Hot Bench: Zoe Kiely '25

Virginia Law Weekly October 5, 2022

Hi Zoe, and welcome to the Hot Bench! Let’s start with everyone’s favorite interview question: Tell me about yourself. Who are you, where are you from, and—most importantly—how do you pronounce your last name?

My name is Zoe Kiely, and I am the sixth and final member of the Kiely (pronounced ky-lee) clan. I mainly grew up in San Bruno, California, whose only claim to fame (or, rather, infamy) is the 2010 explosion of a gas pipeline. The days of my youth were filled—at least the ones where post-explosion ash was not raining down from the sky—with soccer, Girl Scout trips, marching band practice, and the magic of Dungeons and Dragons. After high school, I moved a whopping thirty miles across the bay to attend Berkeley City College for two years, before transferring to UC Berkeley.

You’ve spent your whole life in the Bay Area. Why did you decide on the East Coast, and UVA Law specifically?

After twenty-five years in the Bay Area, I was itching to leave and try out a new place. Since law school is only three years, it felt like a good opportunity to branch out for a bit while keeping the option to return home open. Initially, during the application process, UVA felt like a great option because 1) the weather wasn’t terrible for a poor California girl who has never experienced a “real” winter, and 2) returning to the West Coast after graduation seemed fairly attainable. As I learned more about the school through chatting with alumni and current students, I was charmed. It was clear that people not only enjoyed their experience but were also active participants in the Law School community. To put it simply, people cared, and I loved that. Plenty of schools have great academics, but the UVA community is its own unique blend of honesty, thoughtfulness, and joy that I truly love so much.

Did you have any reservations about moving cross-country, even if just temporarily?

I don’t think any reservations really set in until I got here. I’ve moved a lot in my life (this is my fifteenth move!), so the aspect of physically moving was not new—it was a known, albeit annoying, quantity. When I arrived at the start of August, however, I had a little bit of a freak-out, dealing with humidity and ninety-degree weather all of a sudden. It was kind of a WTF moment for me initially, but that feeling slowly faded when I realized AC is a thing. On the whole, the East Coast is still very new and shiny to me. I love seeing all the brick buildings around Grounds—we don’t really have any in California (because of earthquakes). Honestly, the biggest thing I miss about California is decent Mexican food. The Mexican food here unfortunately does not live up to California standards and is more akin to my dad’s loving, but paltry, “Mexican” cooking.

I tried to warn you about the humidity! Are you conceding that I, in my infinite wisdom, was right?

I am most definitely not conceding anything! My original thesis was that since I enjoyed vacationing in humidity, I was excited to try living in humidity. I completely recognized the difference (I’m usually not rushing to class on vacation). Unfortunately, living—and walking to school—in humidity is not for me. Nevertheless, it is absolutely fabulous to not spend the entire month of September stressing about wildfires.

UVA added a new question about resiliency to their admission application this year. How have you had to be resilient in your life?

I love that they added a resiliency question! Resilience is about what to do in the face of difficulties or failure, and learning how to be resilient and deal with failure is a critically important part of growth. In fact, my college career began with failure—my first college acceptance was rescinded when I failed a high school math class. I didn’t have a particularly stable living situation growing up, and I let my frustrations fester into poor coping mechanisms that impacted my personal and academic success. I carried the burdens of home with shame and in silence, worried that my speaking up would be viewed as an excuse, as if poverty were a failure of my own making.

The rescission gave me a moment of lucidity—the traumas of the past do not excuse continued bad habits. I had to speak up and create an environment for myself where I could succeed, and, while it wasn’t perfect right off the bat (I definitely had more failures along the way), I was able to move forward and not internalize situational pressures or setbacks as a moral failing of my character. Although I can’t say that the rescission was a good thing, it did have a good outcome.

My re-acceptance to Berkeley as a transfer student was a fitting acknowledgement of this perspective change. Now, I don’t love to fail—it’s not exactly a nice feeling—but I’m okay with it and take it in a forward-facing way. Things have gone wrong—now what? What went wrong, and where do we go now? It’s an outlook that has clearly helped me a lot, so (returning back to the original point) I understand why Admissions included it in the application.

What led you to law school, and what do you hope to do with your degree?

I first became interested in law school after taking a privacy class at Berkeley. It was structured like a law class, and I enjoyed the material so much that I decided to focus the rest of my undergraduate career on the intersection of law, technology, and identity. When I graduated, I felt like I’d only seen this focused, narrow area of the law, and I wanted to make sure that the law would be a good fit for me, beyond my interest in privacy. I ended up taking a job as a Legal Practice Assistant at Morgan Lewis, and the experience helped me better see myself working within the legal world. I like the legal profession as a lens to look at particular subjects and examine the relationships between people, both on an institutional and an individual level. That’s what ultimately pushed me to go to law school. While I haven’t fully decided where I’d like my legal career to go, I’m hoping to use my time at UVA to find my niche.

As a Big Law “veteran,” what advice would you give to someone who is considering it?

For any job, remember to keep an open mind and that fit is critical. I worked in private equity during my time as a legal practice assistant, and coming into the job, I was really worried about the practice area. I wasn’t a “finance” person in any way, shape, or form, and I felt some imposter syndrome when starting out. The concerns I had faded pretty quickly because the partners and associates with whom I worked were absolutely fantastic people. They taught me the language of private equity, and I found that I actually enjoyed the practice area and its quirks. In thinking about my career after law school, I’ll focus on finding bosses and colleagues that complement my personality and working styles.

So when you, dear reader, are interviewing with a firm, it’s not just them evaluating you—you also need to be evaluating whether this is a group of people you want to spend time with and whether a specific group’s workflow works for you.

Let’s do a Lighting Round!

Favorite word?

Gobsmacked.

Greatest celebrity encounter?

I unknowingly, but quite loudly, told Danny DeVito to screw off while walking into a bar in London. I didn’t realize until after we’d gotten inside and my sister told me.

Philosophy of life?

If you can’t blow them away with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.

Worst Halloween candy?

Almond Joy or Mounds.

Most embarrassing haircut?

In third grade, I had a habit of trying to color my hair using mascara. Right before picture day, I used my sister’s mascara to color my hair electric blue. Because I didn’t understand how makeup worked (or that makeup remover existed), I thought I’d permanently ruined my hair. Naturally, I decided to cut off the blue parts of my hair. I ended up with about an inch of hair left in front of my face. I tried to hide the damage, but when my mom saw it, she took me to get a proper haircut that left me with a bob and microbangs. It was awful. And yet, I have since experimented with bangs and short haircuts (although not mascara hair painting) multiple times because apparently, I cannot learn my lesson.

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

New Zealand.

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

When you’re walking on the sidewalk, walk on the right-hand side and pass on the left! I do not understand why this is such a hard concept for people to understand.

---
Interviewed by Elizabeth Patten '25
wys2pb@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: 1L Section D v. Virginia Law Weekly

Virginia Law Weekly September 29, 2022

1L Section D
v.
Virginia Law Weekly
75 U.Va 5 (2022)

Kulkarni, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Background

In the September 21 edition of the Law Weekly, one of the esteemed editors of that beloved newspaper published an article critiquing the names that the 1L sections of the Class of 2025 chose for their softball teams.[1] It was a comedic article made in good fun. Softball, after all, is the main pastime of the Law School and is intended to be a relief from the pressures of the classroom. But rather than appreciate the finely crafted jokes as they were presented, a section of 1Ls decided to take the article personally. They were the first 1Ls in my time on this esteemed Court to send in an actual, properly-formatted complaint. 1L Section D decided to spend time that they could have used at softball practice or on readings to formulate a complaint about a humorous article in the Law Weekly. While they attempted to sue only the writer of that piece, their complaint dealt with the institution of the paper itself. Rather than discuss respondeat superior as a concept, we will just move forward assuming that they appropriately named the Law Weekly as their opposing party.

Analysis

That above statement leads to the first point against the plaintiffs here. When this Court discusses real legal issues, it is because we choose to do so voluntarily. When we take on extra work, it is by choice. But this complaint has not led to voluntary work on our part. As recent precedent demonstrates, when a party creates more work for this Court, they should face consequences.[2] Members of this Court had to spend the early parts of this week dealing with motions and actually reading through the complaints, when they could have been 3LOLing instead. That is simply unconscionable. But worse than this, 1L Section D turned to their PA, who aided them in the way counsel would in a real-world case. We did indeed grant a motion for sanctions against that 3L earlier this week and recommend that other authorities investigate this student for betraying his own classmates in favor of 1Ls.

Furthermore, these 1Ls demonstrate their lack of research skills by even making this claim. Simply using evidence of allegedly lackluster past names of the team that the author captained is not enough to impress us. The most basic precedent of our storied court is straightforward and unimpeachable: 1Ls always lose.[3] It is that simple. We are bound by precedent here, and this is no exception. Despite previous 1Ls and 2Ls lamenting this rule, myself included,[4] it stands. These 1Ls have no right to a favorable determination from this Court by the sheer fact that they are 1Ls. In order to gain rights, they must simply suffer through memo submissions, 1L drama, two sets of finals, and journal tryouts.

We could simply dismiss this complaint on these procedural grounds. But we believe that discussing the merits will discourage such complaints in the future. The merits are actually best discussed through the lens of the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: We do what we want. These 1Ls can complain all they want, but the Law Weekly writers write what they want. The Triumvirate approves what they want for publishing. If these 1Ls have an issue with that, they can join the paper. It is just that simple. The writer of the piece in question proposed the idea, got it approved, and wrote well. We are dealing with the case at bar because it was well-written. Additionally, none of the other sections have issued complaints. Only Section D. Not that this decision would be any different if they had. It just goes to show how wrong Section D is that none of their friends supported them. By bringing up the writer’s own team names, these students think they are being clever, but the truth is that no one felt the need to write this rankings article over the last year. And now someone has. Much like in real life, they can’t complain that this type of article didn’t exist in the past. They only played softball while the current Law Weekly regime has existed, so they don’t need additional notice.[5]

Conclusion

Without question, this complaint from the plaintiffs fails. For procedural and substantive issues, they have failed to meet the requirements to gain sympathy and support from us. Moreover, next time, don’t talk in ScoCo within earshot of members of the Law Weekly about the article in question (or assume that a man wrote the article). Insulting members of the Court is an invitation for a verbal smackdown.

Walsh, J., concurring.

1L Section D, make no mistake: You earned your eighth-place spot. Calling my writing hypocritical won’t change that, nor will trying to pander to the supposed credibility of the Law Weekly. Plaintiffs are tragically mistaken if they believe that the esteemed justices of this Court—three of whom (not including me) are on the team that Plaintiffs described as “flavorlessly named”—would turn against one of their own just to side with a bunch of 1Ls. As if that were not insulting enough, Plaintiffs attempt to accomplish their mission by claiming that ruling against me is necessary for the sake of the paper’s credibility and reputation. Do Plaintiffs not remember Justice Peterson’s concurrence from just last week? If not, here’s a reminder: “It is unbecoming of this Court to consider arguments which purport to impose standards upon the Court.”[6] Justice Peterson’s words may have been dicta, but that doesn’t make them any less true. This Court will not stand idly by while 1Ls—ones who haven’t even attended a single Law Weekly meeting—attempt to impose standards of credibility or fairness upon the Court.

I could end my concurrence there, since ordinarily, I would not deign to respond to the allegations of 1Ls. However, they managed to get their 3L PA to represent them—and I don’t like that they called me out personally—so onwards this concurrence shall go. Plaintiffs believe that because I co-captain a team called §A & Pals, I am inherently unqualified to critique the names of other softball teams. What Plaintiffs fail to consider is that that’s just how the law is, baby. Everything is made up, and no one is really all that qualified to be doing what they’re doing, anyways.

Another point that Plaintiffs fail to consider: §A & Pals has co-captains. Not only is this omission outrageously rude to Jack Brown ’23—who deserves recognition as an original captain of the team and a fantastic co-captain—it also causes Plaintiffs to miss the fact that I’m not the person who named the team orwho submitted that name when registering with NGSL each semester. Could we have renamed the team at some point during my tenure as co-captain? Sure. But by the time I became co-captain, we already had “jerseys” (t-shirts) with the name “§A & Pals” on them,[7] and I wasn’t about to cough up more money (or force my team to do the same)[8] just so that we could rename the team. That’s not hypocrisy—that’s being budget friendly.

Plaintiffs also seem to miss the fact that I was ranking 1L section softball team names. When I set forth my ranking methodology, I explicitly stated that it applied to “1L section softball team” names; nowhere did I say anything about the names of any other kind of team. Plaintiffs can’t even criticize my 1L section’s softball team name, since, by their own admission, they don’t know what that team’s name was. At the end of the day, I might be throwing rocks from a public perch, but at least I know what I’m throwing at.

