Hot Bench: Nishtha Kulkarni '23, Production Editor

---

Nishtha Kulkarni ‘23

Hi Nishtha! I would welcome you to the Law Weekly, but you’re the current Production Editor, so that seems a bit unnecessary. So, let’s get right into it! What is your best quote from your running quote document?

My best quote that I can actually publish in the paper is from two weeks ago: “Who among us isn’t a little into lung play?”

What is the most memorable thing you’ve witnessed in a class? Weren’t you there when Kordana had a stroke?

I was there for that, yes. It was the first Tuesday of classes, at 8:30 in the morning. I am sitting front and center. In the last thirty minutes of class, Kordana started gripping the podium and staring into space. And we all thought that he’d run out of material. But, after he didn’t say anything for a while, we started to get concerned. Then, some of the students who knew the signs of a stroke ran up, got him to sit down, and called 911. It was really harrowing. And it’s crazy that he was back teaching the next week. He was back on his feet that afternoon! He spent the rest of his first class back apologizing to us, and we were all just like, “But are you okay?”

How has class been since he got back?

Well, he has a lot of opinions about Mormons. He thinks they have too much money. Someone said they are hoarding money for the second coming of Christ, and he was like, “Good! So we should tax them, then.”

Wait, can we put that in the paper?

Oh, we can definitely put that in the paper. I think everyone in the Law School knows how to take a joke by now.

What is the most unhinged thing you’ve witnessed at Feb Club, since you’ve been Iron Manning?

So, I don’t think I’ve witnessed anything too unhinged this Feb Club, but the summer after our 1L year, during Summer Series—which was our Covid version of Feb Club—I went to this party called Strawberry Moon. That class of then-3Ls were interesting people. It was a nighttime bonfire schtick in this 3L’s backyard, and the party was infamous because he had advertised it as the night that he would reveal the response to his FOIA request of the person who had reported him for breaking Covid rules. So halfway through the party, he pulls out this yellow envelope and is like, “Who wants me to read this?” And then this other 3L in a black mask runs up, grabs the envelope, and throws it in the fire. And this was all done to symbolize that he didn’t want to embarrass the person who reported him, who I later found out was at the party. But it was the most theatrical performance of “stick it to the administration” that I’ve ever experienced.

Wow. I think I blocked that entire year from my memory.

I really think that what has defined our experience as 3Ls is the Covid year. I was getting dinner with some 2Ls, and they were asking me about that year, and I was telling them some of the crazier stories I have witnessed or been a part of. And I think the Covid regulations were both the cause of so much drama and something we never fully got past as a class.

Do you think we’ve gotten better as a class?

I think Covid caused us to revert to our worst middle school behavior. 2L brought out our worst high school drama.

And now we’re in college! We’re emotionally stunted like all those kids who can’t read now because of their Covid educations. Are you feeling 3LOL right now?

I take law school less seriously than I think a lot of people do. I spend a lot of time socializing and networking because I feel like now is the time for us to make friends and get to know professors. We’re going to have to hit our 2,000 billable hours next year, and law school should be about us learning to manage our stress so that we don’t burn out next year. Law school should be about stopping to smell the roses, learning to develop yourself and grow as a person, and having strong relationships. So that’s a long-winded way of saying I’ve been 3LOLing since spring of 1L.

So, since you’ve had this philosophy during law school, how do you think you’ve grown as a person in the last two-and-a-half years?

I think I’ve developed a lot as a person, and I’ve really come into my own in more ways than one. I mean, a lot of people wouldn’t choose to come out as trans during law school, but because I’ve taken the time to develop genuine relationships with people, it’s really helped me to feel safe and secure in myself.

---
Interviewed by Bryanna Lindberg '23
omk6cg@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: 1L Plus Ones v. Barrister's Planning Committee

---

1L Plus Ones
v.
Barrister's Planning Committee
75 U.Va 15 (2023)

Peterson, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

Background

Barrister’s Ball, recently deemed by this Court to be Law School Prom, is an event planned by the Barrister’s Planning Committee (“Committee”), an independent committee created by the Student Bar Association (“SBA”). The Ball involves a dance with open bars, food, and a DJ at a venue selected by the Committee. The dance takes place between 8:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. The dance is followed by an afterparty at a bar rented out by the Committee which runs from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Transportation to and between the events is provided for by the Committee. Tickets to the Ball are purchased through an online ticketing portal. A ticket which includes access to the open bars costs students $67.00. A ticket which does not include access to the open bars costs $52.00. Tickets are only necessary for access to the dance—not to the afterparty. Students may purchase one plus-one ticket per person, no questions asked. Tickets were sold in a staggered format: first 3Ls, then 2Ls, and finally, 1Ls.

After a smooth release on the 3L and 2L markets, tickets opened up to the final group of students: the Class of 2025. Quickly, all of the plus-one tickets were purchased, and many of the 1L students report feeling victimized by their inability to Ball with their long-distance boos, most of whom will no longer be in the picture come November of 2L. The 1L class sees this as a clear violation of their Equal Protection rights. However, because it is well-settled and established precedent in this Court that 1Ls do not have rights, the questions before us today are first whether the plus ones of the 1L class have rights that may be vindicated in this forum, if so, what those rights are, and finally, whether those alleged rights have been violated.

Analysis

The first question that must be addressed is whether 1L Plus Ones have any rights that may be vindicated in this forum. In order to answer this question, the Court must first show that it has jurisdiction over the issue. The Court does not. The Committee, and thus SBA, has already decided the question. This is thus a political decision which is, for various reasons, not a question suitable for adjudication by the Court.

First, this question is clearly one meant for nonjudicial discretion. Despite the Court’s willingness to involve many non-student parties in prior decisions, those entities were usually defendants, rather than plaintiffs. Were the Committee suing the 1L Plus Ones, we would have an unquestionable duty to adjudicate the dispute. However, it seems especially distasteful to extend this privilege to non-student entities that are so inextricably linked to a disfavored class of students that this Court has repeatedly stated has no rights.[1] So, because this Court wants nothing to do with the 1L Plus Ones, the Court happily concludes that this question is one for nonjudicial discretion.

