Court of Petty Appeals: Students of the Law School v. 1Ls in the Library

Virginia Law Weekly October 26, 2022

Students of the Law School v.
1Ls in the Library
75 U.Va 8 (2022)

Kulkarni, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Today’s case is a low-temperature issue. While this is not a court of public opinion, this Court understands that we will face judgment for our decisions.[1] There are some rare times, however, when the opinion of the Law School points in a singular direction—rarer still is when that opinion aligns with what the law demands. The complaint at bar has been filed by a coalition of students from each class, with amicus briefs filed by the administration, staff, and professors of the Law School. They all state the same thing: The 1Ls currently studying daily in the library need to stop. The 1Ls in question have been camped out at the same tables before, during, and after classes, at times without break. This contingent of students has decided, quite early in the semester, to move on from doing their readings to building outlines.

II.

There are two main parts to this analysis. The first is whether it is appropriate for the 1Ls to be in the library at all during this time of year. These students, the same as all other students, have the option to spend their time in the four areas of Scott Commons, the hallway tables, the lounges, or Spies Garden. Their choice to spend time in the library does not speak well of their decision-making skills. Law school is an inherently social activity, and by isolating themselves in the library, these students are reducing their opportunities to be social. In particular, with the weather getting colder, these students are missing out on the last few days that Spies Garden is a viable place to spend their time.

However, there is only a small number of 1Ls that have taken up residence in the library alone. These students in particular are enjoined from continuing their solo run to gunner-dom. Not only is it detrimental to their mental health, it also presents an equity issue when it comes to the entire 1L class. The students that are aware of how to study, how long to study, and how to convert old outlines with effectiveness are more likely to be second- and third-generation law students. This injunction will hopefully prevent them from using their unfair advantage. To anyone who argues that this remedy is too similar to legislation, I point you to the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: “We do what we want.”

The other students—those studying in groups—however, are not subject to the same injunction. By studying in groups, these 1Ls are already reducing their own levels of productivity. Moreover, they are being social. While this Court may question why these 1Ls have decided that the library is the best place to spend time with their friends, we will admit that law students are inherently weird. Though this choice is odd, there is no remedy available to the plaintiffs for these students simply being in the library this early in the semester.

III.

The second issue is where the plaintiffs may find some relief against the groups of 1Ls who reside in the library within groups. The issue arises from what those students are doing in the library. All law students have readings to do almost daily, especially 1Ls. These students can merely be called diligent if they are working on their daily readings. As most of the members of this Court are participants in the lifestyle known as “3LOL,” we can look upon them and reminisce on our own pasts.[2] The plaintiffs, though, have brought a far graver accusation to our Court. These 1Ls are accused of having started their outlining far too early. Some of the best students will claim that one month of studying is enough for exams. Others will claim that two weeks suffice. The most ambitious, especially a good portion of the Class of 2023’s Section A, will claim that each 1L exam only requires two to four days of dedicated studying. Regardless of which of these three ranges is used, these 1Ls are taking their exams far too seriously. This is Week Nine of Fourteen. There is still plenty of content to learn. For these 1Ls to study so early, they are gunners. Moreover, these 1Ls are breaking one of the fundamental rules of law school: collegiality. All law students have to suffer through exams. During 1L, they have to take the same exams. By beginning to study this early, they are forcing their peers to start studying early as well. Regardless of whether they are studying in a group or alone, they are cutting into their peers’ time to have fun. Therefore, these students are enjoined from outlining. Go out and touch grass, 1Ls.

IV.

Not only do 1Ls always lose in this Court, these 1Ls in particular need to quit their heinous actions. Beyond their gunner behavior, they are taking space in the library from students who are just starting to do their readings for the semester and catching up. They are also taking space away from Law Review upperclassmen who just remembered that they have Notes to write. For themselves and others, 1Ls must be in groups within the library from now on and are barred from outlining until at least November 15.

Walsh, J., dissenting.

The majority’s opinion today is utterly confounding. There’s so much to unpack here, it’s not even worth opening the suitcase. Rather than explore the complete lack of legal grounding for today’s opinion (beyond a brief mention that 1Ls always lose), the bewildering relief granted that will likely result only in making all parties worse off, or the inexplicable decision to encourage 1Ls to form groups while studying, I will limit myself to simply stating the following: If you’re not a 1L, and you’re bothered by there being 1Ls in the library right now because they’re interfering with your own library usage, you’re the problem.