Now that I’m done defending my writing’s honor, I can move on to the true legal basis for my concurrence: Not only do “1Ls lose,”[9] so do gunners.[10] And getting your PA to file a formal complaint and a motion for disqualification on your behalf—rather than just complaining about the rankings in your section group chat (or loudly complaining in ScoCo while I sit less than six feet away)[11]—because you didn’t like how I ranked your team’s name? That has astronomically high levels of gunner energy. You sat down with your Civ Pro (arguably the most gunnery of the 1L subjects) textbook, and you thought to yourself, “Reading thirty pages of this three times a week isn’t enough; I want more”? That’s a level of gunning that should honestly be illegal. However, I do not write today to decide where the line between legal and illegal gunnery is. Instead, I write to say that due to Plaintiffs’ status as both 1Ls and gunners, they, like their section team’s name, “never stood a chance.”[12] The law says that they lose, and so they shall.

Accordingly, I concur.

---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu

[1] Sarah Walsh, Ranking 1L Section Softball Team Names, Va. L. Wkly., Sept. 21, 2022, at 3.

[2] Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly v. Virginia Law Weekly, 75 U.Va. 4 (2022).

[3] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).

[4] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021) (Kulkarni, J., dissenting).

[5] I don’t care if this isn’t how real law works. WE. DO. WHAT. WE. WANT.

[6] Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly v. Virginia Law Weekly, 75 U.Va. 4 (2022) (Peterson, J., concurring).

[7] And the team motto: No thoughts, just dingers.

[8] We have a future public defender on the team, for Christ’s sake—we can’t just be throwing money out left and right.

[9] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).

[10] 2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn v. Everyone Else, 75 U.Va. 2 (2022).

[11] That’s right, I heard you.

[12] Sarah Walsh, Ranking 1L Section Softball Team Names, Va. L. Wkly., Sept. 21, 2022, at 3.

Hot Bench: Brigid Harrington '25

Virginia Law Weekly September 29, 2022

Tell me about yourself! Where are you from, what’s your undergrad, and what brought you to law school?

I’m from Barnegat, New Jersey, and I went to Notre Dame, which was a lot of fun. I was a double major in political science and theater, with a minor in public service. And I have been a professional actor for my whole life. I was in Mary Poppins when it was on Broadway, before it closed. I also recorded the original voice of Koko on the Disney Channel TV show Chuggington, which is an animated show about trains. I also did a lot of work in regional theater in Philadelphia. I had to stop that when I went to Notre Dame, where I explored my interest for political science and public service and decided that that was the path that I wanted to take. But I am not necessarily giving up the things that I learned as an actor. The legal profession very much relies on good communications skills and good persuasion skills. Those are all things that I learned to do as an actor, so I'm just applying those skills to this path now.

Have you found your acting experience helpful in law school? I feel like it would be helpful with cold calls.

I was just going to say that, yeah. As an actor, you’re expected to be able to address large groups of people. Sometimes, I’d be singing in front of audiences of 2,000 people, so I’m not self-conscious about speaking in front of people. That’s made cold calls less frightening. I think memorization has helped, too. If my agent says, “You have an audition tomorrow; here’s the copy, here’s the script,” I sometimes have less than a day to memorize a script. That’s a really quick turnover, so memorization is always a plus.

Do you think you’ll do Libel?

I am thinking about it. If they would have me.

Awesome, hopefully they will! You mentioned that you minored in public service. Did you have time off in between undergrad and law school?

I’m coming straight through, but I did three internships on the Hill on the House side, which was lots of fun. So, I got some professional experience in the real world outside of acting.

Any valuable insights from the work on the Hill?

Well, I was interning on the Hill before COVID, during COVID, and after COVID. So, it was just fascinating to see how the government responded to the Coronavirus pandemic. And, you know, what a time to be on the Hill!

That’s pretty crazy. What’s your overall impression of UVA so far?

Everybody says UVA is collegial; that’s something that the Admissions team really hammers home. I would say that it’s absolutely true to my experience so far. The students are eager to make friends—eager to lend a hand—and that’s something that I can attest to, for sure. But also, Charlottesville is beautiful. I feel fortunate to be in this area. It just started getting chilly, so I’m excited for fall weather here. UVA is just a rigorous community that’s also filled with good people, which is hard to find.

You mentioned that you don’t have any Friday classes—I’m jealous. Do you spend that time studying more, or are you doing fun things with your section?

My section always does something Thursday night and Friday night. I want to give a shout out to Sarah Combs ’25 and Madeline Hall ’25, who organized our first Harry Potter watch party, where we had real butterbeer. That was lots of fun. I recommend the other sections try out a watch party.

Love the shoutout. So, we are both Android users, which is possibly controversial. Do you have any other hot takes?

Hmm . . . I think Coke is better than Pepsi. I don't know if that’s really a hot take, though.

I feel like that’s a very lukewarm take.

Alright, well that’s my hottest take!

Haha, I love that. Do you have a favorite spot you’ve visited in Charlottesville that you’d recommend to people?

I would definitely recommend Carter Mountain. The scenery is beautiful, and there are such cute fall shops that everybody should check out. Apparently, there’s live music as well. Besides Carter Mountain, the Trader Joe’s is quite nice.

Always good advice. Is there anything in or out of class that you’re excited to do while you’re here?

I’m really looking forward to J-term. From what I’ve heard, that’s an exciting time to pursue your interests in a lower-stakes way, so I’m really looking forward to that. I’m also looking forward to pro bono hours. I think that it’s really encouraging that so many people in our class have been eager to try to get those hours in. I think it’s a good service to the community, and I’m excited to be a part of it as well.

Okay, lightning round!

Your favorite 1L class so far?

Crim with Jeffries, without a doubt. Legendary, what a great legal thinker. It’s an honor to get to learn from him.

Favorites snack in Student Affairs?

Welch’s fruit snacks. That’s my go-to. I wish they had Oreos. Or like Chips Ahoy or something.

That would be good. Maybe they’ll read this, and they can get on it. Any spirit week outfits that you’re proud of?

I loved undergrad spirit day because Notre Dame people take Notre Dame very seriously. I actually unintentionally participated in it last week. I didn’t know that it was undergrad spirit day, but I just happened to be wearing a Notre Dame shirt. So, it kind of worked out.

That’s so funny! To avoid controversy among our pro-cat and pro-dog readers, do you have a favorite pet besides a cat or dog?

Oh, hermit crabs. I had a lot of hermit crabs growing up on the Jersey Shore, so we would get hermit crabs for pretty cheap at beach gift shops. They always seemed to get out of the cage, so sometimes my sister and I would just find a hermit crab on the floor.

What’s the best season, and why?

Fall, obviously. I love the fall. I just bought three fall-scented candles. Pro tip: There are three-dollar fall candles at Walmart that are so high quality. You would think they’re Yankee Candle. I recommend Bourbon Pecan Pie.

That sounds so good, I’ll be getting five of them. Last one: Are aliens real?

I’m sure something’s out there . . . I don’t quite know what—maybe they don't look green and have antennas—but I’m sure that something’s out there, somewhere.

---
Interviewed by Andrew Allard ‘25
djh9gj@virginia.edu

Absolutely Brilliant: 2L Makes Joke About Adverse Possession, 1L Strarstruck

Virginia Law Weekly September 21, 2022

Jonathan Peterson ‘23
Co-Executive Editor

If you know the UVA Law community, then you know that we’re a funny and fun-loving bunch of people. Humor abounds in each and every corner of the school, and, even during finals, raucous laughter and the sounds of merriment can be heard echoing down our long halls. Picture a sort of Tolkien-esque elvish festival and, yup, you’ve got it; that’s the Law School.

And, as anybody who is anyone knows, there’s nothing that gets the Law School going like a good joke about the law. Truly, these are the height of comedy. Ask someone whether they’d like more or fewer jokes about the law and they will inevitably answer with, “more, give me more, I need more.” Which is why this recent news is so groundbreaking.

Rumor has it that an unnamed 2L dropped an absolute firecracker of a quip about adverse possession this Thursday, September 8 at Sunset Series. Those who were around to hear it unanimously report not being able to repeat the joke because they “wouldn’t do it justice.” However, inside sources say the joke apparently was loosely related to squatter’s rights and a table on the Carter Mountain lawn area that a group of townies had just left their jackets on. Original, yet relatable.

According to the 1Ls in the vicinity, the girl who cracked the knee-slapper is “so cool” and “probably SCOTUS-bound, if she knows so much about the law.” Others were heard asking if the now-famous genius of a 2L had any Torts outlines for their professor and, more importantly, whether she had a significant other. That’s right folks, you heard it here first: 1Ls think jokes about the law are hot.

So, if you’re looking for a good way to impress that new group of friends, whip out a wisecrack about the law and you’ll be sure to turn some heads. A good gag about intentionally inflicted emotional distress is sure to kill ten times out of ten. And, hey, who knows, it might even work on your friends who have nothing to do with the law. After you finish the ten-minute explanation referencing two Scalia dissents, of course. Whoever said “brevity is the soul of wit” clearly knew nothing of the law.

---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly v. Virginia Law Weekly

Virginia Law Weekly September 21, 2022

Readers of the Virginia Law Weekly
v.
Virginia Law Weekly
75 U.Va 4 (2022)

Walsh, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Background

The case before us today comes by way of a somewhat unique set of circumstances. Plaintiffs in this matter—the numerous readers of the greatly renowned and widely beloved Virginia Law Weekly—did not originally intend on bringing forth this lawsuit. However, they stated in their original complaint that they felt compelled to do so by an article appearing in last week’s issue of the Law Weekly. Specifically, they cited “Yet Another Sunset Series Review,” in which the article’s author declared, “I can be lazy and redo old articles.”[1]The article then asked, “What are you going to do, sue me?”[2] Plaintiffs answered in the affirmative,[3]immediately filing a complaint alleging breach of contract in the District Court of Petty Complaints, with the writer of the article and the Law Weekly named as the individual defendant and the institutional defendant, respectively. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that nothing in the Law Weekly’s history of “journalism” even hinted at the creation of an expectation that the newspaper would provide its readers with new, entertaining, or informative articles. The court reasoned that because no such expectation had been created (and thus no implicit promise made), there was no contract that would have been breached by Defendants’ behavior. The Circuit Court of Petty Problems agreed and upheld the dismissal, and Plaintiffs appealed the decision to this Court. We disagree with the lower courts and instead find in favor of the plaintiffs.

Analysis

Plaintiffs argue that by “redo[ing] old articles,” the defendants breached a contract—implicitly created by the Law Weekly’s publications over its many years of existence—to provide its readers with novel, original journalism. They further argue that in return for this journalism, readers of the newspaper provide the Law Weekly and its writers with the attention and recognition that all law students inherently crave. As a remedy for this breach of contract, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages, contending that what they have lost is not just the ability to read articles based on original ideas, but also their faith in the journalistic process and free press itself.

In addressing these assertions, the Court would first like to remind Plaintiffs that contract remedies are not punitive.[4] Additionally, although the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ provision of attention and recognition confers a great benefit upon the Law Weekly and its staff, we also find that such performance by the readers was not used to induce the newspaper to provide its readers with the novel, original journalism that Plaintiffs claim was promised to them. This fact is indicated by the paper’s historic lack of novel, original journalism. Because performance by the readers was not used to induce performance by the Law Weekly, it is clear that there was no bargaining between the parties, no consideration, and ultimately, no contract.

While this conclusion would ordinarily demand that this Court uphold the lower courts’ dismissals of Plaintiffs’ claim, observers of this Court should know by now that that’s not how this shit works. As stated in the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, here in the Court of Petty Appeals, “[w]e do what we want.”[5] Rather than dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for such a trivial problem as not stating an actual claim, the Court instead finds for Plaintiffs on the basis of a new rule—one which applies to all issues of pettiness, regardless of their merit: Be careful what you wish for.

As it applies to the present case, this new rule simply means that if you’re going to taunt readers of a newspaper into suing you for something that you freely admit to doing in said newspaper, don’t be surprised when there are consequences.[6] For years, the Law Weekly has repeated article ideas, and it has even reprinted full articles and opinions when it has run out of content. Did you see any complaints filed in any of the petty courts when the paper did this? No, of course you didn’t, because no one cared. It’s like committing white collar crime: Plenty of people do it and get away with it, so long as they just don’t brag about it.[7] But nooooo, a Law Weekly writer just had to run her mouth and essentially challenge her readers into bringing this case. In doing so, that defendant created more work for this Court to perform, and that is completely unforgivable. It would go against the very notion of justice for the individual defendant to escape from this case unscathed and without having to answer for her actions.