Further, in this situation, there is clearly an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to the political decision already made by the Committee. This Court is made entirely of unelected 2L and 3Ls who directly benefited from this year’s process of ticket distribution. Not only is this true this year, but this will remain to be true each year into the future, indefinitely. Because of this unique feature of the Law School, it is unsurprising both that 1Ls do not have rights and that school-wide, student-run events have procedures designed to prioritize older students to ensure those students have one last chance to make memories in Law School that they will cherish forever. The current 1Ls and their Plus Ones—or those that make it past November of 2023—will be similarly benefited by the current process. Think of it like Social Security. Bad for you now, great for you later.

Finally, it is clear that multiple pronouncements on whether 1L Plus Ones have rights from various authoritative bodies, like this Court and SBA, could potentially embarrass the credibility and legitimacy of those authoritative bodies. The Committee’s actions have evinced an unmistakable belief, held by the Committee, that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights. This fact militates against the Court undercutting what is otherwise a clear pronouncement from the Committee, and thus SBA, that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights, just like their 1L counterparts. Because our student government has already represented that 1L Plus Ones do not have rights, it is no longer within this Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

By holding that it is outside of the jurisdiction of the Court to make binding decisions on the rights of 1L Plus Ones, the Court creates a legal fiction. The Court functionally ratifies the decision of another body of government, but the Court declines to do so openly. Instead, the Court may claim moral innocence in depriving the 1L Plus Ones of their rights, because the Court has not decided this issue. The Court has simply decided that this issue is not one for the Court to decide. We feign innocence as to our role in establishing the status quo while simultaneously ratifying the status quo. Because we love that status quo. And we know the 1Ls will too, in about four months.

Because the Court has dispensed with the jurisdictional question in this fashion, exploring any other issues presented at the outset of this opinion would clearly constitute simple advisory opinions.

Conclusion

The Court declines to answer the question of whether 1L Plus Ones have rights. This question is reserved for other branches of government. In so doing, we implicitly ratify the Executive’s clear statement that 1L Plus Ones, like 1Ls themselves, do not have rights. Functionally, this ruling may be read to state that neither 1Ls nor 1L Plus Ones have rights.

Further, it seems necessary, thanks to my good fellow Justice Kulkarni’s failure to comprehend the ramifications of this holding, to state that this opinion in no way disclaims jurisdiction over 1L Plus Ones. Instead, it disclaims jurisdiction over the question of whether those 1L Plus Ones have rights that may be vindicated in this forum. 1L Plus Ones may certainly be sued and be parties to a controversy in this Court—it is simply not within our jurisdiction to rule on whether the 1L Plus Ones do, or do not, have rights.

---

Kulkarni, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

It is hard to label what kind of majority opinion this is. The practical effects of the majority’s opinion are to affirm the decision of the Committee: 1L Plus Ones have no rights. I agree with such a result. What I dissent from is the move by the majority to disclaim jurisdiction over these individuals. At my core, I am a strong believer in justice. And there is no justice in ignoring the tough issues. I am not moved by the majority’s contention that our decision would undermine the Committee. Instead, I believe our decision would bolster theirs. Our precedent is clear. 1Ls have no rights. The only connection to the Law School that the Plus Ones have comes from their relation to the 1Ls. Ergo, 1L Plus Ones have no rights. With even a rudimentary understanding of the situation and the precedent involved, anyone would come to this conclusion, but I want to take my opinion a step further.

Three 3Ls put their efforts into organizing the event. And the 1Ls got to enjoy the fruits of their labor. It makes sense that in the same way that college football ticket sales (at any school that is actually good at football) work their way down classes, with upperclassmen having the highest priority, Barrister’s tickets sell the same way. The 1Ls know this and choose to complain anyways. They will have two more chances to have the Barrister’s of their dreams. At the end of the day, the 1Ls don’t know how easy they have it. Last year’s Barrister’s had many disputes over ticket sales, nepotism, and a lack of food. This year’s ran smoothly. Last year, some students had to miss Barrister’s despite having tickets due to the still-high prevalence of Covid-19. But above and beyond that, the fact that the 1Ls have the gall to complain that 3Ls have priority over them is frankly astounding to all of the members of this esteemed Court. There was no Barrister’s Ball during the 2020–21 academic year. There was no Dandelion, no Fall Break, no Thanksgiving Break, no Feb Club, no Spring Break, no PILA Auction, no Bar Review, and no hanging out with more than five people at a time.[2]

You all know this. The 1Ls know this. Although these measures were for the health and safety of the student body, there is no doubt that the lack of social interaction had a negative effect. The 3Ls are owed grace, understanding, and sympathy for losing the most formative social year at the Law School. With all of this in mind, if I were the majority, not only would I claim jurisdiction, I would dismiss any 1Ls’ complaints on the issue with prejudice. I would demand reparations in the form of another fully paid-for, similar party for 3Ls only.

Accordingly, I dissent.

---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu

---

[1] See generally 2Ls Who Are Way Too Eager to Post on LinkedIn v. Everyone Else 75 U.Va 2 (2022); 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019); 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).

[2] At times this number was limited to quite literally zero. The only people students were permitted to interact with were their roommates.

Hot Bench: Mason Pazhwak '23, Hand to the EIC

---

Mason Pazhwak '23

Mason, where are you from?

I’m from Fairfax, Virginia, so not far away, just two hours north of here.

How are you enjoying 3LOL so far? How many LOLs would you give it on a scale of one to five?

I’ll give it three LOLs. I’d say it’s not as relaxing as everybody promised it would be, but it is good to be in the last semester.

As you think back, now in your final semester, how would you describe the general trajectory of your law school experience?

We started 1L mostly behind our computers, not in class much, six feet apart—it almost seems like another age. Now we’re around the Law School, maskless, able to go to events. Everything feels way more normal. So that’s one of the great trajectories of law school. We started out in one of the hardest times, and now we’re ending on a good note, which is really nice. I’m glad we got one completely normal year in Charlottesville.

As a 1L, what made you want to start coming to Law Weekly meetings?

I wasn’t involved in my undergrad newspaper at all, but there wasn’t much going on at the Law School, due to the pandemic. I just got in on an interest meeting, and I thought it was a fun group of witty, interesting people. I was like, “Oh, you know, it might be fun to have some way of writing about what’s going on here—some way to occupy the time that I felt like I had too much of—so I might as well give it a chance and write something more creative, as opposed to just doing schoolwork all the time.”