Yes, it is the case that “1Ls lose,”[3] but so do gunners.[4] And the cold, hard truth is that if you’re not a 1L and you’re in the library before November, you’re a gunner. The only acceptable reason to be in the library right now as a non-1L is if you’re grabbing snacks from one of the journal offices and then booking it right back out those doors and into the hallway of Brown. Otherwise, I don’t want to see it.

It pains me to side with 1Ls, but because I believe that they should be cordoned off from the rest of polite society whenever possible, the 1Ls should be allowed to remain in the library, whether in groups or alone.[5] Now, this becomes another matter entirely once finals season hits and I need my back-of-the-library spot back—in which case any 1Ls trying to occupy my seat will have hell to pay. But until then, the 1Ls are allowed to do whatever it is that they do in the library, so long as I don’t have to see them do it.

As such, I dissent.

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

[1] Something Justice Alito should learn.

[2] And then immediately sober up by remembering that our 1L year was dominated by Covid, masks, and virtual classes.

[3] 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).

[4] 2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn v. Everyone Else, 75 U.Va. 2 (2022).

[5] Also, can we talk about that whole “it’s okay if it’s in a group thing,” because what the hell is that? You’re telling me that you want to jumpstart the 1L frenzy that happens whenever one member of a 1L group inevitably sends the rest of that group into a collective panic attack? Why??

Hot Bench: Professor Frost

Virginia Law Weekly October 26, 2022

Hello Professor Frost, and welcome to the Hot Bench! Let’s start with where you’re from, and how you are liking Charlottesville so far.

I was born in Boston, Massachusetts, but I’ve spent most of the last two decades living in Washington, D.C. Charlottesville is beautiful, and there is so much to explore. Favorite spots so far include the Ix Park farmer’s market, the rope swing on the Rivanna River (which my kids discovered), and the Quirk hotel rooftop at sunset.

You are new to the Law School this year, but you have spent a long time teaching both domestically and abroad. Can you tell us a bit about your past work and what led you to UVA?

I am so delighted to be able to teach immigration law here at UVA, which became known as a leader in the field, thanks to Professor David Martin (now emeritus).

I first became interested in immigration law when I worked on immigration cases as a staff attorney at a civil rights/consumer rights nonprofit. After I entered academia, I supervised students litigating immigration cases through the law school’s immigration clinic and represented immigrants in the federal courts of appeals. Eventually, I began teaching and writing in the area as well.

I find everything about immigration fascinating—from the history, to the law, to the life stories of my clients. As I tell my students, the United States is made and remade by our immigration policies every generation. Today, 25 percent of the U.S. population is either an immigrant or the child of immigrants. Yet the country is polarized over who to admit to membership, and this divide has been a driving force in elections. This issue is not going away any time soon.

You have a forthcoming book about birthright citizenship in the United States. Can you give us a sneak peek into what you’ve found?

The book examines birthright citizenship through the stories of three families instrumental in establishing that right in the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States integrates new immigrants far better than many European countries. One reason for that success is automatic citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Yet that principle has repeatedly come under attack, particularly over the last few decades. I hope to tell the story behind birthright citizenship in an accessible, engaging way that illuminates its place in our nation’s constitutional values.

You clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. How did you like the experience? How did it impact your professional development?

The clerkship was formative. It is amazing to go from being a 3L with zero authority to a law clerk drafting opinions and advising a federal judge on the outcome of cases. (And it is equally jarring to return to the lowest rung of the profession as an entry-level lawyer a year later!) Working closely with my judge and co-clerks gave me confidence that I had a place in this profession.

You are a believer in cold calls. Can you explain why you think they’re useful? Was your perspective on them different as a law student than it has been as a law professor?

Cold calling ensures I hear from a diversity of voices, keeps everyone actively engaged with the material, and gives students a chance to practice articulating legal arguments in a no-stakes setting.