Conclusion

Contract remedies may not be punitive, but this Court sure is. While the Court concludes that the Virginia Law Weekly is entirely blameless in this matter, the author of the instigating article is not, and she must face consequences. As punishment for flaunting the rules of basic authorial integrity and decency, and for creating more work for the Court—work which required the Court to think about Contracts, a subject that the author of this opinion hadn’t even touched since 1L—the individual defendant is hereby permanently enjoined from writing articles between the hours of 12 a.m. and 7 a.m.[8] and from name-dropping more than two friends per article (including footnotes).[9]

It is so ordered.

Peterson, J., concurring.

I write separately today, as Justice Thomas has done so many times, to underscore one particular point. Fear not: I’m not talking about the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Instead, I write to emphasize that attempts to impose liability rules relating to the quality of the Law Weekly’s work must be smote by the heavy and just hand of this Court. Parties claiming the paper must deliver “novel, original journalism” have no place here. Imposing such rules on the beleaguered, understaffed, and simply unfunny journalists who make up the Law Weekly would threaten crushing liability. Like The Lord of the Rings’ Gollum, and like Copeley Field’s ANG, the Law Weekly has a role to play—a raison d'être.

In sum—I write to chastise Plaintiffs for presenting their argument in the manner they did. It is unbecoming of this Court to consider arguments which purport to impose standards upon the Court. We, the justices, make the rules. And, while Sai deserves all of the sanctions aimed at her today, I refuse to entertain any claim that there is a principled way of making these decisions outside of pure, unfettered, judicial discretion.

Accordingly, I concur.

---
saw8rc@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] Sai Kulkarni, Yet Another Sunset Series Review, Va. L. Wkly., Sept. 14, 2022, at 5.

[2] Id.

[3] Specifically, they answered, “Bet.”

[4] See U.S. Naval Inst. v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 875 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1989). But wouldn’t it be fun if they were?

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

[6] For another application of this rule, see Thomas J. Prohaska, Stabbing victim’s last words to killer: “Stab Me,” Buffalo News (Jan. 11, 2014), https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/stabbing-victim-s-last-words-to-killer-stab-me/article_1ef97eb3-3a2a-57c9-bb4b-9352c5814810.html.

[7] Don’t quote me on that.

[8] See Kulkarni, supra note 1, n.5.

[9] See, e.g., Sai Kulkarni, Staying Well Fed in CVille: Late Night Haunts, Va. L. Wkly., Apr. 6, 2022, at 6; Sai Kulkarni, Managing Mental Health in Spring Semester, Va. L. Wkly., Mar. 16, 2022, at 3; Sai Kulkarni, Florida Man Does Ski Trip, Va. L. Wkly., Jan. 26, 2022, at 1. You get the gist.

Counsel's Counsel: 21 September, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly September 21, 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 Jane! Last week, I told my friend (let’s call him Joker) about a short course that I was interested in. I told Joker there were only two open seats left. I asked him if I should take it, and he said it sounded exciting. The next day, I went to sign up, but the class was full. Turns out, Joker and a mutual friend (let’s call him Batman) took the last two seats!

I don’t fault Batman, because I didn’t tell him about my interest in the class. Besides, when Batman found out what had happened, he dropped the class so that I could take it. I’m confused by Batman because he insisted I take the class, even though he didn’t cause the situation. I felt bad and tried convincing him to stay, explaining that we could get Joker to drop it. Batman said it wasn’t worth it.

I’m irritated with Joker. Why would someone who represented himself as my friend do this? I’m surprised this happened at UVA. This feels like a Columbia story.

What’s more, now I’m in the same working group as Joker. We have to do two class presentations together. I kind of expect an apology from him. I feel like working together will be awkward if he doesn’t. At the same time, I don’t want to ask for an apology. What should I do? - Mildly Miffed

Answer:

Dear Mildly Miffed, wow, that is annoying. While Joker’s move is certifiably uncool, you really set yourself up for that one. You told Joker about an opportunity, and he took it. Your letter reads like a Contracts fact pattern.

It seems you believed claims that UVA Law is comparatively more friendly than other top schools. First of all, praising UVA’s social dynamics is unverifiable puffery. It was unreasonable for you to rely on it. Everybody knows the collegiality thing has its limits. For example, UVA Law’s characteristic “collegiality” is no match for theoretically low-stakes sports competitions.

Second, to the extent that UVA Law actually is friendlier than other schools, law students are still self-interested. In business deals, everyone wants to work together—until it becomes advantageous to screw over your business partners. Professors might call this efficient breach. Here, Joker purported to be your friend until it conflicted with his interests. There was no actual agreement, so Joker technically owes you nothing.

Yet, Joker’s conduct was an intentional affront to your academic enjoyment and, implicitly, your social standing in the Law School. Batman dropped the class rather than convincing Joker to drop it because he views Joker as the alpha, not you. As far as Joker is concerned, he is on top.

In law, your reputation is everything. And you should be your biggest advocate. Don’t let Joker walk all over you. People in the legal profession respond to strength. You should retaliate.

You said you expect an apology from Joker. Are you insane? Your colleagues are argumentative, prideful, and entitled competitors who, for the most part, will devote their lives to advancing the interests of those already in power. Don’t get apologies; get even.

You must ensure that Joker stays in the class. It’s a great place to play mind games. Sit behind him in class to make him feel watched. He knows what he did, and he knows that you know. Let him sit in it. Whenever you see him, greet him in a way that you don’t greet anyone. A cold, expressionless “Howdy” would get the job done.

Besides that, dominate him in class, but do it subtly. Don’t view the presentations you have to do together as sources of discomfort, but rather as opportunities for vengeance.

Become a master on Joker’s share of the presentations. I recognize that your time is limited, so you may need to neglect your other responsibilities to do this. Whenever Joker speaks, add nuances he doesn’t expect. Reading your professor’s publications will help with this. Use sentences that start with phrases like “To clarify what Joker is getting at” to undermine him implicitly.

These tactics should operate at a subconscious level. If they’re executed correctly, you will leave Joker impressed with your intellect. Your professor and peers will view you as the alpha. The goal is to make Joker regret ever thinking that he could disrespect you and get away with it. Best of luck with your studies! - Jane

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

Hot Bench: Cam Moody '25

Virginia Law Weekly September 21, 2022

Hey, sectionmate! Give me the fifteen-second spiel we’ve all given 100 times since orientation a few weeks ago: Where did you go to undergrad, and when did you graduate?

Hi, Ethan! I graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond in 2014, with a bachelor’s degree in Biology.

Amazing, we love a STEM icon. Tell me what you got up to in the eight years in between graduating from VCU and starting at UVA Law.

So, I graduated from VCU with the intention to work at a paper-packaging company that made six-packs for soda and paperboard. I also did forestry in high school and studied forest ecology in college, so I hoped to pursue something similar after graduating. But the paper company actually sold all their forestlands, which prompted a bit of existential panic on my end. So, in lieu of forestry work, I pivoted to their environmental auditing team, where I examined relevant statutes, regulations, and permits that each facility had to follow. Essentially, I got an excuse to do fun stuff, like climbing on equipment and looking in trash cans, as part of ensuring that each facility was properly complying with state law.

Sounds like you made the best of a pretty sudden change in plans! And my old workplace looks much less fun by comparison, because it was tragically devoid of furniture-climbing. What did you do after that position?

After working two years at the paper company, I worked at a large utility company for six years. I’d been in that role for a while when the pandemic started, and by that point, I felt some soul-searching was in order. I’m trans, and I increasingly had the sense that I needed to be in a place—a different place—where I would be comfortable being myself. I considered what I was good at, and pretty early on in the process of investigating other academic opportunities, I settled on applying to law school.

Hooray for career shifts, and hooray for coming somewhere you feel safer and happier being yourself. How are you adjusting to 1L?

I’m enjoying it! We’re only four weeks in, and I’m already excited to try so much during my time here. Like I said earlier, environmental work fell into my lap after VCU, so I’m eager to explore other things (perhaps opportunities where I can use my Patent Bar eligibility). I’m also very interested in joining Lambda and PILA.

What’s your favorite class so far?

Contracts with Professor Mitu Gulati! We’ve had some incredible guest speakers so far and the class is refreshingly conversational.

I agree, as a fellow Mitu stan. Getting outside the Law School, what are your favorite Charlottesville haunts so far?

I love Walnut Creek Park, which has a beautiful lake, and it’s only a twenty minute drive from Downtown. I also feel obligated to shout out Greenberry’s, both the Emmet Street and Law School locations. I’ve also enjoyed the farmer’s market and various other community events.

Finally, you’re in Section H, which won Dandelion this year with its rendition of “. . . Baby One More Time,” by the Princess of Pop herself, Britney Spears. I understand you have a special connection to her.

Yes—the song we performed at Dandelion was on the first CD I ever purchased for myself in 1999. I also bought an NSYNC album the same day. I don’t think I would have ever foreseen dancing to it at a professional school event twenty-three years later, but the world unfolds in mysterious ways.

How poetic. Thanks for joining us, Cam!

---
Interviewed by Ethan Brown ‘25
zaw9fj@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: The Law Weekly v. Professor Mitchell

Virginia Law Weekly September 15, 2022

The Law Weekly
v.
Professor Mitchell
75 U.Va 3 (2022)

Lake, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court.

The case before us is brought by the Virginia Law Weekly, a publication of great renown and extensive readership,[1]against University of Virginia Law School Professor Greg Mitchell. The Law Weekly has long been enjoined from using quotes arising from Professor Mitchell in the much beloved “Professor Quotes” roundup,[2] and has brought this action to demand an end to the prohibition.

The District Court of Petty Complaints dismissed this case on the grounds that it is neither impartial nor “legal” to have a decision rendered by the same body bringing the complaint. As the Editor-in-Chief of the paper bringing this case, the Chief Justice of the Court of Petty Appeals, and—most importantly—a student of Professor Mitchell, I don’t see any reason why this case should not be heard. I am capable of being fair when I feel like it, and moreover, there is nothing anyone can do to stop me.

Facts

First, Professor Mitchell is known for his enjoyable and, as Plaintiff emphasizes, quotable instructional style. As a proud Arkansan with a PhD from Berkeley, Professor Mitchell has a rich background to fuel his sometimes meandering, occasionally profane, but always entertaining stories and asides.

Second, this semester alone, Professor Mitchell is teaching courses in Civil Procedure, Law and Social Science, and Professional Responsibility. There are 143 students across these three courses who are subjected to Professor Mitchell’s unique and award winning[3] teaching style. That is thousands of students through the years that have been restricted in their right to submit his quotes for publication, robbing countless students of the satisfaction of telling their friends, “Oh, that’s a quote I sent in!”

Third, Defendant, when served with this suit, did not recall asking the Law Weekly to stop publishing his quotes.[4]Furthermore, since class recordings have been offered by the Law School, Professor Mitchell has allowed his courses to be recorded and made available to students automatically.[5] Plaintiff contends that whatever concerns Professor Mitchell may have had in being put on the record are greatly compromised by his easily accessible recorded lectures.

Analysis

First, this Court has always been concerned with the incentives our rulings create.[6] In ruling in favor of Plaintiff, we run the risk of disincentivizing professors from spicing up their lectures at the risk of being reported to the newspaper. An over-emphasis on quotability may also create a culture of forced fun, where less entertaining professors feel compelled to compete for a spot on the coveted list. Furthermore, Professor Mitchell is sort of low-hanging fruit. A good quote from a rarer professor is far more impressive. Pure entertainment value is thus not a compelling enough force to find in favor of Plaintiff.