So, talking about the Law Weekly, I noticed that your role is listed as the “Hand of the EIC.” You wanna explain what that means?

I honestly don’t know how that happened. I’ve been the Current Events Editor for the last two years. This year, I was going to be studying abroad, so I was supposed to be the Foreign Correspondent Editor. But I decided to back out of that program, and it’s kind of hard to be a foreign correspondent if you’re in Charlottesville. I thought I’d revert back to Events Editor, but I tend to stay at the meetings longer and hang out with the Executive Board, so I feel like they wanted to give me a role that reflected the fact that I was around doing odd jobs for them. That, along with the current popularity of Game of Thrones, probably explains the title. It was just thrown in there one day, I think by Sai Kulkarni ’23.

As a 3L looking back from your final semester, what’s your favorite memory since you started law school?

That’s a good question. I still think it’s super cool that I got to do my 1L internship in Alaska, at the State Attorney General’s Office. Alaska has always had a mythic quality in my mind. It’s far north, there are tons of mountains, glaciers, bears, moose, and all that. The fact that I got to spend a whole summer there and have a phenomenal time with the other interns was one of the highlights of law school, and I would definitely encourage people who have flexibility with their 1L experience to pick something that they wouldn’t normally do. I think Alaska was an awesome place to live. Of course, I saw it in the summer, when it’s a gorgeous kind of wonderland—I know how it is in the winter. But I’m so glad I had that experience.

Were there any practical aspects of life that were different in Alaska?

The long days just completely change how you feel about a lot of things. Me and the other interns, we would wake up, go to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the office. And then we could leave the office by 5 p.m., change our clothes, start hiking at 6 p.m., and hike until 11 p.m., all with the sun still out. And there’s this massive mountain range right up against Anchorage. You could drive to it in fifteen, twenty minutes and find yourself at a glacier peak within a couple of hours, so it was really cool. They always call the rest of the contiguous United States the lower forty-eight, and that kinda describes how it’s a different world up there.

Let’s do a lightning round!

Favorite place to eat in Charlottesville?

Lampo Neapolitan Pizzeria.

Favorite snack?

I think Flaming Hot Cheetos are my favorites.

Favorite color?

I gotta stick with blue. I think blue is what I said back in kindergarten, so I’m gonna stick with that.

Class you’d recommend to everyone?
International Law and the Use of Force with Professor Deeks.

Favorite breakfast food?

It’s gotta be an omelet. It always hits good.

Favorite villain?

I guess he’s an antihero, but probably Tony Soprano.

---
Interviewed by Jacob Smith '23
amb6ag@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Promposal Defenders v. The Rest of the Student Body

---

Promposal Defenders
v.
The Rest of the Student Body
75 U.Va 14 (2022)

D’ROZARIO, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Issue

The class action suit before us concerns an age-old tradition, observed by law schools across the country: Barrister’s Ball. The annual event is an opportunity for the great legal minds of our generation to come together, engage in intellectually stimulating jurisprudential discourse, and get blackout drunk in a ball gown. The formal nature of the time-honored event has earned it an affectionate nickname: “Law Prom.” This nickname plays no small role in the issue at hand.

The issue requires the Court to consider whether, in adopting the term “Law Prom,” law students have implicitly agreed to participate in all the customs associated with high school prom (hereinafter referred to as “Actual Prom”). In particular, Plaintiffs wish to compel the student body to plan and carry out elaborate, high-school-style promposals.

Analysis

Plaintiffs, a small number of law students who were never promposed to in high school, argue that the widespread use of the term “Law Prom” creates an implied-in-fact contract. Plaintiffs argue that, in choosing to attend any event which represents itself as a “Prom,” attendees implicitly commit to fulfill the traditional obligations of Prom attendees—Actual Prom attendees. These include but are not limited to the obligation to prompose to your date.

Less than one week away from Law Prom, and having witnessed no promposals whatsoever, Plaintiffs bring this case for breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of specific performance of this implied contract. Given the imminence of the event, Plaintiffs request emergency relief.

Defendants, for their part, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that promposals are unacceptably dorky for anyone past the age of seventeen. The Court finds this statement to be conclusory (and low-key offensive). No evidence was provided to support such an assertion, and weak evidence is provided to contradict the existence of an implied contract.

Defendants argue that use of the term “Law Prom,” on its own, is insufficient to create an implied contract. They argue that, apart from the word “Prom,” Law Prom is distinguishable from Actual Prom. Distinguishing characteristics of Law Prom cited by Defendants include alcohol use and the presence of disproportionately litigious attendees. To this, the Court says, “You obviously didn’t go to my high school.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, because Defendants have not met the threshold showing that promposals—as a concept—need to be left in high school, the Court is obliged to deny the motion to dismiss.

Also, I’m writing for the Court here, so I get to base the outcome of this case on what I ate for breakfast. I ate cereal, and I would like to see some promposals.

***

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for immediate and complete performance of promposals is GRANTED.

---

PETERSON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I disagree with much of Justice D’Rozario’s opinion, as I shall explain below, I cannot dissent in full. Justice D’Rozario is, as usual, on the nose as it pertains to her intuitive jurisprudential practices, a skill that is widely employed, encouraged, and respected on this most petty of courts. As such, while I disagree with the entirety of her analysis, and dissent from it accordingly, I fully support conclusions of law grounded on basic whims, serendipitous moments, and gut reactions. Because Justice D’Rozario ultimately grounds her reasoning in the cereal she ate, any principled Justice must accept that her prudential reasoning is sound.

However, I cannot agree with Justice D’Rozario’s actual reasoning. A crucial step needed to come to any sort of principled conclusion is missing from this analysis. If we are tasked with determining whether law students have implicitly agreed to participate in all of the customs associated with proms, we must first understand all of the customs associated with prom. Today, the Court accidentally sets course on a philosophical mission—what is a prom? The answer, however, is never given. Instead, the Court chooses to enforce its own preconceived notions about proms while ignoring the true original public meaning of the word. This action is a slippery slope leading to a jurisprudential world where our Court may import perceived customs into the law in much the same way a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat: unprincipled trickery. Further, it opens the door to changing proms across the nation—not just in our own jurisdiction—by allowing courts to pick and choose between desirable customs.

