I want to make a good first impression, but I also want to stand out.

Are dream journaling and lucid dreaming acceptable things to put in the “Interests” section of my resume? They are genuinely two of my main hobbies, but I don’t want it to come across as weird or juvenile. Thanks for your help!

Sincerely,

An Overthinking Dreamer

Answer:

I appreciate you writing in! The 1L job search involves many uncertainties, so it’s great that you’re asking for help. First of all, don’t beat yourself up about overthinking—it is typical and encouraged for attorneys.

Both dream journaling and lucid dreaming are relatively unique hobbies, but a distinction must be made between them. Dream journaling might come across as novel and unpretentious. However, dream journaling could also be perceived as rather pedestrian, an activity of mere description, mindlessly recounting facts in a parrot-like fashion.

Conversely, lucid dreaming is an art that can take weeks to learn and months to master. It is a puzzle that requires dedication to figure out. Moreover, the risk of sleep paralysis while trying to lucid dream demonstrates your ability to execute in high-pressure situations. Overall, lucid dreaming showcases agency and control over your mind, which is an invaluable asset for any legal employer. So, I would remove dream journaling from your resume, but I would keep lucid dreaming.

That being said, be cognizant of how much you can speak about lucid dreaming. Again, while lucid dreaming is a pretty novel interest, you will want to tie in relevant legal skills to your discussion. Consider discussing (a) the type of research you did to teach yourself, (b) the difficulties you overcame while learning to lucid dream, (c) the degree of control you have in dreams, and (d) any practical motivations behind learning lucid dreaming. For (d), perhaps you learned to lucid dream because you wanted more time in the day to study.

All in all, legal employers want hardworking winners who are skilled at learning complicated things. Lucid dreaming signals that ability. Dream journaling may come across as lackluster or uninspired. Best of luck, and I hope you get your dream 1L job!

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

Counsel's Counsel: March 2, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2022

Question:

Hi, I’m 2L, and I have to say, the dating game is rough out here. I’m sure my fellow straight women agree. All men here are either crazy or in relationships. And, it’s such a small school that I feel like I can’t date my guy friends or date guys that my friends have hooked up with. When I finally find someone I connect with and it doesn’t work out, then I can’t escape them because it’s such a small community.

Answer:

I really appreciate you writing in, and I’m sorry you have been having a hard time. This is something I dealt with, so I can relate. You are right, the dating game in law school is rough! So, I recommend giving up.

Law school generally attracts the worst type of men—that is, competitive, cutthroat, image-driven men who are ready to move on to the next thing if it serves their interests. Hence why 3L men like 1L women.

A staggering percentage of men in law school are psychopaths because psychopaths are drawn to positions of power. UVA is one of the best law schools in the country, and its alumni go on to do incredible work. The cost of being surrounded by greatness is that you will probably have to deal with psychopaths.

Law school pedagogy emphasizes cold, objective reasoning, which can promote a lack of empathy. Aside from clinic work, students are typically incentivized to be detached from the humanity of the law.

I should note that this problem with men exists outside of the law school. A high ratio of men at the top of their industries are cold and unfeeling. You will likely interact with attorneys and businesspeople with emotional problems throughout your legal career.

Something should be said here about nuance. Women sometimes criticize men collectively with phrases such as “Men are trash” and “All men suck.” There’s a dangerous permanence to these statements. While it is true that all men suck, that suckiness is contextual. Men are trash at different times and to different people. All I can say is to go out there and try to find a man that either isn’t currently trash or is trash to other people.

Love is a journey, and I hope you find your man! Just don’t do it here. But if you have to date in the law school, try to find a guy who wants to be a professor. Usually they’re kind.

Court of Petty Appeals: Unvaccinated Students v. President James Ryan

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2022

Unvaccinated Students v. President James Ryan
74 U.Va 18 (2022)

PETERSON, J delivers the opinion of the COURT.

Facts

This appeal follows a ruling on the merits from the District Court of Petty Complaints in favor of respondent, President Jim Ryan. At trial, appellants claimed that respondent, in violation of the 14th Amendment, instituted a vaccine mandate unconstitutionally requiring appellants to be vaccinated, depriving them of their liberty without due process. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment[1] from the lower court to enjoin respondent from acting upon that requirement.[2]

On January 28th, 2022, while this case was pending appeal, the Virginia State Attorney General (AG), Jason Miyares, issued an advisory opinion stating that vaccine mandates were unconstitutional.[3] On January 31st, respondent Ryan, relying on this advisory opinion, declared the case moot. See E-mail from James Ryan, Pres. of the Univ. of Va., to Student Body (Jan. 31, 2022, 16:35 EST) (on file with author). He now raises this argument on appeal, claiming this Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the case. Ryan further argues that, if the case is not moot, the State has a compelling interest in the health of its citizenry, so it may nonetheless pursue this goal without violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Appellants predictably raise the arguments they brought before the lower court. Appellants also argue that the case is not mooted by the AG’s advisory opinion. Appellants misunderstand both mootness and due process. However, it has come to the attention of this Court that it was improper for the lower court to reach the merits of this case at all. Appellants, regardless of mootness, lack standing. Nonetheless, this court will analyze the mootness question, because who doesn’t love unnecessary dicta?