As a law student, I was just as nervous as everyone else, especially the first few times I was called on. But it got easier with practice, and I appreciated how it kept me on my toes. Eventually, I found I was more comfortable being called on than volunteering. When I volunteered, I felt pressure to say something significant. But if I was called on, my classmates knew I was just doing my best to answer the professor’s questions.

What is the best career advice you’ve ever received?

To take advantage of the versatility of the law degree by switching fields and taking on new challenges when opportunities arise.

Let’s do a lightning round!

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

The mountain lake on my laptop’s screensaver.

Favorite word?

Chocolate.

Do you have a secret talent?

I make a to-die-for flourless chocolate cake.

First job you ever had?

Working the concession stand at a movie theater while in high school. I ate a lot of popcorn.

My first job in the legal profession was working as an investigator for the D.C. Public Defender Service the summer after my sophomore year of college. That job opened my eyes to the best and worst aspects of our legal system and our society, and it inspired me to go to law school.

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

Be kind.

You studied American history and literature in college (I love to see a fellow American Studies major!). What, in your opinion, is the quintessential Great American Novel?

My vote would be for Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. She is a Nigerian immigrant to the United States who wrote about this country with the fresh eyes of an outsider-turned-insider.

---
Professor Frost
afrost@law.virginia.edu
Interviewed by Elizabeth Patten '25

Court of Petty Appeals: In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds

Virginia Law Weekly October 19, 2022

In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds
75 U.Va 7 (2022)

Morse, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

The case before this Court concerns one of the most critical and pervasive issues since our nation’s founding: the size and autonomy of our military. Petitioners allege that on several recent mornings, when they attempted to park in the North Grounds Park parking lot,[1] they were prevented from doing so by what they described as “hundreds, if not thousands” of individuals clad in black t-shirts reading “ARMY” who were engaged in various physical exercises. Specifically, these military exercises included running around the track at “inhuman” speeds, kettlebell workouts, and every manner of Olympic lift.[2] Petitioners argue that the presence and physically intimidating manner in which the military personnel occupied the parking lot amounts to constructive eviction of anyone wanting to park their cars without being made painfully aware that they are a skinny graduate student who struggles to carry more than two casebooks at once. Petitioners note that they were so intimidated, they awkwardly backed all the way up the hill they had just driven down and ended up not going to the gym themselves, out of lack of a parking spot they didn’t have to pay for. The petitioners filed an emergency petition with this Court to seek an action for ejectment and an injunction on all future military exercises (in every sense of the term) on Law School property.

We hold first that the parking lot and the adjoining Judge Advocate General School (henceforth, “JAG School”) are hereby annexed and incorporated as part of the Law School. We also hold that, as part of Law School grounds and as an exercise of civilian control over the military, the military personnel are enjoined from continuing their physical exercises indefinitely.

II.

The first issue we consider is our jurisdiction over this case and how it relates to ownership of the North Grounds Park. While it is unclear who “technically” owns the North Grounds Park and parking lot, we remind our readers that, per the third Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, this “Court has the power to review any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its students.” However, keeping in mind that though our jurisdiction is expansive and our powers limitless, we are nonetheless a judicial body and refuse to do more work than we have to. It falls to the Petty Executive (a.k.a. the Law School Administration) to enforce our rulings, and we recognize that if the Law School does not own the property at issue, it could present technical difficulties. As such, we will also read the petition here as one to quiet title, and accordingly, we rule that the North Grounds Park, parking lot, and (for good measure) the adjoining JAG School are henceforth owned by the Law School. This ruling is both necessary for the disposition of this case, and builds upon this Court’s precedents, which support any action which empowers the Law School.[3]

III.

Having asserted and expanded this Court’s benevolent dominion over another portion of the North Grounds, we turn now to the primary claim of this case. What do we make of these strange, early-morning parking lot exercises that the military is conducting? At a minimum, it is highly suspicious. Some might urge this Court not to engage in reckless speculation, but such judicial humility and discretion is irreconcilable with the First Petty Rule of Civil Procedure, “we do what we want,” and importantly, even asking us to consider being more thoughtful is “unbecoming of this Court to consider.”[4] So, let the fear mongering commence.