To illustrate this, I’ve detailed the following. The word “prom” gets its origin from the French word “promenade.”[1] If we as a Court are to truly comport with the original public meaning of this word, we must first look back to sixteenth-century France.[2] However, before I do that, I would like to ask not only the Court, but also the public: Why? Why would anyone ever want to look back to sixteenth-century France? What next will become a feature of proms around America? Guillotines? We must protect our children from this fate. Because of the authoritarian turn taken by this Court today, I fear for our country, our children, and our souls.

---

WALSH, J., dissenting.

As a member of this storied Court, I am normally in full support of capricious decisions with little-to-no grounding in either the Court’s precedent or actual law. However, I am so opposed to today’s decision that I must, on both moral and personal grounds, dissent from the entirety of the majority’s opinion regarding that historic tradition known as “promposing.” For what today’s majority opinion ignores in its analysis is not only the original public meaning of what a prom is, as Justice Peterson so astutely points out, but also the emotional and reputational damage that a promposal can inflict on the unsuspecting members of this Law School.

Allow me to provide an illuminating example: my own high school (specifically, junior year) promposal. Picture a large public school cafeteria, the tables long and mildly sticky, with those uncomfortable, weird circle seats—which definitely do not provide ergonomic support to our youth as they eat their lunches—attached. The faces of the school’s senior athletes adorn the walls, smiling down upon the cafeteria and its inhabitants like benevolent gods. It was here, during fifth period lunch, where I first became acutely aware of just how awkward and uncomfortable a promposal can truly be.

As I sat at that sticky cafeteria table, I suddenly noticed in my periphery one of my closest friends whipping out her phone and aiming its camera in my direction. At the same time, one of my closest friends, who I was kind-of, sort-of dating (high school relationships are weird) approached from the other direction. Now, this friend normally sat with me at lunch, so his arrival was not unusual, but the shoe box that he carried with him was. It was this shoe box, combined with the sudden fixing of an iPhone camera on me, that sent a wave of vague unease and a sense of impending doom crashing over me. The promposal itself—which involved a shoe-box diagram based on an inside joke between my eventual prom date and me—would have been cute had it not been so completely and unbearably awkward.

And so I arrive at the crux of my anti-promposal position: Promposals can, at best, be called “entertaining.” But we must ask ourselves, who does this entertainment come at the expense of? For when these promposals are not done well, they are cringy and embarrassing, and it is downright cruel of this Court to not just encourage but require that the promposal practice be continued past the high school years that all of us left behind so long ago.

Accordingly, I dissent.

---
jkd2dd@virginia.edu
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu

---

[1] Oxford Dictionaries, From Promenade to #Prahm: An Evolution of the Night to Remember (June 19, 2014), https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/06/prom-language-history-of-the-word-from-promenade-to-hashtag-prahm.html.

[2] As a more worldly and educated body than the Supreme Court of the United States, we are absolutely willing to venture into the world of French history to decide the original public meaning of words to the citizens of Charlottesville, Virginia. To do any less would be an abdication of our sworn duties.

Hot Bench: Yewande Ford '23

---

Yewande Ford '23

Good morning, Yewande! Thanks for talking with us this week. You just won the Swanson Award, which recognizes the UVA Law student demonstrating the same high standards of character as Gregory Hayes Swanson—the first Black student to integrate UVA and the Law School. First of all, congratulations. Second of all, Professors Doran and Kendrick, as well as your BLSA mentee and other BLSA members, all took the time to send in letters of support for you—how did it feel to find out you had been nominated and that you made such a significant impact at the Law School?

 Thank you! First of all, I was shocked. I mean, I’ve just been living my life. I felt honored that Professors Doran and Kendrick, whom I both respect so much, took the time to do this for me after all the time I’ve taken from them for mentorship and questions (haha). The mentees really especially meant a lot to me. I put a lot of myself into BLSA, and it was hugely rewarding that members nominated me as well. 

You were president of BLSA and helped guide the organization through the transition back to in-person learning and events (as well as the BLSA Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Year). How did being so active in BLSA help shape your law school experience? 

I would say it’s been the highlight of my law school experience. Having a community you can laugh and be joyful with, but also where you can also be serious and get real help, is so important. We have a strong alumni network that is so generous with their time and their support, which really keeps our organization sustained. The school and other orgs want to collaborate with us as well—BLSA is like the axle at the center with all these spokes coming off. Being able to work with so many different professors, who always want to know how we’re doing, and so many different student groups was so much fun and so enlightening.

What do you think was the best event you helped organize?

That’s a tough one! We did so many. It’s a tie—first, I would say the BLSA retreat last year (shout out to Marley Peters ’23) because we had to tackle Covid and build a fun and safe event that all the class years could attend, including the 3Ls who hadn’t had a retreat in two years. It was so fun to leave the Law School bubble and see the shy or quiet people in class really come out of their shells and be themselves. I think events like the retreat are what really help us make BLSA into a community instead of just a club. The second is the alumni event we put on in the Rotunda, where so many alumni came back for a night of food and festivities. It’s one thing to say our professors and alumni are active, and another for all these people to come out and for them to bring their families to celebrate Black law students. Meeting so many BLSA alumni who have gone on to do different things and still stay active in the alumni network was great.

How did it feel to pass on the torch to Keegan Hudson ’24? I feel like spring semester of 3L is when all the org leaders get sentimental. 

 I know, I know! He was a 1L rep, so we had bonded a lot through the board. I was honored to pass on the torch to him—more than happy. I knew he had the leadership and the ability to bridge the Millennial-Gen Z gap. He’s also the first male BLSA president we’ve had in years, so he brings a different perspective. The blood (not literally), sweat, and tears that go into an organization as involved as BLSA is something only other BLSA presidents can really get. I’m excited to see who he is going to pass it on to, and he’s done a phenomenal job leading our chapter this year.

Reading through your resume, I get second hand exhaustion. Do you have any advice for how to balance school work and job applications with being more involved in Law School orgs?

Well, I’m a bulldozer type of person, so I want to say just do it (haha), but most people aren’t like that, so I also want to give real advice. I think it’s important to have something that grounds you outside of law school. For me, it’s my family and the gym—as long as I have those things, I can do everything else. I am also a huge fan of color-coding your calendar, so you can see your week at a glance. Sometimes, you just know you’re going to be busy, like all of 2L spring, but being able to see everything you’ve signed up for and readjusting as you go is so important to keeping a healthy balance.