Mootness

A case may typically be considered moot when the complainant receives, or is no longer capable of receiving, any of the remedies they originally sought. See generally Defunis v. Odegaard, 418 U.S. 903 (1974) (holding a case moot when complainant, who was seeking admission to law school, was already in his third year by the time the appeal reached the Court); Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (2021) (holding that a claim for nominal damages sufficed to avoid mootness). However, there are two exceptions which may render an otherwise moot case reviewable. The first arises when an alleged violation is capable of repetition yet evades review. This exception occurs if the challenged action is, in its duration, too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration and there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. See generally United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532 (2018).[4]This exception is inapplicable to the present case, as the requirement that one be vaccinated is certainly not too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation.

The second exception to mootness arises when a defendant claims that a case is moot because they no longer can, or will, engage in the challenged action. Such is the situation at hand. Respondent, upon learning of the AG’s advisory opinion, determined that it would no longer require vaccinations. This was both in reliance on the AG’s opinion and because the student body was already highly vaccinated. However, voluntarily choosing to no longer pursue the previously enforced vaccination program does not necessarily moot the case. Respondent is required to meet the “formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012, 2019 n.1 (2017). Jim does not meet this standard.

The school has shown itself to be susceptible to the political whims of the state of Virginia. Just days before, when the previous AG’s advisory opinion, which declared the mandates constitutional, was still in effect, Ryan and the school believed such action to be within the administration’s power. What changed? Was a new law enacted? Was the Constitution amended? Did vaccines become more dangerous? No. A new Governor was appointed. It is reasonable to believe that, were the next Governor to fall on the other side of this constitutional question,[5] the Unvaxxed Students may once again be subject to this requirement. As such, the case cannot be said to be moot. Ryan’s declaration was simply incorrect.

However, it is a truism that plaintiffs must have standing to be heard in court in the first instance. If not, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the case. While neither party has raised, or briefed, the standing issue, it is the duty of the Court to ensure its own jurisdiction at every step of the trial. Accordingly, the Court may raise this issue sua sponte, as it now does. It has become apparent that Unvaxxed Students do not have constitutional standing to try this case.

Standing

To show constitutional standing, plaintiffs must be able to identify a concrete and particularized injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Unvaxxed Students have failed to show that vaccinations pose a “substantial risk” of harm. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158. According to a cursory Google search, “for every one million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.” Ramon Rodriguez, III & Elizabeth M. Muldowney, How Common Are Vaccine Injuries?, Sands Anderson Vaccine Injury Legal Team (Jan. 14, 2019).[6] This seems to suggest that the likelihood of suffering harm from a general vaccination is 0.0001%. Certainly, even accounting for the fact that the vaccines in today’s case are not considered within this sample, such a number cannot rise to the level of a “substantial risk.” If these Unvaxxed Students are truly so scared, it would perhaps be more prudent of them to cut up their driver’s licenses, go vegetarian, and avoid dogs like the plague.[7]

Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs are unable to show a concrete injury due to the probabilistic nature of the harm they claim to have suffered, this Court has no choice but to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

Case dismissed, with prejudice.

Tonseth, C.J. Emeritus, concurring.

“Although I agree that the judgment of the [District Court of Petty Complaints] must be reserved, I do not join the Court’s opinion because I am not sure what it means.”[8] I presume Justice Peterson is relying on the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure in that we do what we want, see Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers 369 U.Va 96 (2019), but you don’t need to whip your dicta around unnecessarily. The Court is a shadow government itself, and thereby we should have dismissed this case through our shadow docket.

---

tp4bw@virginia.edu

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] It is unclear whether Ryan qualifies as a state official for the purposes of this suit. If so, appellants would be required to pursue this suit through the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). However, the Court need not engage in this analysis to dispose of this case.

[2] The record is unclear as to why appellants object to the vaccine. As such, the Court assumes it is a simple, childlike phobia of needles.

[3] While it would be unconstitutional for a federal court to issue a similar advisory opinion, this issue is not raised in the present case.

[4] This exception is often applied in abortion cases because the typical length of a pregnancy is too short to accommodate a court schedule.

[5] One which has shown itself to be surprisingly malleable in the hands of interpreters.