The first possibility of the military’s exercises is that they are plotting an overthrow of this Court. This is the most likely case, given that our own former Chief Justice, who had a notable penchant for Petty tyranny,[5] has joined our neighboring JAG School. Is it possible that Phil “Thunderdome” Tonseth has gained a position of authority within the military and now, drunk with power, seeks to overthrow this judiciary, which stands as a bulwark against all tyranny?[6] Yes. This is undoubtedly the most reasonable explanation for why, in the early morning hours on weekdays, before the sun has risen and when any honorable and innocent student is still fast asleep, packs of ARMY t-shirt-wearing individuals are training. Jealous of the immense power we wield and led by a man who likely wishes to raze this school and replace it with a softball stadium as a monument to himself, they are coming for us all.

But even if their aims are more modest and they only wish to practice healthy habits, this Court cannot let this suspicious behavior go unchecked. It is a principle fundamental to our republic that the military must be subordinate to the civilian government. The Founders expressed a deep wariness of standing armies, with George Washington himself calling them “under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and [they] are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” This Court recognizes and shares the Founders’ unease, and we believe that if we must have a military on our Grounds, let it be one made up of spindly-armed, tofu-eating fellows. They ought only to be able to exercise when the people’s duly-elected representatives, or this Court, say so.

IV.

Whether it be the result of “machinations, hollowness, treachery and ruinous disorders”[7] or good intentions that are nonetheless an impermissible show of independence by the military, this Court must intervene. We hold that the North Grounds Park, its adjoining parking lots, and the JAG School are now the property of the Law School. We also hold that, until such a time as the democratic representatives of the Law School[8] or this Court hold otherwise, the military is enjoined from conducting these early morning exercises on any of the Law School’s North Grounds property. And to those who question the wisdom of enjoining a fighting force from physical exercise or worry about the consequences of our decision’s wholesale annexation of the majority of North Grounds: “Our name is the Court of Petty Appeals, Court of Courts; Look on our Opinions, ye Mighty, and despair!”[9]

Tonseth, C.J. Emeritus, dissenting.

Blasphemous. Borderline Socialist. Bad.

Justice Morse’s legal analysis, or lack thereof, may explain all of the B’s I presume dot his transcript. It nevertheless falls upon my esteemed Esquire-self[10] to do an educate to y’all. I am gravely concerned that since I closed the door to the Thunderdome,[11] Justice Morse has distorted the Court of Petty Appeal’s Constitution into tests as incomprehensible as those stemming from a Justice Breyer opinion. If Justice Morse would have done a scintilla of research, he would know he is clearly violating established doctrine from this Court.

In my humble opinion, the Court’s greatest COVID case was NGSL v. UVA IM-Rec Sports.[12] Here, IM-Rec was enjoined for violating NGSL’s free exercise rights under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Morse attempts to stifle any sort of early-morning exercise, while also attempting to quarter troops in the UVA Law campus, in direct violation of the Third Amendment. “As my boi Antonin would say, paraphrasing slightly, ‘[Justice Morse’s] opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity’[13] when you look at their rules and how they were applied to [the JAG School].”[14]

If the legal argument holds no sway, let me ask you this, dear reader: Would you prefer your military to be brains over brawn, to be mightier with a quill than a barbell? Additionally, shouldn’t you be more concerned for your classmates who are attempting to get to school at 6 a.m., instead of what Army weirdos are playing with kettlebells at the same time?

For patriotism, the Bill of Rights, and my love of pumping iron, I dissent with every muscle fiber I possess.

---
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
@ptonseth4 on Instagram

[1] This is, of course, the large parking lot adjacent to the turf soccer fields and softball fields, famous for being the location of the Law School’s annual Dandelion performance by 1Ls. It is also well-known for rarely being checked by the parking ticket commissars.

[2] Petitioners’ brief is replete with references to how “hardcore” and “scary” it was to see dozens of military personnel performing power cleans, overhead presses, and deadlifts on the parking lot asphalt. We share their concerns and express a strong preference for mild bowflex and elliptical workouts.

[3] See 2L v. COVID Protocols, 74 U.Va. 16 (2022) (Morse, J., concurring) (“I . . . encourage the Law School . . . to EMBRACE and EXPAND its power, at all costs.”) (emphasis added).