Something my mom always quotes is, “Anything worth doing, is worth doing well.” If you don’t have the time or energy to really give that event or project what it deserves, take it off your plate. In a career like a lot of us are going into, you have to be able to push yourself sometimes, but other times, stepping back is the right decision. 

You are EIC of the Law and Tech Journal—do you recommend joining a journal board for more than just getting out of cite checks?

That’s a tough question. I would ultimately say yes—it’s a great way to get involved in the bigger picture. For me, I was interested in understanding how a final piece gets to publication, from talking with authors and soliciting submissions to the actual publishing. For the tech sector especially, there are topics that might not be hot now, but you can see the discourse building down the road. There are a lot of positions on the board that lend themselves to different strengths, like Executive Editor if you are interested in polishing off an article. So, yes, worth more than just no cite checks!

You were an analyst at Goldman Sachs before law school—any advice for loyal but financially illiterate Law Weekly readers? 

Take any business course you can! Intro to Law & Business, Corporations—any of those will help you build up your understanding. A general understanding of what is going on in the global economy and markets is important for you to have. You don’t need to get an MBA to be able to hold a conversation.

How do you take your coffee, and what is your astrological sign? 

Gemini, but people tell me I act like a Taurus. No one will tell me if that’s meant to be a compliment or not. I take my coffee the same way I’ve taken it since middle school—Dunkin’ Donuts, medium hot, cream, hazelnut swirl, no extra sugar. I drink hot coffee all year round because iced coffee is gross, and Dunkin’ is better than Starbucks.

That last part was unsolicited.

I have hot takes! 

Watching anything good?

The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, The Real Housewives of Potomac, and Ginny & Georgia on Netflix.

Favorite study spot?

My apartment. It’s comfortable and has snacks.

One class everyone should take before they graduate?

FED TAX! Take it! It’s not that bad! It’s helpful for everyone in life! And I know law students don’t like numbers, but it really isn’t that bad, and we have fantastic and patient professors who teach it.

Best restaurant in Charlottesville?

I admit I’m kind of a food snob. I compare the restaurants here to New York, so I’m kind of jaded. I say, save your money and go to N.Y. or D.C. for some real good food (haha). Locally, I do like Pearl Island.

Favorite type of weather?

Summer into fall, when you can still wear sundresses, but you aren’t roasting. 

One skill you’ve always wanted to learn?

Playing a string instrument, since I love listening to them so much.

Childhood nickname?

Hot Rice because I talked fast!

In all the interviews you’ve done, all those job apps and leadership positions, what was your favorite interview question? Or do you have a question you’ve always wanted to be asked?

This was a really good question I got, and it made me stop and really think. It was: What would someone who doesn’t like you say about you?

---
Interviewed by Dana Lake ‘23
ysf4kv@law.virginia.edu

Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb: Streetlights

---

Jonathan Peterson ‘23
Co-Executive Editor

My good friend, Dana Lake, styles the decision to not add harsh, unnatural, and intrusive lighting to the roadsides of Virginia’s highways as one designed to ensure that she ends up in a head-on collision. Or hit a deer. Or simply drive off the road. This view is shortsighted and selfish, as I will detail while showing readers that the decision to keep Virginia’s roads as dark as death is ineffably the correct choice.

I can sum up my argument in favor of dark roads with one word: conservation. The decision to add lights to roadsides requires resources and space, and it produces unquantifiable costs to conservation of both wildlife and dark skies.

The average street light costs between approximately $5,000 and $8,000, with those numbers increasing by about 20 percent for projects on a highway or bridge.[1] These lights cost another $43.80 for every year they are installed in electricity fees.[2] In short, adding more streetlights would require either relocating funds or raising taxes. Relocating funds will result in opportunity costs which may not be justified. Further, with headlights already being an invention we all use on roads anyway, the addition of streetlights may not actually increase safety all that much.[3]

Further, adding these lights will harm conservation beyond just conserving our wallets. Adding streetlights will require developing the sides of roadways. The act of developing these areas, outside of the clear loss of a habitat, however inconsequential that habitat might be, also comes with its own carbon footprint. Not only that, it impacts efforts at preserving dark skies, which are proven to be critical for “the proper functioning of natural ecosystems.”[4] These benefits also inure to humans as well, who can appreciate, and thus benefit from, properly conserved night skies.

So, yeah, I don’t want Dana to die in a car crash on some dark and windy Virginian road. But I also don’t think that more artificial lighting is the right solution. It’s called headlights and attentive driving.

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Editor-in-Chief

           
What Jon fails to consider in his well-researched article[5] is that headlights and attentive driving mean nothing to the grim determination the wildlife in this commonwealth have in their march toward oblivion via front-end collision. Jon and other extremist environmentalists may value things like “stars” and “nature” over human beings, but most people do not have such a radical disregard for my personal safety.

First, I learned how to drive in Florida, where the only things you have to dodge are other drivers.[6]The highways are straight lines, with overhead lights nicely spaced every twenty feet or so. They are so nicely illuminated and so straight that you can see incoming problems from a hundred miles down the road. Attentive driving shouldn’t mean I am white-knuckle gripping the steering wheel in both hands, leaning forward, and chanting prayers to God under my breath for sixty miles at a time.

Virginia is not a commonwealth built on an intuitive, well-thought-out grid. It is windy and curvy and full of hills that my 2016 Hyundai Accent has a hard time climbing. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends[7] roadway lighting especially on such roads; VDOT has recklessly left good, honest drivers to the whims of a dark abyss.

Second, how can headlights save me from getting vehicular homicided when more and more cars have LED bulbs instead of halogen. When I imagine the bright light people walk toward when they are moving on to the other side, it is the eerie blue of a high-intensity discharge headlight guiding them.

Don’t even get me started on driving in the rain around here, or the horrific bridge I have to walk under outside of Ivy if I want to get a Slurpee at 7-Eleven. Give us some lights, and give me a chance of getting out of this commonwealth with both my car’s bumpers intact.

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

---

[1] Wenli, How Much Does a Street Light Cost to Run, KangLight, (July 5, 2021) https://kanglight.com/how-much-does-a-street-light-cost-to-run/.