[6] It is fair to note that this source was published prior to the immunization program present in this case. However, I refuse to do more than a cursory search.

[7] The lack of such corroborative action indicates that plaintiffs are simply overly-litigious whiners who likely received participation trophies as children. In short: snowflakes.

[8] Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

Hot Bench: Kathryn Querner '22

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2022

Hi, Kathryn! It’s nice to finally see you on the Hot Bench after three years on Law Weekly. To start off—where are you from, and where are you headed after law school?

I’m from just outside Laguna Beach, in Orange County, California, which is probably my favorite place in the world! I love going home to visit and see my family. After graduation, I’ll be moving to Cincinnati for a clerkship. Then, I’m hoping to head back to the West Coast!

We missed you last semester when you studied abroad! Where did you go, and what’s one thing you learned about yourself while there?

I studied at an international business school in Madrid, Spain in the fall! I had never been to Spain before, so it was a great opportunity to travel all around the country. I was also able to travel to some new countries including Denmark—which totally surpassed my expectations—and Greece. I learned that I’m pretty adaptable because I had to overcome a LOT of COVID-related challenges, including arriving in Belgium and realizing that I could not enter a single establishment—including hotels and hostels—because I was not vaccinated in the EU. Also that business law is not my forte.

Sounds challenging! We’re glad that you made it back safe and sound. What’s something else about you that would surprise people to learn?

Hmm, I feel like I’m not the most surprising person, haha. BUT my family did move to Australia when I was young, and we lived there for a few years growing up, so I learned to speak with an Australian accent. Also, I broke three of my high school’s records in swimming. It's a sport I still really enjoy!

What are the seven wonders of the Law School?

1. Feb Club (I mean, where do I even start? Barrister’s, themed parties, meeting my boyfriend, all the good stuff).

2. The Snack Office (for every time I’ve missed breakfast before class).

3. UVA’s Innocence Project (I just loved contributing to something so meaningful through this org).

4. ScoCo (for giving me every opportunity to hang with people and avoid school work).

5. The Rivanna Trail entrance behind the law school (before it was closed due to Darden construction, ugh).

6. The Law Weekly Office (for the ~mems~ and the free pizza).

7. The Reading Room (idk the little lamps in there just get me so motivated).

Conversely, what’s your biggest law school related pet peeve?

I know every current 3L and 2L is in total agreement on this, but just the fact that COVID took so much from us. I feel like I met friends in my section 1L fall, and then, all of a sudden, it’s two years later, and I haven’t really had the opportunity to branch out socially. And now here we are graduating in less than three months! I feel like we missed out on a lot of new opportunities and friendships throughout our time at law school.

If you didn’t go to law school, what would you have done instead?

I was an English major and actually did some grant research in that field during college. I love studying the intersection between literature and all sorts of other fields, including law, politics, psychology, philosophy, and science, so I think I probably would have pursued a Ph.D. in English. I’ve also always been interested in working on newspapers, so I potentially would have pursued journalism.

Makes sense that you got involved with Law Weekly’s hard-hitting journalism then! What’s your favorite Law Weekly article that you’ve written?

I really enjoyed writing about MLK Day and PILA Day of Service in January, 2020. I thought that the fact that 2020 was the first year UVA ever recognized MLK Day was super meaningful, and I was so honored to cover that news.

Lightning Round!

Favorite pizza topping?

Honestly, cheese. Classic.

Favorite word?

Spontaneity.

Favorite Charlottesville restaurant?

Mariscos El Barco. Best (and biggest) margs ever.

Favorite book?

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. Really anything by Dickens. Big Victorian lit girl.

If you won the lottery and could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go?

Patagonia!

What song do you play when you want to feel angsty and dramatic but in a fun, main-character way?

Taylor Swift, Enchanted.

---

kmq8vf@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Non-KJDs v. Father Time

Virginia Law Weekly February 23, 2022

Non-KJDs v. Father Time
74 U.Va 17 (2022)

Lake, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

As Judge Miller opined in his opinion for the District Court of Petty Appeals, time keeps on slippin,’ slippin,’ slippin’ into the future. This is the principal contention in the case before us today. Non-KJD Law Students have alleged that appellant Father Time oversees an administration which intrudes on appellees’ right to due process. Father Time argues the relentless and excruciating passage of time is not a function of the United States government and is not bound by the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Petty Appeals is not bound by such trivial matters.[1] We must affirm the lower court’s finding in favor of non-KJDs, and order Father Time to immediately cease the flow of time for those students.

The “Get Off My Yard” Doctrine

The alleged systematic and intrusive breach into the daily lives of law students must be addressed, but we take care not to overgeneralize this suit. While older, non-KJD law students have been able to demonstrate a particularized harm from the aging process directly caused by Father Time’s regime, the same cannot be said for the young and supple KJDs who roam the halls of the Law School. We rely on the doctrine of “Get Off My Lawn” to reach this conclusion.