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

[5] See generally Phil Tonseth, Welcome to the Thunderdome: Chief Justice Phil Tonseth Takes the Gavel, Va. L. Wkly. Mar. 3, 2021; see also Tonseth v. The Haters II, 74 U.Va. 24 (2022) (“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!”) We do.

[6] Except for its own, of course.

[7] William Shakespeare, King Lear act 1, sc. 2.

[8] We suppose that this is the SBA, but we would like information on voter participation before lending our already-tenuous legitimacy to them.

[9] United States v. Law Weekly, 109 U.Va. 926, 928 (1948).

[10] S/O Missouri—only needed a 260 on the MBE to pass!

[11] Supra, or something.

[12] 73 U.Va. 9 (2020). A true legal genius wrote this case, don’t worry.

[13] Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014).

[14] NGSL, 73 U.Va.

Hot Bench: William Schweller '25

Virginia Law Weekly October 19, 2022

Mr. Schweller, welcome to the Hot Bench. First, introduce yourself to this publication’s vast readership.

I grew up in Cincinnati, Ohio. I then went to Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine where I majored in Art History. I graduated in 2017. For five years following undergrad, I worked for a regional auction house in Westchester County, NY, just north of NYC. I started as a cataloging assistant, helping to put together sales, but after a year, I took over as the fine art specialist, auctioneer, and appraiser, responsible for all fine art lots.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I quite enjoy looking at and learning about art. I also love to hike, both on trails and sidewalks.

So, your career in the art world is quite interesting. Tell me about what the day-to-day was like for you.

For much of my time at the auction house, I was the sole person responsible for the sale of fine art lots. We’d run auctions every four weeks, and in each sale, I averaged anywhere from 100 to 150 works of art. My days were quite varied. I spent a lot of time interfacing with potential consignors, evaluating and appraising their collections to determine what I could sell and what it would likely bring at auction. Sometimes this was done via email, but often I would visit folks in their homes. I’ve been in some pretty wild places, ranging from Fifth Avenue co-ops to storage units in rural Connecticut. I was also responsible for cataloging the art, which involved taking photographs, assessing the works’ condition, and putting together brief descriptions of the works. I’d then market the pieces, discussing them with potential buyers. I most enjoyed actually auctioning the works. These days, most bidders participate in auctions online, so there isn’t much of a physical crowd, but it is still quite thrilling to stand up there marshaling bidders, trying to get the highest price possible for my consignors.

What was the most interesting piece of art that you dealt with?

That’s a tough question. I don’t know if I could pick a single work. I was able to handle a tremendous range of works, ranging from Seventeenth Century Dutch drawings to hyper-contemporary paintings. Some works were by household names, others by artists who had never before been to market.

Do you find that the skills are transferable? This is not your admissions interview… “of course not” is an acceptable answer.

Well, I’m not looking at many paintings anymore, except for the sheep and cows hanging in Brown Hall. But, I often had to explain things to folks who weren’t particularly knowledgeable about art or the art market, and that required me to get good at distilling issues down into clear, simple answers. Professors, feel free to correct me, but I think that has helped me with cold calling.

Out of our current professors, who do you think has the best taste in art? Who would be most likely to negotiate down to half of the asking price? Feel free to answer like you’re using a blind grading number.

Oh, such a tough question. I’m not one to speculate. How do you quantify taste in art? I’m tremendously grateful that classes are in person, but it must have been interesting for those students who had Zoom lectures to see their professors’ houses in the background. I love seeing how people decorate their homes and what art they choose to live with.

You have a remarkably distinct gait. Any reason for that? I mean, seriously, I can identify you from a mile away with the effortless flow.

It could be because I’ve spent 10,000 hours in front of a mirror, perfecting my ramble, or it could be because in ninth grade, I really wanted to be cool, so I sagged my pants. I had to walk in a certain way, or else my Gap corduroys would be at my ankles. I use a belt now, but the walk’s remained the same.

Where do you see yourself in five years? Back in the Midwest? In Alaska? Raking in money for plaintiffs or defending the downtrodden?

I don’t really know where I’ll end up after law school. I am interested in the law in part because of my work at the auction house, where I encountered legal issues surrounding fine art transactions. Whether that interest will lead me to corporate work or litigation remains to be seen.