[2] Id. This number goes down for solar street lights.

[3] This isn’t to say that added lights don’t help drivers to observe hazards. However, I am struggling to find any evidence which conclusively links poor visibility due to darkness to increased rates of car crashes. Certainly time of day has an impact; however, there are many potential confounding variables when considering time of day as a proxy for whether good lighting impacts driving safety.

[4] Managing Artificial Light to Protect Natural Systems and to Appreciate the Night Sky, Dark Skies Advisory Group,http://darkskyparks.org/dark-skies-and-nature-conservation/#:~:text=A%20night%20sky%20without%20artificial,the%20consequences%20of%20light%20pollution (last visited Jan. 29, 2023).

[5] A classic case of adding statistics to meet the word count requirement, no doubt.

[6] And the occasional iguana.

[7] Stopping Sight Distance on Turning Roads, Manual of Uniform Standards, FDOT (May 2005).

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Parking Enforcement

---

Students
v.
Parking Enforcement
75 U.Va 13 (2022)

KULKARNI, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

In the history of this vaunted paper, we have played as the chief dispute mechanism for many petty complaints—issues between individual students, student groups, and even entire class years. But there has always been exactly one group that has found itself on the wrong end of us, the Court of Petty Appeals. That group? The parking enforcement of the University of Virginia. All students, staff, and administration are familiar with this organization. They charge exorbitant annual fees for parking passes and are quick to hand out parking tickets for the shortest of violations. For the simple act of attending the Law School from anywhere not named Pav or Ivy, students are punished with having to pay a surcharge. This has effectively created two classes of students: those who have to interact with parking enforcement on a daily basis and those who do not. It is not surprising, therefore, that today we are faced with yet another cause of action against this parking enforcement. Petitioners consist of administration, staff, and students who filed a complaint alleging that parking enforcement improperly issued parking tickets over the holiday break.

To begin with, we acknowledge the fact the Law School and University writ large have outsourced parking enforcement. This organization has full authority to enforce their own regulations and charge incredibly high fees for the smallest of parking violations. During the school year, this can include parking in the D3 lot when a person has no pass, parking in the D2 lot with no pass, and, the most heinous of all, parking in the D2 lot when the student has only purchased a pass to park in the D3 lot. This parking enforcement is ruthless, requiring everyone to park precisely in the lot they paid for and no further. For those who take exception, they can either pay a daily rate or risk a ticket. Even further, those paid spots in the D2 lot are in fact controlled by the same organization that runs parking throughout the city (ParkMobile)—a surprise that such an organization is allowed such access to the Law School. The brave rebels who choose to risk a ticket do so to stand up against the authoritarian organization that dictates their lives. Regardless of how this Court feels emotionally about such students, it is the truth that the administration has allowed parking enforcement to set their own policies and enforce them. Despite how broad our mandate is on this Court, the case at bar is not about the overall existence of parking enforcement.

Today, we are focused on the issuance of parking tickets during the holiday break. And this decision is an easy one for us. Parking enforcement went against all norms of decency by issuing tickets during this period. Anyone taking the chance to enter the Law School during the break is doing so briefly and to complete an important task. The holidays are intended to be a time of rest and recovery. The students who have to take a trip into the Law School do so not out of any personal desire but to retrieve  items left in lockers or to pick up their incredibly expensive textbooks. Student organization leaders are stopping by to get started on their efforts to improve the student experience.

There is not a gunner in the world who would make the trek to the Law School for their intense work during the break.[1] Therefore, the actions of parking enforcement go beyond the pale of common decency. But the law is not a demonstration of emotion but of policies. Parking enforcement exists as part of a University system. During the holidays, the University system is shut down. Thankfully, even the staff and administration are technically given the holidays off to recover from the screaming children on Main Grounds and tired graduate students on North Grounds. The boldness of issuing tickets over break to students who make the trek to the Law School over the holidays should be derided. Despite the respondents’ claim that the students need to take mitigating actions and park elsewhere and walk to the school, mitigation is only necessary where it would reasonably solve the problem at a low cost. Over break, there was a high cost to such an action—the intense cold.

Therefore, parking enforcement should no longer have the authority to issue tickets over the break if the very University they are working with is offline. This policy is similar to parking enforcement’s behavior of not enforcing their own regulations during the first month of the academic year. At that time, they find it in the kindness of their own hearts to allow students the ability to buy their prohibitively expensive parking passes before charging them. Therein lies the solution to the most recent offense by parking enforcement. As they do each August, parking enforcement should not enforce “violations” between the end of fall finals and the start of spring classes. In addition, they should provide the opportunity to buy semester-long parking passes and allow for a second buy period in the spring. In this vein, the Court of Petty of Appeals issues an injunction to parking enforcement—they lose their ability to issue any tickets until they change this system.

---

MORSE, J. concurring.

I join my esteemed colleague, Justice Kulkarni,  to address one of the most pernicious and extractive practices condoned by the law school: charging tuition just below the median household income in the states of Virginia[1] AND charging students to park in lots which are clearly nowhere near capacity. The lack of even a facially-plausible justification for charging parking based on a limited supply of parking spaces is particularly galling. [2] I write separately because I myself was the unfortunate recipient of a parking ticket received over winter break and I am not a gunner. I was, like many students, participating in the Trial Advocacy College which is an excellent source of two pass-fail credits and a wonderful educational experience to boot. If this school will not refrain from charging its students for unused parking spots, the least it could do is not charge students who are here taking J-term classes instead of enjoying their full winter break. And this Court should order my ticket void.

---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

---

[1] I know personally. I asked Julia Grant ’23, my closest friend and noted gunner, if she or any of her gunner comrades had decided to enter the library over break. Thankfully, she said no.

Hot Bench: Karen Lai Painter, A new face at CAPS

---

Karen Lai Painter

Welcome to the Law School, it’s so nice to meet you! Can you tell us a bit about yourself and your practice?

I’m super excited to be here! I enjoy helping others with identity development and embracing their intersectional identities. I am looking forward to working with graduate professional students. In the main CAPS office, I worked with graduate, professional, and undergrad students for the past nine years buy my role was a little bit different. I was one of their care manager clinicians, primarily helping students in crisis and with accessing care while keeping a small therapy caseload. I wanted more opportunity to work with students in therapy, and now I get to practice in two spaces!