We can discuss the second and third points in combination because it will make it easier to use the metaphor I am trying to force. I haven’t learned much in PR so far (except for when I’m allowed to sleep with my clients), but there was an assigned reading on forming the attorney-client relationship I assume 2Ls in the class did. What I’m thinking is, when a prospective client shares confidential information with an attorney, the Rules of Professional Conduct restrict how that attorney can engage with the case, even if they don’t end up getting hired. You can’t take that information and then share it with another party unless the prospective client consents. Is this doing anything? Do you see where I’m going here? By signing up for a class with Professor Mitchell this semester, those 143 students have formed a relationship built on mutual trust. Access to the recorded lectures does not lessen Professor Mitchell’s right to confidentiality any more than when a client discloses to you the massive amounts of fraud they have been committing.[7] As Defendant mumbled in a sort of embarrassed manner to the process server, “It’s a bit more special when the class is just between us. Also, I hate talking about it with Setear every week.”[8]

Conclusion

Against our best and most fervent wishes, this Court must uphold the injunction barring Professor Mitchell quotes from publication. If you want to know what you’re missing, you’ll just have to take a class with him.[9]

Walsh, J., concurring.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Court’s decision and write only to elaborate on my own personal reasons for supporting the injunction barring Mitchell quotes from being published in the “Professor Quotes” section of the Law Weekly.[10]

Ultimately, while I care about the student body and its ability to enjoy the fleeting moments of entertainment that legal education offers, I care about myself more. Like the Chief Justice, I am also a student of Professor Mitchell’s, and the bottom line is that if I’m going to be dragging myself out of bed and into the Law School by 8:30 a.m. every Thursday and Friday for an entire semester (as a 3L, no less), I’d better be getting something out of it. Because of the injunction, I do: the satisfaction of knowing that I get to hear Mitchell’s quotes and the students in Professor Sachs’ PR class don’t. Every time someone from that class gives me a pitying look and tells me how they could never take an 8:30 Friday class,[11] I just think about how much Mitchell content they’re missing, and that thought alone is enough to garner my support for today’s decision.

Peterson, J., dissenting.

Guys, this is some constitutional shit we are messing with here. I’m talking freedom of the press, First Amendment stuff: come on. The stuff that’s so basic, you don’t even learn it in Constitutional Law. Which is why I am so appalled today by the court’s ruling.

I think it goes without saying that the Law Weekly is, despite all appearances, a part of the press. And, while the defendant’s right to privacy is certainly also a constitutional right,[12] such a petty right, one which finds its locus in the penumbras of our Constitution, cannot rise to the same level of importance as the goal of maintaining a free and vigorous press.

Am I the only judge bound by the law left on this Court? Have petty appeals become so petty that we must now abandon the sacred directives passed down to us from the text itself? Can I really not publish quotes of Mitchell, even if I really, really want to?

The answer to this last question is, of course, in the negative. I may do as I please whether legal or not—it is simply that the law sanctions certain behavior while sanctioning other behavior.[13] Furthermore, as this is the Court of Petty Appeals, we judges are empowered to make the law wholecloth at will. Which is why it is so alarming that a rogue court of nine unrepresentative and unelected idiots[14] today make a new law grounded in nothing but sheer selfishness and cowardry.

Let the School revel in Mitchell’s comedy, I say. Fears of “sound[ing] like an oversexed hillbilly”[15] neither should nor do constitute a cognizable legal harm. This is not to say that fears of being poorly represented are baseless, just that fears of sounding like an oversexed hillbilly are not harmful, because the Court has binding precedent that such insults do not, as a matter of law, debase an individual, and instead operate more like a misunderstood compliment.[16]

Based on the prior reasoning, it seems preeminently clear that Mitchell’s quotes should be released to the School immediately, unless we wish to risk being overturned by a future Court of Petty Appeals with more spine, an insult that this Court has not suffered in all of my years on its staff. Accordingly, I dissent.

---
dl9uh@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] We even have our own Wikipedia page.

[2] See below, bottom right of this page.

[3] Professor Mitchell received the UVA All-University Teaching Award in 2016.

[4] “You guys actually have a rule about that?” Defendant was heard to say.

[5] Something every professor is greatly encouraged to do.

[6] What kind of incentive does consistently ruling against 1Ls create? We aren’t allowed to use the word “hazing” for liability reasons…

[7] I don’t own the textbook, so I can’t fact check this claim, unfortunately.

[8] As quoted in a 2018 interview with former Chief Justice VanderMeulen ’19: “The last person I want to get grief from is Professor Setear.”

[9] He teaches Evidence in the Spring.

[10] I recognize that it is perhaps unfair for me to decide this case on the basis of my own personal feelings, but—unlike the Chief Justice—I am not fair, nor have I ever claimed to be.

[11] I GET IT; you can stop.

[12] But see Any Clarence Thomas Opinion.

[13] I’m using sanction in both senses of the word here because isn’t it just a funny little word?

[14] Myself included.

[15] Jansen VanderMeulen, Lunch with Professor Mitchell: “It All Started with a Redhead,” Va. L. Wkly., Sept. 11, 2018.

[16] See Lone Star Lawyers v. Cool Kids of UVA Law, 53 U.Va. 6 (2000).

Counsel's Counsel: 14 September, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly September 15, 2022

Subject: “How should I improve time management as a 1L?”

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 overall, I’m having a great time at school. I like my classes and professors. I like all of my classmates and the sense of community here. However, I am really struggling to manage my time. I’m enjoying the content of my classes but having a hard time keeping up. People’s collegiality and involvement here is great, but sometimes I feel like I am being pulled in so many directions. I wouldn’t say I’m drowning…more like treading. Regardless, it’s early in the semester, and I’m already worried about spreading myself too thin. I am particularly worried because I want to work at a BigLaw firm after graduation, and I have heard horror stories about BigLaw work demands. How would you recommend getting on top of time management during 1L?

Best,

A Busy Beaver

Answer:

Thanks for writing in! It’s good to hear you like all of your classmates; UVA must have changed its admissions policies since I graduated.

I feel for you, I really do. 1L Fall is tough. You want to have a life. If you’re at UVA Law, you’re probably used to academic success.

Time management is something all lawyers struggle with. But in law school, there is no such thing as “spread too thin.” As a BigLaw lawyer, you will have unreasonable demands on your time. You must acclimate to this reality if you are going to succeed. In BigLaw, if a partner needs your help, are you just going to say no?

Firms sell clients the promise of immediately-accessible labor because they can deliver. Legal education and industry incentives work together to create a School-to-BigLaw Pipeline, so to speak.

Much of the Pipeline is built on a series of initiatory rituals that are functionally hazing for firm-bound law students. Yet, these rituals also provide valuable insight into a future associate’s productivity. First, applicants must take the LSAT, a test where high scores often correlate with an inhuman ability to sit in one place quietly and work. Then, 1Ls are told that their success in OGI is determined largely by their 1L grades. This helps already competitive students to compete just a little harder. Journal tryouts show firms which students are willing to work all weekend for the opportunity to do two years of free labor in exchange for some prestige. Nobody likes status seekers who undervalue their labor more than prestigious firms.

Recent graduates then must take the bar, an exam based mostly on stuff they learned two years prior. Like the LSAT, this ritual has the added benefit of keeping potential lawyers out of the field, increasing legal job security. Then, partners haze associates by assigning them more work than is humanly possible to identify associates who are obedient. A willingness to compromise other areas of life for work is great for client retention.

Overall, these initiatory rituals push lawyers to feel like underdogs, despite being amongst the wealthiest people in the world. Lawyers without a chip on their shoulder are more likely to lateral out. This, my friend, is how the American legal industry separates the wheat from the chaff.

An alternative would be to hire more attorneys to reduce attorney workloads, but that will never happen because share partners, reasonably so, appreciate money. Until you retire, your relationship to time simply will be unreasonable.

All I have to say is that 1L Fall semester is an excellent time to get used to unreasonable time demands. Your future is likely made of them. So, spread yourself thin. Study hard. Participate in as many clubs as you can and then some. Go to social events. In the future, you might not have enough time to practice not having enough time.

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

Hot Bench: Professor Alison Gocke

Virginia Law Weekly September 15, 2022

Good morning, Professor Gocke. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today! We're excited to have you join the faculty and expand the environmental programming here at the Law School. Let's start with where you're from and how you are liking Charlottesville so far.

I’ve moved around a bit: I was originally born in San Francisco, California, then moved to Hershey, Pennsylvania, and then finally landed in Columbia, Maryland, where I lived for around ten years. So, I usually say I’m from Maryland, and in that sense, coming to Charlottesville feels like coming home. I love this area. I still have family and friends in Maryland/D.C./Virginia, and I feel like even in the short amount of time I’ve been in Charlottesville, I’ve been able to see people a lot more.

You are new to the Law School this year, but you have been doing some pretty amazing things at Chicago and Yale’s law schools since getting your J.D. in 2018 from Stanford. Can you tell us a bit about your past work?

I knew when I went to law school that I wanted to work in the environmental law field in some way. I was an Environmental Studies minor in undergrad, and I went to Stanford specifically for their joint-degree program in law and environmental science. I also always loved academia; reading, researching, and writing make me really happy.

So I tried to choose things after law school that let me explore my substantive interests and also be in academic environments. Following a clerkship, I completed a joint fellowship between the Natural Resources Defense Council and Yale Law School. In the first year of the fellowship, I litigated cases with NRDC’s climate and clean energy team, which exposed me to some of the most important legal issues in the climate change and environmental law fields. I worked on cases related to the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and cars; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s regulation of natural gas pipelines; and state and local climate tort cases. I learned so much from NRDC’s attorneys, some of whom have been doing this work for decades—they were there when the Clean Air Act was first being crafted.

Then, I spent the second year of my fellowship as the co-director of YLS’s environmental law clinic. We partnered with environmental organizations, like NRDC, on a wide variety of environmental issues. My time at Yale made clear to me that while I love the substance of environmental law, I really enjoy being in an academic environment. I love teaching and working with students, and being in a place where intellectual curiosity and scholarly inquiry is part of your daily life. I knew that if I could make a career in legal academia, it would be a good fit for me.

So, I went to the University of Chicago to be a Bigelow Fellow, which is a fellowship that is designed to help prepare people for the academic job market. There, I taught legal research and writing to 1Ls, and also got to devote time to my own scholarship.

As someone interested in energy work, I was stoked to see your resume added to the faculty page. You have a focus on environmental regulations—how did you find your specialty?

I’m so excited to get to know the energy community here at UVA! I got interested in environmental issues from a very young age—my mom was always passionate about the environment, and she passed that passion along to me. In undergrad, I minored in Environmental Studies, and I became very interested in climate change. As I mentioned, I went to law school with the idea that I would work in the environmental law field in some way. The more I studied these issues, the more I realized that if we want to tackle climate change, we need to take a closer look at how we regulate our energy systems.

In the United States, much of our energy law relies on an old system of public utility regulation that was not built to address major environmental issues, like climate change. I’m also really interested in history—my scholarship tends to be a mix of legal history and environmental/energy law work—and I was fascinated by this puzzle of an old legal regime running into a distinctly modern problem. So that’s how I got interested in energy law in particular: both because of its centrality to modern environmental issues, and as a particular set of legal doctrines that needs to be examined in a new light and with different interests at stake.

In addition to your J.D., you have a Master’s in Environmental and Natural Resources. How was your experience getting a dual degree? Do you recommend it?

I really loved my joint-degree program. As I said, I went to Stanford specifically for its joint-degree program, which not only let me study environmental science but also to specialize in clean energy. I think dual degrees can be incredibly valuable. They let you explore a field from a wider variety of perspectives; they often introduce you to subjects, scholarship, and scholarly methods that you wouldn’t otherwise see in law school; and they give you access to interdisciplinary work across a university, which I find to be so important, both socially and intellectually. The one downside, as I see it, is that part of the value of the law school experience is its all-encompassing nature. You’re being trained to think as a lawyer in law school, and part of the way you achieve that is by really immersing yourself in the law. It can be difficult to pull yourself out of that, or to switch between different kinds of classes, if you’re in a joint-degree program. So I think these programs can be really wonderful, but you want to give some thought as to how you structure your coursework.

You have some forthcoming articles—mind giving us a sneak peek into what you've been researching?

I’m currently editing a piece related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority to permit interstate natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act (it will be coming out with the Harvard Environmental Law Review in the spring). This issue has been in the news a lot recently, as FERC’s permitting of natural gas pipelines has gotten increasingly contentious, both for the potential climate change impacts of the development of natural gas infrastructure and for environmental justice concerns. My paper traces the historical origins of this authority and finds that FERC used to approach these permitting decisions very differently: it engaged in highly political and complex proceedings in which it attempted to weigh a variety of interests at stake, including the impact of pipeline development on alternative forms of energy and the social and political dimensions of pipeline permitting.

Over the last twenty years, however, FERC’s permitting process has become incredibly routinized: FERC tends to approach each pipeline approval in the same way, looking for evidence that there is market “need” for the pipeline in the form of a particular contract, and zeroing out other countervailing interests. I try to tease out what might be the cause of this shift; whether FERC’s current approach is consistent with its statutory delegation under the Natural Gas Act; and why, if FERC’s current approach is not consistent with the statute, it would be difficult to force FERC to change its ways. At bottom, the paper emphasizes the importance of recognizing that FERC’s permitting decisions are political ones—intentionally so, as Congress directed FERC in the Natural Gas Act to resolve highly political questions around the development of natural gas—and those political forces are crucial to the form and application of the legal doctrine in this space.