A media personality, with about as much reach as me, asks what three books you would recommend. But we don’t have time for pleasure reading. What are three hikes you’d recommend?

If we don’t have time to read, I’m not sure we have time to hike. That said, I really enjoyed hiking the Riprap Trail, up in Shenandoah. Closer to home, I’ve loved having access to the Rivanna Trail. While the sections of it closest to North Grounds do parallel the highway, it’s great being able to walk out of the library and into the woods. Next time you’re in Maine, I recommend climbing Mt. Katahdin, the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. Remarkable views. Relatedly, I recommend Googling Marsden Hartley’s paintings of Katahdin. True masterpieces of American art.

---
Interviewed by Garrett Coleman '25
zca7jp@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: 19 October, 2022

Virginia Law Weekly October 19, 2022

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

Question:

Hi, I am in the First-Generation Professionals group at UVA Law, and recently a friend of a friend asked if he could join. I’m normally all about outreach, so I told him about the group and told him to come to an event.

Later, I found out that not only are both of his parents professionals, making him not a first-generation professional, they’re both lawyers! That went to UVA Law! After I found that out, I told him that he shouldn’t join the organization. He seemed confused, which made me confused. He said I was “gatekeeping” the organization. That was frustrating. It seemed that he wouldn’t listen to reason when I tried to explain the purpose of the organization.

He’s being some type of way about it because he said one of his parents is retired and the other parent is a professor, so they don’t really count. This isn’t so much an advice question as it is a reality check. How does this person exist? Am I missing something?

Sincerely,

Quite Confused

Answer:

On the surface, it might seem obvious that a person who is by definition not a first-generation professional should not be in the First-Generation Professionals group, but the issue is more complex than that.

Clearly, you are dealing with a privileged person. Privilege has a funny way of blinding people to social dynamics that are apparent to everyone else. We can liken his “blindness” to the very real struggles of blind people, for which our legal framework provides certain measures. In the employment context, the law provides for “reasonable accommodations,” which are designed to make it possible for employees to enjoy equal privileges of employment.

Your colleague’s perspective is a social impairment. Sure, you said they weren’t the right fit for the organization, but gatekeeping is way too strong. At the same time, you are in a position to accommodate your colleague. The question is, is letting a person who is not a first-generation professional into a group for first-generation professionals a “reasonable accommodation”?

There may be some benefit to letting him in. His privilege has led him to be delusional about his place in the world. Perhaps these delusions would provide good contrast for discussions during meetings. In addition, the law is dominated by privileged people delusional about their place in the world. Thus, it is reasonable in the context of a law school student organization to allow him into the group.

Not only is it reasonable, there’s a moral argument for it. We should seek to create a more diverse and inclusive society. Allowing him into the group would certainly increase diversity of background and diversity of thought. Besides, UVA Law has such a strong legacy of collegiality; you don’t want to compromise that, do you? We need to keep students happy so Above the Law keeps writing articles about how great a place UVA Law is to go to school.

Even if you disagree with my reasoning, there may be other benefits to letting him in. When I went to law school, I was floored by the levels of privilege I witnessed. At the beginning, I felt the need to call it out, find trusted people with similar backgrounds to talk to, do something about it.

My perspective changed during a conversation I had with a professor. This professor said something to the effect of, “Worse comes to worst, you can always be fake. Often, it’s in your best interest to be fake. These people are your future clients, for God’s sake. Do you even care about money?”

This piece of advice has done wonders for me. Being something you’re not is a key aspect of practicing law. I can guarantee that at some point in your career, you will be paid to defend an idea that you not only fundamentally disagree with, but that you think would be a detriment to society if applied broadly.

Law school molds people into cogs for use in systems that, despite their benefits, produce a lot of evil. Pick your poison. It could be the military-industrial complex, it could be big oil. Part of dealing with that is learning to be fake. You might consider leaning into that now. You’ll want to be thoroughly cynical by the time you’re on the partner track. -JD

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

Court of Petty Appeals: 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls

Virginia Law Weekly October 5, 2022

1Ls
v.
2Ls and 3Ls
75 U.Va 6 (2022)

Pazhwak, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

This class action suit comes to us from the District Court of Petty Complaints (“DCPC”), where Appellants, the University of Virginia School of Law (“UVA Law”) Class of 2025 (“the 1Ls”), challenge an injunction enjoining their over-consumption of Law School event food, and the concomitant practice of forming ridiculously long queues at events to obtain said food. Appellees, the UVA Law Classes of 2023 and 2024 (“the 3Ls” and “the 2Ls,” respectively), while seeking to maintain the injunction, also request reconsideration of the issue of compensatory and punitive damages against the 1L class as an additional remedy for harms suffered.