I'm happy to see folks blossom, seek different paths, and pursue their interests and life passions. Being a part of that life journey is very appealing to me.  I myself was a first-generation student of immigrant parents so I reflect on that experience to circle back and help foster others with similar backgrounds to navigate the supports and guidance that I wished that I had. It's a privilege for me to be able to hold space for students who want to discover more of themselves and tap into their own potential. I want students to know that this is a safe and inclusive space. It’s human to experience doubts and insecurities when applying to jobs, and being in competitive, high-pressured environments. Students have often found me naturally through friends and word of mouth, because I've worked with a lot people who don't fit into a mold. I enjoy working with marginalized folks. For eight years, I focused on increasing access for trans health care with the Student Health Gender Affirming Care multidisciplinary team, and two years ago, I facilitated the LGBTQ+ support group which was a highlight for me.

Given that background, do you anticipate having relationships with groups at the Law School like Lambda or the First-Generation Professionals?

I’m open to it! I don’t want to insert myself without being invited, but certainly if there is a particular topic, a need, or if an outreach would be helpful. I would like the opportunity to be able to get to know some of the folx at the School of Law.

Let’s take a step back from your professional role for a moment and get to know you a little bit! Where did you grow up, and how long have you been in Charlottesville?

I have lived in the Shenandoah Valley for my whole life.  My parents were Chinese immigrants, who moved from NYC to the other side of Afton—they call it “the other side of the mountain!” I grew up around Mennonites in Stuarts Draft and it was a very different cultural experience, as I compared my upbringing apart from my city cousins. I remained because of my partner. Also, I love how accessible nature is and enjoy being in the mountains.

Outside of the Shenandoah Valley, what would you say are your favorite places?

I’m a big outdoors person. I enjoyed traveling once to Big Bend National Park. I love outdoor music, so I was really glad when festivals came back after they stopped for COVID. I like to unplug occasionally and go off grid and camp. I think maybe that’s what’s kept me in the Shenandoah Valley is the mountains—they’re beautiful. 

What would be your dream destination?

There's like an ice hotel that I want to visit in Canada!

Do you have family in the area?

I have a spouse, a fifteen-year-old son, and a hound dog mutt, Jessie. She’s a sixty-one-pound lap dog.

If you won the lottery, what would you do?

I'm a foodie, so I thought if I won, I would have breakfast and share it. My plan will be to invite a lot of friends and to have breakfast in different exotic destinations. Each person could select their own favorite location to eat and share breakfast together.

That sounds amazing!

I am a big breakfast eater so I think I can eat multiple breakfasts, no problem. No problem at all!

I love that! Do you have a breakfast place recommendation in Charlottesville or in the area?

Since college, I’ve been a faithful Waffle House person! I also love fancy pastries. In Charlottesville, I recommend Marie Bette.

Circling back a little bit to your CAPS role, is there anything that you particularly want students to know about CAPS?

That we are confidential and accessible for students! Dr. Kate Gibson and I can provide a private 1:1 consultation to see if individual therapy makes sense given the concern or need.  The first appointment is by phone and we can also explore if there are other options, resources or needs that could be beneficial.  There is a new email address that law students can use for scheduling: caps@law.virginia.edu. We work hard to get students seen quickly, often within the same week or so.

Additionally, CAPS partners with TimelyCare for free, confidential telehealth, including psychiatry, which can be really helpful for keeping prescriptions up to date, which can be tough when you’re a graduate or professional student moving around.

We end up talking a lot about confidentiality in our Professional Responsibility classes here. Can you say a little bit about confidentiality in your role?

It’s very important! It’s the cornerstone of honesty and trust. If people don't feel safe, they're not going to disclose anything. We do not communicate with academics, unless there is a written consent or permission. Without permission, we cannot even acknowledge that we're seeing someone, it's that private.  Our medical record system is shared with Student Health and Wellness Center (our primary hub). If students have concerns, (e.g. trying to get into high clearance jobs, or something else), we are transparent about discussing these concerns, so there is greater comfort in therapy.

The exceptions for confidentiality in therapy are as follows: (1) if there is an immediate danger to yourself or someone else; (2) if a therapist suspects child, elder or dependent abuse or neglect; and (3) if the court subpoenas records or there is a court order. That's pretty rare!

---
Interviewed by Anna Bninski ‘23
caps@law.virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs

---

Hungry People
v.
Law School Student Orgs

75 U.Va 12 (2022)

E. Brown, J., delivers the opinion of the court.

Background

This class action suit concerns an ongoing dispute between literally every student at the University of Virginia School of Law and student organizations that engage in a particularly odious form of tomfoolery. Of the dozens of student organizations at the Law School, many offer food to entice students to come to panels, job discussions, workshops, and other godforsaken wastes of time for which there is no other legitimate reason to attend.[1] At one end of the spectrum, some student groups give out crappy food, like grimy Domino’s with no napkins or paper towels.[2] Some are more generous, shelling out big bucks for Mezze, Mellow Mushroom, or—when god smiles upon us—Roots. But regardless of the culinary options offered, student organizations face an implicit expectation to provide at least three free meals a week for the Law School’s scrappiest and grittiest among us.

Respondents are accused in this suit of the greatest Law School sin: arbitrarily withholding food from event attendees. In several cases reported to the Law Weekly, representatives from student groups have refused to let attendees eat the provided food until after the event’s conclusion. This means that some hapless students, just hoping to get a free meal, have been forced to sit idly, gazing at perfectly hot and ready food just out of reach. As speakers give long speeches and panels answer questions, students sit hungrily, wishing for their swift and merciful demise. I didn’t want to name names, but I’m looking at you, Federalist Society.