You clerked on the Second Circuit, something many law students hope to do. How did you like the experience? How did it impact your professional development?

I loved my clerkship experience. I clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi on the Second Circuit, and he has a reputation of producing a lot of clerks who go into legal academia, so I thought it would be a good fit for my interests. I had also heard that Guido is a really wonderful person, and that was important to me. Not only is Guido brilliant, but he is kind; he cares a lot about his clerks, and you feel like you’re joining a family when you clerk for him. I learned so much from him, from how to think about the law and the role of a judge to how to approach legal issues and legal writing. My clerkship was important to me professionally because it gave me insight into how the law actually works in practice; this fed straight into my experience as a litigator with the NRDC. Guido is also very much an academic, so I believe my experience with him helped me hone my scholarly skills. And, maybe most importantly, working with Guido introduced me to my co-clerks and clerk family, many of whom are also academics. I have found them to be an invaluable resource as I navigate being a law professor myself.

What course are you most looking forward to teaching?

I’m really enjoying my Energy Law class this fall—I have such a great group of students! Next semester, I’ll be teaching a Climate Change Law class, which will let me blend some of my energy law and environmental law interests, and I’ll also be teaching a Public Utility Regulation seminar. I think that seminar will let me tap into my legal-history-nerd side, which will be fun. So…I’m looking forward to all of them!

Lighting Round!

Have you been to any good restaurants in Charlottesville, or have you done any good hikes?

Good restaurants: My husband and I celebrated our one-year anniversary at C&O, which was lovely. Good hikes: The hike to Sugar Hollow is awesome! Shoutout to Professor Josh Bowers, who gave us the hiking trail.

Do you have any pets?

No, but I am desperate to get a dog. If anyone knows of a goldendoodle who needs a home, let me know!

What was your favorite law school class?

Either a Democracy & the Constitution seminar with Larry Kramer, or Michelle Anderson’s Property class.

How do you like your coffee?

Frequently and with lots of milk.

What have you been watching or reading?

Reading: a short fiction collection of female writers from the nineteenth century, which I picked up from a used bookstore in Charlottesville. Watching: just finished the second season of Only Murders in the Building and looking for a new show.

What is your secret talent?

It’s not a “talent” because I’m not good at it, but I am the percussionist in a wizard rock band with two of my best friends from high school.

Favorite type of weather?

Autumn—chilly, leaves turning brilliant colors, cool and crisp air.

First job you ever had?

Lifeguard.

What are you looking forward to the most, living here in Charlottesville?

The people and the nature.

---
Professor Gocke
agocke@law.virginia.edu

---
Interviewed by Dana Lake ‘23
editor@lawweekly.org

Court of Petty Appeals: 2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn v. Everyone Else

Virginia Law Weekly September 8, 2022

2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn
v.
Everyone Else
75 U.Va 2 (2022)

MORSE, J., delivers the opinion of the court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This time of year, the Law School is alive: The hallways are aflutter with the pitter-patter of 1Ls scurrying between classes and club orientations, Courts & Commerce is slinging textbooks like a ticket scalper at a Billy Joel concert, and 3Ls are leaning hard into BigLaw life by spending inadvisable amounts exclusively eating out or ordering UberEats. But all these activities pale in comparison to the frenetic pace of daily LinkedIn posts from 2Ls by the dozen announcing their newly secured 2023 summer associate positions and loudly proclaiming for all the world that they are, officially, future lawyers.[1]

Seeking refuge from this career-centric social media cacophony, the remaining 1,000-plus members of the UVA Law community who are not 2Ls[2] brought suit in the District Court of Petty Complaints, seeking an injunction. The District Court, agreeing wholeheartedly that “this stuff is awful” and commenting that “Covington rejected me, but they gave Alfred[3] an offer?!,” ruled in favor of the non-2Ls and granted the injunction.

Respondents won a reversal on appeal to the Circuit. Agreeing with the LinkedIn Stars’ impassioned free-speech arguments,[4] the Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s decision and lifted the injunction.

The non-LinkedIn 2Ls appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari, both in recognizing how deeply petty this case is,[5] and to address the question of whether an injunction on overeager LinkedIn posts is a violation of the LinkedIn Stars’ First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee.

II. Discussion

We will address the question in two parts. First, we will resolve the primary question raised by Petitioners’ appeal regarding the LinkedIn Stars’ so-called freedom of speech. Second, we will consider an argument made by Amici (a.k.a. students whose curiosity outweighs their annoyance at the flashy posts).

Is there anything wrong with being proud of a significant accomplishment? Absolutely not. But if there is one thing that I learned from the truly voluminous critical feedback I received on my final 1L LRW brief,[6] it is that you should choose your words carefully. Having just completed OGI, many members of the 2L class are eager to share their successes, and given our well-documented social media addiction, 2Ls feel the need to share on LinkedIn. As Respondents point out, it is the tone, rather than the message, that is the issue. In what some have called Academy Award Speech Job Posts, 2Ls will excitedly announce where they will be spending their next summer and then will either thank a surprisingly long list of “mentors and colleagues” or frame it within a broader, historic personal narrative.[7]

The Court is, like most law students, deeply in debt. It is completely understandable that given the crushing financial burden we have entered into—some amount of loan forgiveness notwithstanding (thanks, Biden)[8]—we are eager to celebrate our shared success and, most importantly, the increased likelihood that we will actually one day be able to pay off our student loans.

However, our broke-ass sympathy notwithstanding, free speech is not the issue here. The speech at issue is clearly annoying Gunner behavior, and therefore is not protected by this Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. Similar to 1Ls, which, as we have noted many times, have no rights and thus always lose,[9]today we announce a new, complementary rule: Gunners have no rights and thus always lose.

Having resolved the first question, we now briefly turn to the arguments raised by Amici.

Amici for the respondents argue persuasively that Petitioners doth protest too loudly. They note that, despite being aware of these purportedly frustrating LinkedIn posts, Petitioners continue to return to LinkedIn (often daily!) in order to scroll for any juicy updates. Amici argue that Petitioners’ own wealth of highly-detailed complaints belie the contention that they are trying to avoid these LinkedIn posts. Amici contend that at the very least, these LinkedIn posts satisfy their idle curiosity and need to procrastinate on the reading for the first two weeks.

While we agree with Petitioners that the tone and length of these posts can sometimes get a bit long, we agree with the argument raised by Amici that the benefit of satisfying our mildly neurotic curiosity outweighs all of these complaints. Accordingly, we affirm the Petty Circuit Court’s decision to strike down the District Court’s injunction and to allow these 2Ls’[10] effusive, yet earnest, LinkedIn posts.

It is so ordered.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu

[1] So long as you don’t do something crazy during your summer, like use firm resources to attempt to file a frivolous lawsuit against your lifelong nemesis. I’ll find another way to get you, Stephen Colbert.

[2] As well as the 2Ls too shy or, like yours truly, too confused by technology to actually figure out how to post on LinkedIn.

[3] So far as the Court’s researchers can tell, there is no student at UVA Law called Alfred. But if there is, congrats on the offer!

[4] In what was surely the worst free-speech brief ever, LinkedIn Stars made numerous odd references to “the Jabberwock” and non-otic piercings. What a truly terrible Law Review prompt brief.

[5] Because our single, determinative factor for this Court is pettiness.

[6] A brief, which was described by various judges as “confusing” and “unrelated to any of the questions raised in the case” and “arguably the most self-aggrandizing and unhinged student brief I have seen in my thirty years of judging first-years.” To my LRW fellow, if you are reading this, I am sorry.

[7] These can actually be pretty touching, and also intimidating. They really burst my notion of having overcome adversity because I have (extremely mild, some might say non-existent) asthma.

[8] No seriously, THANK YOU. Last week, I inexplicably committed to buying a motorcycle on Craigslist, so the loan forgiveness is hugely appreciated. #ridefree #bikersforBrandon #zeropercentAPRfor24months

[9] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019). See also Snowman v. Student Admin., 73 U.Va. 15 (2021) (Tonseth, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021).

[10] In all seriousness, congratulations to all the 2Ls who are done with recruiting. And best of luck to those who are still in the process, and please do post on LinkedIn when you know where you’re going. Just keep it classy.

Hot Bench: Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe '23

Virginia Law Weekly September 7, 2022

What was your path to law school?

Born and raised in Sherwood, Oregon, south of Portland. Until the end of high school, I really struggled with reading (I was in remedial classes in grade school), and I really wasn’t interested in reading. I had loose plans to be a welder during high school because I had taken welding classes, and I had been an apprentice. During senior year, though, I became friends with my school’s librarian, who just asked me a simple question—“have you ever tried reading for fun?”—and gave me a copy of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. After that, I understood the appeal of reading and started reading books on both the First and the Fourth Amendments. All of this kind of showed me that there was more to the world than binding metal (not to knock welding—who knows where my career will take me) and helped me make the choice to go to college.

I studied English at BYU-Hawaii and graduated in 2018. After that, I worked on a political campaign, and then at a think tank doing policy work on topics ranging from native Hawaiian homeland issues to energy. I had taken a few classes in undergrad, and had some mentors who had been attorneys, so I had planned to go to law school for awhile but wanted to work before going back to school. One thing that solidified my decision to go to law school was a week-long networking trip to D.C., where we met with attorneys in government and private sector positions. I plan to use my policy and compliance experience to do regulatory and compliance work in D.C.

What have been some of your favorite memories from law school so far?

Going back really far, my section put on a field day near the start of 1L, which was a great time.

I like the energy at UVA generally; people here are just down to do things. My section would dress up for Torts each week with themes like “Torts and Jorts,” “Jerseys and Torts,” and “Morts and Torts” (everyone wore Halloween costumes, even Professor Strauss). Stuff like that really is consistent with how UVA had been described to me before I came here and has made it really fun to be a student here.

Honestly, being part of the softball tournament last year was really fun,even though it was a ton of work. Just getting to meet so many other law students from all over and seeing the whole event come together was awesome.

Stepping outside of the law school bubble, what are some hot takes you have?

I unironically like Pitbull and I am skeptical of people who say they like him now because there haven’t been that many of us that have been consistent until recently. Part of his charm is that he is bad; it's like campiness for music.

Why do you think people have embraced Pitbull?

Maybe it’s nostalgia, maybe it’s cool to like unapologetic pop music from middle school, maybe all the Pitbull lovers came to UVA Law. But back in the day, it was popular to hate on Pitbull, and I was getting heat for liking him.

Another apparently “hot” take is that I like cotton candy ice cream. It's one of my favorite flavors, and telling people that gets them heated. I am just so confused. Ice cream is already so indulgent, so why not just push it to the absolute juvenile max and make it taste like cotton candy, too? I can go to the store and buy strawberries; why do you need strawberry ice cream? Strawberries are healthy for you; why are you just going to make them unhealthy when you could have the healthy source? Bottom line is that you should open your heart to cotton candy ice cream (this also applies to bubblegum ice cream).

Okay, time for the lighting round:

If you could bend one element, which would it be?

Water bending. I would just constantly explore the ocean with that. Look for buried treasure and Atlantis, try to befriend a whale. Easy choice for me. The exploration value of water bending is too high to pass up.

Who would you have dinner with, dead or alive?

Probably Jesus, get a sense of what he really was saying. Be nice to get answers straight from the horse’s mouth.

What movie do you think every law student should watch?

I think if you are an incoming 1L, you should watch Birdman or Whiplash. Birdman gives you a sense of the pace of 1L, and Whiplash can show you what it looks like when ambition goes too far.

Any final shoutouts you want to give?

Shoutouts to Reece Henry ’24, who is always smiling and giving off incredible vibes. Also, shoutout to my mom and brothers, who will be visiting in late October; I can’t wait for them to meet the Law School community. And, finally, shoutout to the 1L who brought house wine to Morris last week. We never got your name and are sincerely trying to thank you.

---
Interviewed by Jack Brown ‘23
jmg3qt@virginia.edu

Hot Bench: Jon Greenstein '24

Virginia Law Weekly August 31, 2022

Jon Greenstein ‘24

So, Jon, tell me a bit about yourself—where are you from? Where did you go to undergrad?

Hey! So, I’m Jon, and I’m a 2L. I’m from Florida. I grew up there, and I absolutely loved it. My family, including my twin brother, Rob, still lives in Tampa. And I went to Florida State University. FSU was awesome. It was so much fun to meet people, and I got involved with a lot of activities and community service. It’s actually a lot like UVA Law, where the community is really close and there are always things to do in the city.

Having a twin must be so much fun. What kind of shenanigans did you and Rob get up to growing up?