Furthermore, this Court has decided to hear a separate, yet linked, issue on appeal from the DCPC, brought by the 3Ls and 2Ls against the UVA Law Office of Student Affairs (“Student Affairs”). Appellants in that case, the 3Ls and 2Ls, seek a writ of mandamus compelling Student Affairs to increase student organization budgets to bring them in line with larger class sizes and rampant inflation, thereby partially preempting the issue of inadequate supply.

Background

As the 3Ls, and to a much lesser extent, the 2Ls, well know, the pandemic brought severe disruptions to life at UVA Law. This was especially apparent with the lack of events put on by the Law School’s many affinity groups, academic forums, social clubs, and other student associations during the 2020–2021 year.[1] They slowly began to recover in the 2021–2022 year; however, there were still consistently small event turnouts, with the then-largely absent 3Ls, estranged 2Ls, and indifferent 1Ls providing little in the way of participation. Yet a silver lining quickly became apparent: an abundance of food and short lines for the law students attempting to get it. A law student could go days in a row living solely off event food, not only getting sufficient calories but also, according to several affidavits, eating quite well. Sometimes, very well. There were Roots bowls galore, Panera boxes of all kinds, Mellow Mushroom pizza, Bodo’s Bagels, Ivy Provisions, and Chick-fil-A sandwiches in abundance. There were dinners, breakfasts, and ever-present leftovers sitting on that most cherished of Law School sites: the free food table. GroupMes would fill to the brim with alerts, with pictures of foods hailing from the varied culinary traditions present in Charlottesville, calling to be consumed. It was a time of abundance and plenty, especially for that thrifty, industrious subset of law students with the open ear, the hungry stomach, and the iron-willed determination to offset their high tuition.

Starting in the Fall of 2022, a disturbing trend began to upset this state of affairs. As evidence submitted by Appellees has shown, there is no longer even a surplus, much less an abundance, of food. For example, there are images of a Common Law Grounds (“CLG”) event with tables that were picked clean of food by the time the event actually began, according to the timestamps, denying even the marginally late law student any reward for their attendance.[2] A similar situation was documented at the Law, Innovation, Security & Technology (“LIST”) general body meeting, with one 3L reporting many empty boxes and only meager slices of cheese pizza remaining upon their arrival. 2L testimony regarding the Constitution Day Conversation with A. E. Dick Howard and Bertrall Ross described a line stretching out of the door, with some students never laying eyes on the supposedly available food. The days of plenty were evidently over,[3] and competition at UVA Law had once again extended beyond courses, job hunts, and clerkships to the sphere of consumption.

Analysis

Appellants contend that the DCPC committed an abuse of discretion in granting a permanent injunction after applying the following four factor test: “(1) that the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury; (3) that the remedy in equity is warranted upon consideration of the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant; and (4) that the permanent injunction being sought would not hurt public interest.”[4] Regarding factor one, Appellants assert that the 3Ls and 2Ls have suffered no injury, and merely have been forced to contend with the level of food availability at UVA Law that existed before pandemic disruptions. Regarding the second factor, Appellants argue that no remedy was warranted, absent the lack of injury under factor one. Regarding factor three, Appellants argue that the 3Ls and 2Ls endure no greater hardship than the 1Ls, who have an equally legitimate interest in eating what food is available at events. Finally, regarding the fourth factor, Appellants claim that it is not in the public interest to enjoin 1L overconsumption, with the proper approach instead derived from the property principle in Pierson v. Post, with the first-in-time consumption of food establishing rightful possession.[5] Indeed, they assert that a conniving subset of 3Ls and 2Ls, who they allege were instrumental in bringing this case before the DCPC, are attempting to use the law to maintain their fiefdoms of free food, with the vast majority of 3Ls and 2Ls actually being indifferent to the matter and not likely to benefit from the injunction.