If a class of person suffers the same superficial injuries as another class, but only one of those groups is the subject of frequent jokes and mocking impersonations, the non-targeted class may not piggyback off of the injuries of the targeted class. In the present case, all law students complain of aches and pains, the relative shortness of the productive time available in a twenty-four-hour period, and other such sundry issues. But it is only the non-KJD law student that experiences the negatives of aging while also managing the bullying of their younger peers.

For example, a non-KJD student may be easily relegated to the “mom” position in a group of friends for simply remembering to pack water and sunscreen for an outdoor event, while a KJD student would not be. In another example, while a lively twenty-two-year-old student may be quirky for listening to NPR, an aged 26-year-old student is cruelly labeled as a “boomer.” We need only look to the delightfully named Older Wiser Law Student (OWLS) organization to see that non-KJDs must band together to survive.[2] The lower court was therefore correct in finding that the student body as a whole lacks standing in this case, narrowing the suit to only non-KJDs.

Injuries

Non-KJDs have alleged real and substantial harm as a result of the passage of time. Judge Floyd summarized their argument best in his concurrence, finding “the sun is the same in a relative way but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death.” Father Time has countered that aging is a normal part of living, and that without time passing we would lack the proper perspective to appreciate the good times and get through the bad times. Some circuits have adopted such a view, citing Judge Mac’s influential ruling: “time makes you bolder, even children get older, and I’m getting older too.” We find this argument baseless and therefore dismiss it.

Injuries alleged by non-KJDs are as numerous as they are debilitating. In a recent example, a witness recalled receiving a lovely Valentine’s Day bag from Student Affairs containing chapstick and hand sanitizer. “It was a nice thought,” the witness said, “but I remember, back in undergrad the student center would give out condoms and safe sex advice for Valentines. Now I’m getting a very different type of protection. When did I stop being someone at high risk of getting an STI? I didn’t consent to that change.” In other examples witnesses have identified aching backs from only moderate activity, apocalyptic hangovers after two glasses of wine during a Bachelor catch-up session, and the decreasing desire to get new tattoos. In testimony interrupted by frequent weeping, a formerly pro-tattoo witness stated: “I feel like I’ve made it this far without getting the piece done, I might as well just die without it.” Such heartbreaking indifference is the result of only one cause: the cruel and inexorable passage of time.

Conclusion

We affirm the lower court’s decision and find in favor of non-KJD law students. Father Time is hereby ordered to immediately cease the flow of time, halting the aging process for applicable law students until such time they choose to resume it. We explicitly reject the holding in some circuits that finds aging to be not only necessary, but a positive experience for a law student. It’s not a question, they insist, but a lesson learned in time. This is simply not a view we can endorse. Getting older sucks. Being an older student can definitely give you a healthy perspective on a law school’s social scene, but it can also make the (sometimes very high school) drama difficult to become fully immersed in. Let the non-KJDs have a turn being silly and irresponsible—there’s no coming back once we graduate. Unless you go for an L.L.M. of course.

Tonseth, CJ Emeritus, concurring.

I fully join and support CJ Lake’s masterfully written opinion. I write separately to address personal grievances as petty as this Court allows. First, I turned twenty-nine last week. A lot of people didn’t wish me a happy birthday, which I’m still salty about. If you’re reading this and realizing you also forgot, don’t worry. I have a list of those who forgot and you’ve been removed from being my friend. Second, I turned twenty-nine last week. That means I will be thirty in less than twelve months. I am no closer to being thirty, flirty, and thriving than I am to being able to attend every night of Feb Club and not suffer long-lasting liver damage. Father Time has already taken too much from non-KJDs. We had to sit and be called boomers during the recent Super Bowl halftime show when we could recall every lyric sung by Eminem, Dr. Dre, Mary J. Blige, and 50 Cent.[3] Father Time cannot further steal my dignity.

What is the remedy I seek? To continue having people wish me a happy twenty-first birthday every year. I don’t want to be like Benjamin Button, but having to take Tylenol daily, actually stretch before I exercise, and make sure I eat my fiber and multivitamin every day is a lot. Let the non-KJDs live a little.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu

[1] See 1Ls v. God, 73 U. Va 16 (2021)

[2] As with most things, this court blames the administration for letting the kids run loose.

[3] Although he looked more like a whole dollar, but I also blame Father Time for a slow metabolism.

Hot Bench: Phil Tonseth '22

Virginia Law Weekly February 23, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly 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

Virginia Law Weekly February 16, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly 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

Virginia Law Weekly February 16, 2022

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?

Virginia Law Weekly February 16, 2022

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