We’ve switched places in a class before. Also, our voices sound the exact same, so when we’re on the phone with our parents, they can’t tell who it is—so sometimes we’ll switch on the phone too. Once, we switched places in swim practice . . . but I was at a higher level in swimming than he was. So, they threw him in the pool because they thought he could swim. He could not swim.

How have you liked your first year at UVA? Has anything surprised you?

My first year was great! My section-mates are some of my closest friends. I’m so lucky to be here and to be surrounded by such great people. I’ve loved my professors too, and I think my classes have been super interesting. And, honestly, it hasn’t been as hard or as crazy as I thought it would be.

It’s awesome that you’ve been enjoying it so much. Do you have a favorite memory here so far?

Yes! So, my friends hosted a “livery of seisin” party in honor of Property, and I would say that was pretty fun. I also liked our section poker nights, and I’m hoping we’ll do them again this semester. We’ve had a lot of great nights here, and it’s been great that we still get to hang out and have fun on top of working hard as students.

I feel like law school people are very interesting and unique in a sense. I think I came in expecting everyone to be really professional and nerdy—and the people have been nerdy in the best way, where you can have really cool conversations—but I’ve been surprised at how normal everyone’s been. People still want to go out, do cool things, and socialize, while at the same time being so incredibly smart and driven and dedicated to their goals. It’s really inspiring to be around people like that, and I think it makes you a better person and a better lawyer.

If you could give any piece of advice to the new 1Ls, what would it be?

So, first off: Everything is going to work out. Everything is going to be okay. We’re at this great law school, and you’re going to be surrounded by some amazingly smart people. Take advantage of it. There’s so much pressure and stress in 1L—everyone’s freaking out trying to figure out the law, what they want to do, what they like. The most important thing is to take a step back, take a breath, and realize that you are going to find your place. You are going to find your people. You are going to find what interests you. Everything will work out—we’ve already done the hard part. Enjoy your time here.

That’s great advice. What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

“Be yourself.” So many of us worry so much about what other people think about us or what other people are doing. But at the end of the day, you have to live with yourself twenty-four hours a day. Be true to yourself, and be confident in who you are; some people will love it and some won’t. It’s just a part of life.

Lightning round!

Favorite spot in C’ville?

Carter Mountain. You have to pay, which kind of sucks, but it is the best view in Charlottesville. Going there on Thursday nights for the Sunset Series is something that every single student at UVA has to do. It’s incredible.

Favorite snack?

I love the fruit snacks that they give out in the Student Affairs office. They’re the real ones.

If you were a drink, what drink would you be?

Because I’m going to professional school, I’ll say Dr. Pepper.

What song is on repeat recently?

For the last year and a half, it’s been “Circles” by Post Malone—such a good one. Recently, it’s been “Way It Goes” by Hippo Campus.

Texting or calling?

Big texter.

What was your best Halloween costume ever?

I went as a DEA agent one year, and my friend Eric went as a criminal. So, I got to spend the entire night chasing him around parties and locking him up, which was pretty fun.

Do you believe in fate?

I think that things happen for a reason, and that everyone is on the path they’re supposed to be on. So, yeah, in that way, I do believe in fate.

---
Interviewed by Julia D’Rozario ‘24
jkd2dd@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Tonseth v. The Haters II

Virginia Law Weekly April 20, 2022

Tonseth v. The Haters II
74 U.Va 24 (2022)

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

Today’s case comes before this Court via an action in assumpsit, wherein Plaintiff, yours truly, alleges that the defendants, his haters, violated his covenant of quiet enjoyment to coast through law school with his peace undisturbed. Inspired by Will Smith and King Lil G, Plaintiff humbly requests a permanent injunction against the defendants’ use of his name in casual conversation, citing King Lil G’s lyrics in his amicus: “Keep my name out of your mouth, cause most of the time you don't know what you talking about.” This Court is inclined to agree with today’s plaintiff. Defendants vehemently disagree, so into the Thunderdome[1] we go.

II.

“Everybody talks, everybody talks. It started with a whisper.”[2] Plaintiff understands that UVA Law is a small school. Further, Plaintiff acknowledges that unless one were to be an extreme introvert, or to attend every event on Zoom, people will come to know most students within their graduating class and the entire school more generally. However, the plaintiff has taken umbrage and filed a direct complaint to this Court to halt a potential miscarriage of justice: the defendants indiscriminately bringing Plaintiff up in unrelated conversations, meddling in business that isn’t their own, and thus making a mountain out of a molehill across various social circles. In their response, Defendants urge that as a “public figure,” Plaintiff has no claim to quash the defendants’ First Amendment rights to speak, especially with SCOTUS’s incredibly malleable “malice” requirements. This Court finds the defendants’ counter persuasive, and thus dismisses any potential slander claims out of hand.

In response, Plaintiff argued in the alternative that Defendants have violated the agreed-to covenant of quiet enjoyment between the two parties. Defendants urged this Court to see past this smokescreen, arguing there was no consideration between the parties, and no “real property” was impacted by their continued pedantic gossip. Plaintiff, in true and high-quality legal ingenuity, posited that by both parties entering into mutual friendships, no matter how superficial, even if just by being classmates, a social contract was created. As this Court is founded on the work of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, we do thus find there was a contract between the parties. In regard to the actual real property affected, the plaintiff points to social status, reputation, and time spent putting out fires unnecessarily created by the blabbermouths. In such an insular and cliquey school, the Court deems this argument as full of merit, and thus sustains the claim.

Plaintiff then turned to the quiet enjoyment of his tenure at UVA Law. Defendants, it is alleged, violated the covenant as hostile claimants, a byproduct of their mutually formed social contract, by not allowing Plaintiff to enjoy his time as a student undisturbed with full enjoyment of his real property. Thus, Plaintiff brought the action in assumpsit to remedy this, as Defendants have neglected to uphold their collegiality end of the promised social contract.

III.

There is nary a need for an in-depth analysis of these claims. Plaintiff has proven their prima facie case that their quiet enjoyment has been disturbed[3] and that it has been done so by the named defendants. This case is one where the plaintiff has been irreparably harmed and thus demands an instant remedy. But going further, this Court would like to invoke Justice Thomas’s sage counsel one final time, in hopes that the defendants are listening: “Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot."

IV.

You may be asking yourself, “Doesn’t this case reek of bias and pettiness?” Absolutely, but this Court cites deep precedent to weather this criticism. First and most importantly, as I shall remind the learned audience, the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure is, “We do what we want.”[4] This rule as a standalone is justification for this legal and my personal opinion. However, lest we forget, nary a fortnight ago, this Court, via complaints brought by some of the defendants in this case, sought to sue me, as the Chief Justice, myself.[5] As I wrote in my dissent and will repeat now, if you come at the King, you best not miss. Look who has the last laugh now!

And with that, the Thunderdome[6] officially closes its doors. A permanent and timeless injunction is thus granted against the defendants, and damages are awarded to the plaintiff equal to the current Powerball figure. Mamba out.

KULKARNI, J., dissenting.

This is a law school. It is that simple. So why then, is the most esteemed court in all the land being tarnished by this farce of a majority opinion? To have himself as the plaintiff and to be the Justice deciding the case seems clearly inspired by Justice Thomas in all the worst ways. Plaintiff Tonseth (for that is the way to describe him today) has many failures in his opinion, the most glaring of which is his lack of understanding of the University of Virginia Drama School of Law. His mere existence causes stories to start. To allege that he is the only one being harmed is outrageous. If I didn't believe in the integrity of this Court, I would file a countersuit. The haters are correct, and this opinion will describe why.

Plaintiff relies on a theory of social contract between himself and the very people he is suing and alleges breach thereof. The reality is that there is no contract amongst friends at the Law School. Here, friendships are made and lost on a dime and weekly. To claim that such a transparent and superficial relationship is anything akin to a contract is true fantasy. Similarly, to allege that “putting out fires” related to issues off-shooting from the very drama Plaintiff causes is to allege no real property interest. That is energy that every law student is required to put in when attending law school in such an environment.

On the question of remedies, Plaintiff Tonseth is once again “shooting from the hip.” Much like Professor Thomas Frampton’s attempted punch at Dick Cheney, this shot misses its mark. The Court of Petty Appeals has no authority to issue a binding permanent injunction against Plaintiff Tonseth’s haters. Put simply, he has to accept that “haters gonna hate.” On a personal note, I can guarantee you that I will not be pursuing such action against my many haters in the future. While Plaintiff Tonseth is fond of the phrase, “If you come at the King, you best not miss,” I choose instead (and recommend he choose to follow as well), “They hate us ‘cause they ain’t us.”

BIRCH, J., begrudgingly concurring in part and dissenting in part.

As a matter of deference and friendship that flies in the face of the dissent’s view of this Law School, I must concur with Justice and Plaintiff Tonseth. Three years alongside the Justice has, at times, contained the mundane activities of being a graduate student. More often, however, it has been a roller coaster ride in a theme park that managed to open the gates before the state inspector had a chance to look anything over. That is to say: fun, but who knows what the hell could happen next.

Much of the claimed harm is alleged from the actions of others, and I agree there have been some truly unprecedented and unwarranted breaches of quiet enjoyment of the Justice’s Law School experience.[7] For this, a remedy should be granted and is offered at the end of this mixed opinion. To claim that this opinion in any way tarnishes this most esteemed Court would be to assume there was precious metal at the heart of this bench to tarnish. Instead, this Court is made of the most solid foundation the Law School has to offer: hand-cut marble heavy enough to crush hopes and dreams.

However, and in a turn none of us ever expected, I must agree in part with our junior colleague on the bench. Justice Kulkarni has taken the correct position that Justice Tonseth must simply accept the fact that “haters gonna hate.” It is called assumption of risk. Justice Tonseth unceremoniously stepped into this Law School’s social boxing ring and must now fight his way out. The final bell has rung, but it seems the Justice refuses to go out any way but swinging.

Damages should be awarded to the plaintiff, Justice Tonseth, totaling only the amount of already-received real and grossly over-perceived social status granted by lighting little fires throughout much of the Law School’s social scene. The injunction should be denied, and Justice Kulkarni should be held to his precedent regarding a similar opinion, expected next year.

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

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel

[2] See Neon Trees’s popular 2011 hit.

[3] The sheer amount of rumors people spread is enough, like c’mon, folks.

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

[5] UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth, 74 U.Va. 10 (2021).

[6] https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2021/3/3/welcome-to-the-thunderdome-chief-justice-phil-tonseth-takes-the-gavel

[7] Note that “quiet” enjoyment often meant yelling so the person next to you could hear you at Bar Review, Feb Club, or many of the other debauched escapes from work this amazing colony of ‘students’ manages to come up with

LL.M Spotlight: Gregory J. Gianoni

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2022

Greg is an active duty Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy currently serving as an LL.M. student with a focus in National Security Law.

Greg received his B.S. in economics and finance with minors in law and psychology from Bentley University in 2008. He was a financial advisor with Prudential before attending California Western School of Law. Greg passed the California Bar in July 2013 and received his military commission in August 2013.

Greg first served in Norfolk, VA, where he assisted in criminal prosecutions, drafted wills and powers of attorney, conducted debt negotiation settlements, and practiced consumer law, landlord/tenant law, and divorce law.

Greg then deployed with the WASP Amphibious Ready Group for six months at sea aboard the USS Wasp (LHD 1), providing rules of engagement, intelligence, and national security law advice in support of Operation ODYSSEY LIGHTNING – air strikes against terrorist organizations in Sirte, Libya.

Upon returning from deployment Greg was the Officer-in-Charge of the Defense Service Office in Lemoore, CA, where he served as a defense attorney representing clients in criminal trials and administrative proceedings. Notably, Greg was the military defense counsel for Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, acquitted of premeditated murder of a captured terrorist.

Following the Gallagher trial Greg served as the Assistant Force Judge Advocate for Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command in Manama, Bahrain. Among other operations, Greg was in the Maritime Operations Center to provide legal advice following the U.S. led death of Soleimani, as well as multiple maritime interdiction operations resulting in the seizure of illegally smuggled advanced conventional weapons, drugs, and small arms weapons.

After graduation Greg is expected to be stationed in the D.C. area.

Court of Petty Appeals: Loser Law Schools v. North Grounds Softball League

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2022

Loser Law Schools v. North Grounds Softball League
74 U.Va 23 (2022)

SMITH, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.

This case arises from UVA’s dominance of the 39th Annual UVA Law Softball Invitational. UVA won both the open and co-rec tournaments, and its co-rec winning team outscored opponents by a combined score of 209 to 15. The loser law schools (“losers”) sued, and the lower court dismissed their claims.

The losers argue the North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Harvard’s complaint also raises a substantive due process claim, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment “clearly” establishes a right not to suffer humiliation in sporting events. That sort of thing only works at Harvard, however, so that claim is dismissed.