We find the appellants’ reasoning woefully inadequate. Not only have the 1Ls not even taken Property yet, but they will never know what it was like for UVA Law students during the pandemic. Indeed, even the 2Ls do not know much beyond mandatory masking. For the 3Ls, Zoom doctrinal classes, the five-person gathering rule, GroupMe ugliness, anonymous reporting, and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion are only some of the experiences that constitute ongoing injuries. Whatever small silver linings they managed to grasp from the experience ought to be maintained in the interest of justice. Indeed, the 2Ls really should not be entitled to the same level of relief as the 3Ls, absent this same injury. However, this Court is magnanimous to the 2Ls, whether it ought to be or not.[6] Thus, this Court upholds the DCPC permanent injunction limiting 1L consumption to 33.3% of event food, regardless of the number of them present at an event, reflecting the breakdown of grades at the Law School. Thus, 66.7% of all food will be reserved for 2Ls and 3Ls.

Regarding the issue of only a subset of 2Ls and 3Ls benefiting from food abundance, this Court finds that so long as event food is open to all 2Ls and 3Ls, it cannot be helped that some law students take greater advantage of the resources available to them than others.

Regarding the additional issue of whether compensatory and punitive damages ought to be paid by the 1Ls to the 2Ls and 3Ls, this Court finds that while they might be warranted, given evidence of 3L and 2L deprivation, so long as the injunction is complied with, the issue need not be taken further. However, if future claims are brought against the 1Ls, perhaps further remedies might be justified.

Finally, the additional issue on appeal, brought by the 3Ls and 2Ls as a class, against Appellee, Student Affairs, is whether a writ of mandamus compelling Student Affairs to increase student organization budgets to reflect a great number of students and high levels of inflation was properly denied. As a procedural matter, while this case involves at least one party not present in the appeal covered in the previous discussion, it was properly joined to the earlier case, per the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure. Substantively, we find that the DCPC may have erred in denying mandamus; however, this would require a greater look at the administrative record. It is a duty of Student Affairs to take care of the affairs of students, and absent a more detailed showing for why student organization budgets have not kept up with inflation or greater student numbers, their decision not to take such care must be regarded as arbitrary and capricious. We thus remand this matter to the DCPC, where Student Affairs will have an opportunity to make the proper showing to substantiate student organization budget levels, considering prevailing Law School and societal conditions.

Sandu, J., dissenting.

This Court’s position is, at best, myopic. It ignores the fundamental purpose behind offering free food—to get 1Ls to sign up for organizations and do all of the work. Such a strategy is employed by this very court, where the perfume of pizza wafting down the halls has attracted many a future Justice. I would argue that a 3LOL can only exist if 1Ls are taking up everyone’s time by asking questions and filling seats, allowing 3Ls to comfortably fade into the background. I am troubled by the cavalier (no pun intended) attitude the Court has taken towards this potentially devastating outcome.

Further, even at hosted events with no long-term organizational repercussions, having a crowd of 1Ls makes it socially acceptable for 2Ls and 3Ls to come at the end and take food, because nobody is going to notice them. While my colleagues may argue that they only seek to enjoin 1Ls from eating all of this food, they ignore the fact that nobody goes to any event if there isn’t food. Bringing this suit thus dangerously discourages 1Ls from participating in events, placing the burden on 2Ls and 3Ls. These are not the incentive structures we want to create. Lastly, how do you expect 1Ls to ever be able to fully integrate into the Law School if we deny them that most sacred of traditions—free food? Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

---
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
ms7mn@virginia.edu

[1] Aside from plentiful well meaning, if horribly awkward, Zoom events.

[2] Is event attendance a reward in itself? This Court reserves judgment.

[3] It ought to be noted that food aplenty can still be found every Monday in the office of UVA Law’s most esteemed publication, the Law Weekly, but only for those with the desire to contribute to its fearless journalism and unparalleled wit.

[4] Injunction, LII, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunction (last visited Oct. 2, 2022).

[5] 3 Cai. R. 175 (1805).

[6] See Kulkarni v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021).

Background

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