***

Turning to the legitimate arguments, plaintiff loser Columbia Law School claims that UVA enjoyed an unfair advantage by hosting the tournament “somewhere with breathable air.” This claim fails. NGSL is not to blame because some plaintiffs have chosen to live in New York City.

Other losers claim that NGSL bribed the umpires it hired. Some umpires allegedly received free Libel tickets and recent copies of the Virginia Law Review. However, such valueless items were, if anything, likely to motivate the umpires to disfavor the UVA softball teams, so they do not plausibly suggest unfairness.

The losers also accuse the NGSL teams of taking steroids. But all they offer are conclusory allegations. For example, Georgetown’s complaint expresses surprise that “UVA students were cooler, more talented, and better-looking than us.” However, the insecurity of Georgetown students is not, in itself, surprising or cause for suspicion.

Finally, some loser law schools argue that NGSL is an elite “secret society” that actually exists not to play softball but to perpetuate a rule of terror in the highest echelons of society. With origins in Celtic Druidry, and tentacles in every governing institution, the NGSL is allegedly to blame for the Roman Empire’s fall, the 2016 election, The Emoji Movie, Miley Cyrus, the price of gas, and colluding to make UVA a softball superpower.[1]

We cannot lightly disregard this claim. This Court recently admitted that Libel “ha[d] a point” in arguing there was no falsity in the 2022 Libel Show—and that show repeatedly described NGSL as a “secret society.”[2]Still, this is a close case, and deciding whether to dismiss requires considering institutional factors.

***

NGSL argues that the rule, “we do what we want” controls. However, that vacuous pronouncement is mere tautological dictum. Of course, in a literal sense, we do every act because we desire it, unless physically coerced.[3] But our desires or wants are associated with reasons, and in MOST of our opinions, those reasons are thought worth explaining.

For more substantive guidance, we turn to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is widely understood to stand for the proposition that courts should make themselves look good.[4] Given this Court’s membership, it would look bad to unreservedly favor NGSL, so we must find for plaintiffs on SOME ground.[5] Perhaps more importantly, I want to send a message to whoever has been leaving dead guinea pigs on my front lawn: Stop it. I’m not intimidated. I don’t even like guinea pigs.

REVERSED

TONSETH, C.J. emeritus, dissenting.

Everything alleged by the plaintiffs, “Loser Law Schools,” is correct. UVA Co-Rec Gold did win the tournament by a combined run differential of 209-15 over seven games. UVA Men’s Gold cakewalked through their bracket before beating Florida State on a walk-off home run by Trey Ratliff ’24. But to steal/modify a quote from A League of Their Own, “there’s no crying in softball.” This case should have been rejected quicker than my application to Harvard was, and I implore Justice Smith to see the error in his ways.

Before I address the substantive matter of the case, I need to disclaim any bias I may have.[6] Was I a player on Co-Rec Gold? Yes. Did I actively contribute to the massacres over seven other teams? Check my insta for picture proof. Does that connection mean I am unable to separate my legal analysis from my personal life? My answer is the same as Justice Thomas.

My biggest contention with the majority is Justice Smith’s offhand remark that a bedrock principle of this Court, the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, “we do what we want,”[7] is “mere tautological dictum.” Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which both this Court and NGSL enjoy. Far be it from Justice Smith to try to legislate from the bench and remove that well-earned right.

Now to the causes of action. The only claim with any merit is the violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. To that, I say woe to those who would stick their finger in a rattlesnake’s mouth and hope they don’t get bit. It is only logical that UVA Law would draft, hold practices, and field competitive teams for their own hosted national tournament. It is the fault of the Loser Law Schools that they put students before athletes in their prospective admits. Further, trusting that UVA would simply put average softballers out there was a mistake.

For these reasons, mainly the fact that UVA Law already won the tournament via trial by combat, I find the majority’s rationale pedantic and shortsighted.[8] Because winners win, I dissent.

PETERSON, J., dissenting.

Is this really what the law has become? Kowtowing to the whims of other schools, many of which are either not in the T-14 or, in the alternative, have been “reinstated” under suspicious circumstances, simply so this court may retain some semblance of institutional legitimacy? My brother in dissent, Chief Justice Emeritus Tonseth, touched on this question when assuring readers of his ability to separate his legal analysis from his personal life. But I believe he answered the question incorrectly. There is no separation; there never has been. The law is personal life, all the way down.

It is high time that this court embrace the true meaning of the phrase, “we do what we want,” as our compatriots on the United States Supreme Court have. It’s high time we abandon couching our decisions in rarified legal language and rules and accept our written opinions for what they truly are: mere opinions. And I believe that this court is, absent some odd desire to appease the lesser schools who attended our charity tournament, of the opinion that it is fun to win. As such, under the framework the majority uses, this should have been the basis of our opinion. It is fun to win. Therefore, we were right to win.

However, I believe the framework the majority employed in this case was wrong to begin with. This case is clearly one which should have been decided under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And, had that clause been appropriately applied, the court would have reached the same conclusion that I reached above. It is a privilege of being a student at the University of Virginia’s Law School to be absolutely immune to feeble attempts at victory from other school’s softball teams.

---
js3hp@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] Why would a secret society care so much about UVA softball? Apparently Thomas Jefferson was a big secret society guy back in the day.

[2] Comedy v. Libel Show, 74 U.Va. 21 (2022).

[3] See Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will (1754).

[4] See 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

[5] See infra the dissents if you can stomach large quantities of bias.

[6] I can use footnotes too, Justice Smith, supra note 5.

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

[8] Even though their asides at each law school are apt and witty. Kudos.

Counsel's Counsel: April 13, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2022

Subject: “I kissed a classmate and now her ex-boyfriend’s friends are icing me 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 Jane, I’m a 3L guy, and apparently, I made out with the wrong person. She’s a 3L too, and I met her through mutual friends. We’ve become better friends through group hangouts. She is a fun-loving and downright jolly person.

A couple weeks ago, I went to a party at her place. The music was great, I had a nice buzz going, and everybody was in a dancing mood. She and I danced a bit, and, as fate would have it, we kissed.

I was aware that she had come out of a relationship recently, but I didn’t think much of that fact. However, since that night, her ex and his friends have totally iced me out. Her ex and I are just acquaintances, but I am decent friends with his close friends. I’m not getting invited to hang out with them like I used to. I’m in some school organizations with them, and there has been more tension and politicking recently. I still communicate with her, and she said that I was excluded from a position that I otherwise would’ve gotten because of the situation.

It feels like I’m being blamed for something that isn’t wrong. I made out with your ex, can you relax? I mean, she chose to make out with me, too. All in all, it feels petty and confusing. What should I do? I couldn’t have foreseen that this small action would have such large social ramifications. Anyways, thanks for your help!

Sincerely,

A Lover Not a Fighter

Answer:

I appreciate you writing in! That sounds frustrating. I agree that this situation feels petty, but it can be explained fairly easily.

Toxic masculinity is almost invariably the manifestation of a man’s insecurities. Perhaps the ex-boyfriend is compensating because he was waitlisted at Harvard, or because his firm is Vault #30 instead of Vault #10, or because he got a B in Government Contracts. No one knows, but it shouldn’t be affecting you.

Despite the legal moves away from the coverture-influenced view of women as quasi-property in the 19th century, men generally have not progressed beyond a view of women as social property. Law schools are neck-deep in entitled narcissists, which exacerbates this view.

I’ve been around the block when it comes to jealousy-induced machismo. I’d say there’s a good chance he tries to get back together with her—not because he cares about her, but because he feels emasculated and wants to reclaim his manliness. He feels slighted because he thinks she chose you over him. Because he subconsciously views her as his property, he is inserting himself into a situation that (1) has nothing to do with him, and (2) is a result of her individual sexual autonomy. He needs to feel reassured that he is still a man, since—as the mindset goes—what is a man without sexual prowess?

Men need to hold other men to higher standards, but since his friends aren’t doing that, ignore it, and be a friend to all. By ostracizing you, his friends are upholding an outdated view of gender dynamics. Don’t sink to their level. It seems like she and you get along, so I’d stay in touch with her so that she doesn’t feel shut out by you. Cutting off communication with her would suggest that you implicitly agree with the ex-boyfriend’s harmful mentality. Over time, people will see him and his lackeys for what they are—spineless and insecure boys. Jealousy is a tricky thing, so I wish you the best of luck as you navigate those waters.

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

Screen Shot 2022-04-13 at 1.24.16 PM.png

Hot Bench: Nate Wunderli '22

Virginia Law Weekly April 13, 2022

So, Nate, my wunderful 3L friend, where are you from?

Starting off strong with a hard one. I was in Potomac, Maryland until I was eight. I was in New York until I was fifteen. Then I moved to Utah, where I stayed for undergrad. I also lived in South Korea for a time and am proficient in Korean as a result.

So where did you go for undergrad, and are all the rumors about Utah schools universal?

I went to the University of Utah. Utah is only like 20 percent LDS and definitely not dry, especially in the athletic department.

Speaking of athletics, what did you play in college that led you to being such a sports guy now?

Golf, all four years. I was also a tour guide, and I majored in economics. But mostly, I played golf. I want to make sure people know I mostly traveled and played golf.

Why did you decide on law school despite your interest in economics and all the golf you played in college?

I did some ski-instructing, but I thought if I was going to have a family one day, I needed to make a better financial decision for my future—so law school was it. I also started a dance club at an old Urban Outfitters before law school, and we were profitable—but not quite enough to make it my career. I did it for a few months and gave it to someone else.

Do you know what you are doing after law school, other than attempting to relive your glory days for years to come?

Capital markets at Cadwalader in Washington, D.C.. D.C. and California were my two choices, but for some reason, the California firms didn’t believe I wanted to do anything other than surf—so D.C. it was.

What do you do for fun—is it still golf, and if so, where do you play the game?

I hardly golf anymore. While I enjoy golf still, it was a bit more fun when the University was paying for it. I love to Latin dance, mountain bike, rock climb, play basketball, ski and surf, obviously.

Speaking of sports, you won an incredibly rigged tournament at the Law School recently, right?

I told Alex Castle a week before the softball tournament with absolute confidence that we would win, and we did. Shoutout to Trey Ratliff ‘24 for hitting the game-winner. Getting to captain a lot of teams has been the highlight of my law school experience.

I’m assuming your whole life, other than a certain former EIC, doesn’t revolve around playing beer-league softball. So what other sports have you participated in here at the law school?

I’ve captained several intramural teams in flag football and basketball. I also won the intramural one on one basketball tournament, facing the entire undergrad.

That’s actually impressive. On another note, as hard as it is to admit, I have been inspired by your approach to facing law school as a 3L. What’s your best advice for incoming UVA Law students?

The Law School is busy, but you can also pick up a lot of extracurricular skills while here. Three of my favorite things—Latin dancing, mountain biking, and rock climbing—I learned while in law school. Also, utilize the undergrad, they have a lot of cool clubs and cheap things to do, which a lot of people don't take advantage of.

When you show up to the meetings (i.e. whenever there is free pizza), you have contributed some great stuff. What have you enjoyed most writing about on the Law Weekly?

I liked covering the sports, especially when my section would do really well in softball and I would have reason to trash talk the other sections in the 3L class.

Lightning Round:

So obligatory first one, what’s your pet peeve?

Any time there’s a lack of free food in the Law School.

Family?

I have six siblings, five sisters and a brother. Three of my siblings we adopted from Haiti a few years after the major earthquake there.

Favorite Charlottesville spot?

My favorite club is South & Central on Thursday nights because that’s when they do Latin dance.

Favorite professor (assuming you went to class even once)?

Dean Kendrick for Torts, because she's very logical in how she teaches. She lays it all out there very clearly and isn't out to trick you, which is why everyone seemed to know the material by the end.

Favorite food?

Indian food. I’ve liked Indian food since I was a kid. My family used to go to this nice place every Sunday in New York when I was younger. We were such loyal customers, they gave us free mango ice cream each time.

I thought that would be pandering but it actually turned out really sweet. So with all of your athleticism, what’s your ideal sports weather?

I’m getting a little older so I prefer it to be warmer. I can’t just play in the rain or snow anymore without a good warmup. Unless we’re talking Thanksgiving football, then I want a foot of snow on the ground. Tackle of course.

---
Interviewed by Sai Kulkarni ‘23
nw7cz@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Virginia Animal Law Society v. Pet-Less Law Students

Virginia Law Weekly April 5, 2022

Virginia Animal Law Society v. Pet-Less Law Students
74 U.Va 22 (2022)

PAZHWAK, J. delivers the opinion of the COURT.

Background

The Virginia Animal Law Society (VALS) has continued its annual Paw Review Contest (Paw Review), involving pet photos submitted by students at the University of Virginia School of Law which are featured to solicit donations.[1] This year, they plan to donate the proceeds to the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, a no-kill shelter that seeks to “advance the compassionate treatment of animals by providing shelter, medical care, and behavioral services for dogs and cats; promoting permanent, caring homes; and furthering education and outreach.”[2]

Sad, Pet-less Law Students United (Pet-less Law Students)[3] originally filed this class action suit in the Petty District Court. The plaintiff class, consisting of students who do not have pets with them in Charlottesville, brought the action under a tort theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress for the heart-wrenching pain (mingled with appreciation for adorableness) experienced by law students who must gaze wistfully at the pets of others, with no animal friend of their own to spend time with after another long day in the law school rat race. They seek no damages or injunction in recognition of Paw Review’s admirable goal, yet still call for the idiosyncratic remedy of clear cuteness warnings and other appropriate measures to prevent the inadvertent stumbling-upon of said pet images by the unwary law student. They want these measures strictly enforced against images of pets and costumes, which they find particularly distressing.

The lower court found for Pet-less Law Students, and now VALS seeks review on appeal.

Analysis

The instant case follows a line of cases that have dealt with various aspects of Paw Review.[4] Indeed, this Court notes, with great displeasure, Paw Review’s failure to comply with its order enjoining the blatant speciesism represented by use of an “Other” category to encompass all non-dog and non-cat pets.[5] While some progress has been made regarding this discrimination, with persistent prejudicial references to “furry friend[s]” largely absent from 2022 Paw Review advertising material, cat and dog supremacy remains disturbingly evident. Paw Review should take notice of the righteousness and inevitability of the rulings of this august Court and correct their behavior immediately.[6]

However, the instant issue is separable from the Court’s irritation regarding this other matter, and it will be considered on its own merits. In the instant case, the appellant, VALS, argues that it is not their fault that appellees are sad and lonely by reason of not having pets, and that they should not have to take costly actions on their behalf. In the alternative, they note that all law students are sad and lonely due to a multiplicity of factors and that blaming this condition on a lack of pets ignores the very structure of the legal profession. This Court agrees with this first argument. In Snap-back Wearing Law Student v. Student Affairs 78 U.Va. 28, 34 (2021), we held that a law student could not sue Student Affairs to enjoin their annual recognition of Valentine’s Day, premised on a tort theory of ongoing harms from a negligent infliction of emotional distress, stemming from their allegation that the holiday reminded them of their ongoing romantic ineptitude and subsequent loneliness. In this, we relied on the personal responsibility doctrine, which sometimes indicates that law students cannot enjoin the activities of others due to situations that are wholly of their own making. We adopt a similar analysis here, finding that Pet-less Law Students can help themselves by getting a pet instead of misdirecting their displeasure at VALS’s Paw Review. As a matter of law, we note the limitations of this holding and application of the personal responsibility doctrine and reserve the power of this Court to enjoin everything and anything that it sees fit.

We recognize that some law students, due to their housing arrangements or other commitments, may not be able to have a pet. Nevertheless, we do not find this to be an adequate reason to make Paw Review responsible for their position and any emotional harm they might experience by seeing the pets of others. Instead, we encourage them to look for ways to change their circumstances if their desire for a pet is so sincerely felt. We also encourage them to perhaps seek out an amenable classmate willing to share some time with their beloved pet, a feasible remedy requiring no action by this Court.

We reverse.

BNINSKI, J., concurring in the judgment.

I join in my esteemed colleague’s judgment on the merits of this case. I recognize that it is a hard, cruel world, but I firmly believe that individuals who do not have pets to lighten it lack standing to quell the expression of individuals with pets. Moreover, I cannot find against VALS for one simple reason: I have pets.[7]

But I take this opportunity to discuss what I see as a troubling aspect of the ostensibly benign phenomenon of Paw Review. Our democracy already faces pressure from corporate interests, which affect lawmakers to the detriment of the everyday person (or pet). Moreover, we live in an era beset with the menace of fake news.

In the quest to “raise money” for a “charity” like the “SPCA” by collecting “votes” for the “cutest” pets, Paw Review combines these two elements in a subversion of the democratic process. The most well-resourced or well-connected animals will garner the most votes and emerge victorious. This victory mocks meritocracy and invites disinformation about which pets are the best.[8] Our system of government, not pet-less law students, is the true victim in this case.

Mine. My pets are the best. But I forgot about the Paw Review submission deadline and failed to submit their information. Therefore, I have no choice but to state that the entire adorable process and worthy cause are an anti-democratic disaster.

MORSE, J., dissenting.

As the venerable Justice Holmes once noted, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” The majority fails to recognize the distinction between negligence and intentional action, and therefore fails to grasp the crux of this case. What we have in this case is not an organization blissfully unaware of the impact its adorable pet photos will have on people; the Virginia Animal Law Society (“VALS”) fully intended that people’s emotions would be swayed, leading them to donate money. Since they knew of the emotive power these pet photos hold, VALS must have also surely known that these photos would inevitably cause significant emotional distress to those pet-less[9] law students in the plaintiff-class. In my view, this demonstrates an astonishingly reckless disregard for the well-being of others in the pursuit of profit.[10] This Court should have recognized that VALS is kicking the metaphorical dog of pet-less law students, rather than stumbling over it on their way to do noble charity work. Accordingly, I would have upheld the lower court’s ruling.

Furthermore, the majority’s handling of the Pet-less Law Students’ situational restrictions on having pets is staggeringly inconsistent. First, the majority notes that some students are incapable of having pets for reasons out of their control, such as restrictions in their lease (not to mention more serious restrictions, such as allergies). But then, in the very next sentence, the Court ignores this and says that these students should engage in self-help measures. While I wholeheartedly support telling parties to stick their petty prayers for relief where the sun don’t shine, the Court never takes this step. The only explanations we are left with for the Court’s logical gymnastics are that the Court is either 1) assuaging a deep pet-related guilt[11] or 2) under the malign influence of the pet mafia[12] Virginia Animal Law Society (“VALS”). Either way, this decision will tarnish this Court’s reputation and bodes ill for the fate of our democracy.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

---
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] This historical tradition has evolved with technology and is now conducted online on a website. See Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society 912 U.Va. 16 (2019) (“Each year since the founding of the Law School, the Virginia Animal Law Society (VALS) has held a “Paw Review” contest, wherein pet owners submit photos of their animal companions, the photos are placed on jars in the Hunton Andrews Kurth hallway by ScoCo, and denizens of the Law School place money in the jars to signal their aesthetic approval of the pets. The pet with the most money in its jar at the end of the week receives the title of “the Law School’s most loved pet,” according to VALS. The money is donated to a no-kill shelter. It’s all very charming and cute and great for distracting us temporarily from our overwhelming existential dread.”).

[2] See Paw Review 2022, Paw Review, https://pawreview2022.squarespace.com// (last visited April 2, 2022).

[3] Sad, Pet-less Law Students United is a separate class from Gratuitously Mean-Spirited, Pet-less Law Students United. The former class loves pets and merely find themselves in the unenviable position of not having one of their own with them in Charlottesville. The latter group is of a comically villainous nature (they are known to cheer for Cruella de Vil during screenings of One Hundred and One Dalmatians) and seek to enjoin Paw Review in a separate suit on a theory that law students should have no small pleasures in life besides cite checks and optional mandatory supplemental class readings. This Court feels an unconcealed distaste for this latter class, strongly believing that all pets are to be treasured and that those adverse to them may have an improper temperament for Character and Fitness. See, e.g., 3L Roommate v. Lucy the Pupperoni 74 U.Va. 3, 4 (2021) (“Doggos are to be treasured, not sued.”).

[4] See Coughlin 912 U.Va. at 16; Coughlin v. Virginia Animal Law Society, 90 U.Va. 403 (2017) (Coughlin I).

[5] Coughlin 912 U.Va. at 16 (“The sun sets in the west and rises in the east; the trees sprout new leaves in the spring and shed them in the fall; and the Virginia Animal Law Society discriminates against non-dog-and-cat animals. It’s a tale as old as time, folks, and it’s happening again.”).

[6] See United States v. Law Weekly 109 U.Va. 926, 928 (1948) (“Our name is the Court of Petty Appeals, Court of Courts; Look on our Opinions, ye Mighty, and despair!”).

[7] In the interest of candor, I will concede that a strict property rights advocate could mount a reasonable argument that I do not, in fact, have “pets” as the term is traditionally used—rather, I have “step-dogs.” This is because the dogs were separate property of my husband, acquired before our marriage. While I embrace the appellation of “step-dogs,” because it cracks me up, I also deem that I have acquired an emotional property right in these cuties. The tri-fold foundation for this property right can be found in 1) the amount of hair that I regularly lint-roll off of my person and effects; 2) the volume of poop I have picked up and disposed of in accordance with Charlottesville Municipal Code, Article III, Section 4-41; and 3) the time I have invested in waiting for reply to the inquiry, “Are you a good boy?”

[8] Mine. My pets are the best. But I forgot about the Paw Review submission deadline and failed to submit their information. Therefore, I have no choice but to state that the entire adorable process and worthy cause are an anti-democratic disaster.

[9] For the record, I think a more appropriate term would be “un-petted.” However, my clerks (over-eager pre-law undergrads) informed me that this term might come off as risqué. In any case, my sympathies lie with both the pet-less and un-petted, however you read those terms.

[10] While the proceeds supposedly go to the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, VALS would hardly be the first charity to take a healthy cut off the top.

[11] Perhaps related to a goldfish a certain Justice forgot to feed for two weeks when they were growing up, or the pet snake that escaped and ate their little brother’s pet hamster. You know who you are.

[12] You may be tempted to think I’m crazy and that there is no pet mafia. But let me ask you, what else do you call a group of people who exert disproportionate influence (whether via emotional manipulation by cute animals or pointed threats to “go on strike” and no longer clean up after walking their dogs on the lawn at the Law School’s entrance)? Despite the Court’s kowtowing and a greater-than-usual number of dogs growling and cats hissing at me lately, I will not be silenced!

Hot Bench: Marlyse V. '22

Virginia Law Weekly April 5, 2022

Hi, Marlyse! Welcome to the Hot Bench—it’s great to have you here after three years with the Law Weekly! First off, where are you from?

Thanks for having me! I’m from Dripping Springs, Texas – a smallish town just west of Austin. Home to a long stretch of highway and the best breakfast tacos.

What drew you to study law? And what brought you here to UVA Law specifically?

I worked at a legal aid organization in Chicago for two years after college, where I coordinated the Child Representative and Veterans Programs. I really enjoyed helping people in the legal system, and it confirmed that law was the right path for me. I loved the vibes at UVA Law at Admitted Students Weekend. The students seemed relaxed (for law students) and genuinely happy to be here, and I’ve found that to be true!

What are some of your favorite involvements here at UVA Law?

I’ve enjoyed being a part of Law Weekly, of course, and LALO! Also going to Firefly trivia every Tuesday night with the same crew. It’s not recognized or funded by Student Affairs, but it should be.

What are you doing after law school?

Something unique and unheard of among UVA Law students: I’m headed to a firm in D.C.! I’m hoping to do investigations, white collar, and trade sanctions work.

What are the seven wonders of the Law School?

The secret balcony on the third floor that they definitely gatekeep from students
Mandy <3
Gunner pit chairs (so ergonomic!!)
Professor Caleb Nelson’s blackboards
Law library holiday decorations
Clark Hall murals
The yoga and meditation room behind C&C

What is the best piece of advice someone has given you?

“You might want to mute yourself.”

Just kidding – it’s actually this: “The only person you should compare yourself to is the person you were yesterday.”

What’s on your bucket list for the rest of your time in Charlottesville?

Watch the stars one summer night in Shenandoah National Park. And go to as many wineries and on as many hikes as possible.

If you weren’t going into a legal career, what would you be doing?

Maybe editing or PR. I like behind-the-scenes work.

Lightning round!

What is your favorite study spot in Charlottesville?

I’m not really into that activity these days, but I’d say the Shenandoah Joe’s at Ivy!

Favorite winery?

King Family is a classic. I also love Mount Ida.

What is the phone app you use the most?

Notes app! My whole life is in there.

If you could live anywhere in the world, where would you choose?

Somewhere by the beach in Spain or Portugal.

Biggest pet peeve?

Charlottesville drivers, generally.

Favorite way to spend your downtime?

Reading, napping, Sporcle, staring into the abyss.

---
Interviewed by Kathryn Querner ‘22
mav3p@virginia.edu