This Court has appropriate subject matter jurisdiction over all food-related crises at the Law School, as well as sufficient personal jurisdiction to enforce judgments against all Respondents.[3] On appeal, Petitioners allege that Respondents’ behavior unjustly deprives them of the ability to get what matters out of events—free food—and seek an injunction against all student organizations that practice this hellish scheme. Respondents argue they should be able to shape guidelines for food distribution at their own events. We grant Petitioners’ request for an injunction because I will absolutely never recover from when this happened to me last month, and I have no qualms about turning an institutional problem into a rant about my struggles.[4]

Analysis

First, we reject Respondents’ argument that they should be able to decide the food distribution practices at their own events. What is a student organization if not a syndicate of students? And as expressed in this suit, students at large vehemently oppose the predatory practice of dangling food in front of one’s face. Respondents cannot disabuse themselves of the expectations of their attendees by hiding behind the veil of student group governance. They face a responsibility to act in accordance with the norms of the Law School, which specify that food is good and food must be made easily accessible to all students—and without undue delay.[5]

Respondents also argue on appeal that their practices disproportionately harm 1Ls, who are more likely to attend the type of throwaway panels and events that offer free food to motivate attendance. And because this Court has long respected the right to dump on 1Ls, particularly annoying, gunnery ones who regularly show up at events, Respondents claim their activities are protected.[6] This is an inaccurate reading of the law. The Court has clearly held in previous cases that in events open to 2Ls and 3Ls, the quality of these events must be at a threshold acceptable to 2Ls and 3Ls should they attend, even if 1Ls are disproportionately represented.[7]Therefore, Respondents cannot get out of their obligation to practice basic human etiquette by coming for the 1Ls—they will not succeed.

Finally, Respondents claim that if Petitioners succeed, they will come to events for the food and leave immediately once their plates are full, potentially lowering audience turnout for the event itself. This frivolous and hypothetical claim cannot be entertained, for there exists a simple remedy outside the authority of this Court to enforce: Make the events better, so people actually want to stay.

So, this Court, long respecting the rights of Law School students to use food as one of the few pleasures left to us in this cruel world, finds for Petitioners. All student organizations are enjoined from preventing food from being served the instant it is available, lest they face the legal penalties and wrath set forth by these chambers.

---

Pazhwak, J., concurring.

“How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, Old Man?”[8] This quote by a blue fish on SpongeBob SquarePants well encapsulates this Court’s frustration with the ongoing antics of student organizations at UVA Law regarding their event food practices. They continue to provide less than an adequate supply of it for the flood of newly interested, post-pandemic attendees, or they erect arbitrary and capricious barriers to its consumption, as the majority well describes in its background on the instant case. This Court has been forced to continue to issue injunctions to deal with these disturbing trends, remaining a vigilant guardian of justice for those law students—particularly the 2Ls and, most importantly, the 3Ls, who rely on the bounty of free law school food.[9]

The majority properly issues yet another injunction enjoining a specific behavior, yet this approach to the food cases poses the problem of the overconsumption of valuable judicial resources. A clearer standard is needed, since student organizations are evidently not getting the idea.

A proper reading of our caselaw indicates that the handling of event food at UVA Law falls under the dormant collegiality doctrine. The collegiality doctrine, while not elaborated upon in any single document, is nevertheless deeply interwoven into the history and traditions of UVA Law.[10] In its “dormant” form, this doctrine implicitly governs the relations and interactions between students, between student organizations, and, as we have repeatedly found, between students as individuals and student organizations.[11] Thus, the distribution of event food by student organizations to students must comport with the dormant collegiality doctrine.

We next must turn to the original public meaning of collegiality. Its first known use was in 1887, where it was defined as “the cooperative relationship of colleagues.”[12] Without dissecting this language further when applied to the instant situation, withholding food until the end of an event would not advance a cooperative relationship among colleagues, either now or in 1887. Rather, it appears to be the source of a great deal of consternation. Thus, the dormant collegiality doctrine would indicate that this and all other annoying event food distribution practices are un-collegial and make a mockery of justice.

---
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu

---

[1] Yes, okay, there are some worthwhile events with no food, but the Court of Petty Appeals has no time for your nuance.

[2] A note from the Chief Justice: We love and respect the Domino's Pizza on Millmont for their lasting commitment to supporting the hungry editors of the Law Weekly.

[3] The Law Weekly is all powerful and can get student groups to kowtow to its every demand.

[4] I attended FedSoc’s “Marijuana Federalism” event in October and had to wait an hour to eat the Mellow Mushroom sitting one row away from me.

[5] Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).

[6] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 939 U.Va. 111 (2019).

[7] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).

[8] How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, Old Man?, YouTube (Dec. 3, 2018), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxJ016xb4Q (providing a clip with the relevant quote, originally from the SpongeBob SquarePants episode “The Bully”).

[9] See 1L Gunners, 939 U.Va.; 1Ls, 75 U.Va.

[10] See, e.g., 10 Things Law Students Love About C'ville, Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., https://www.law.virginia.edu/charlottesville/favorites/student (last visited Nov. 13, 2022).

[11] National Lawyers Guild v. Federalist Society (NLG VII), 23 U.Va. 5 (2009).

[12] Collegiality, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegiality#dictionary-entry-1 (last accessed Nov. 13, 2022).

Hot Bench: Counsel's Counsel's Jane Doe

---

Where are you from? What brought you to the Law School?

I was born and raised in the rural Midwest. I was always an overachiever as a kid, and I seemed to thrive on standardized tests, so people told me, “You’d be good at law school!” As a first generation professional, I didn’t really know much about the law, though. But, I was feeling a bit devoid of a purpose in my life after graduating from undergrad, so that’s why I figured I’d come to law school. I went to the University of Virginia in particular because of what I heard was an incredible community, and, more importantly, because of hopes of improving my family’s material possessions. Since making that choice, I’ve had a lot of opportunities for post hoc rationalization about that decision. While my current outlook is bleak, I make a lot of money. I try to think about everything else as little as possible and that aspect of my life as often as possible.

What did you do before law school?

I actually ran a non-profit dog shelter for a couple of years! It’s funny, because I’m super allergic to dogs, which made it really challenging. But I will say that it made for an incredible personal statement when the time came. Considering the school loved that as a “facing adversity” story, I can’t imagine how easy the lives of the average law students here have been.

Why do you still write for the Law Weekly?

I write for the Law Weekly so that people who may be feeling similarly lost, like I was when I was in law school, can have advice and reactions and point to those and say, “Someone else said this was a good idea.” You know, to give some credibility to their decisions that they might not otherwise have had. Really, I’m here to help all of those lost souls.

Do you think you’re really helping?

Honestly, I’m not sure. I started doing this to help people. But, with every passing month, I have less and less faith in the legal system, legal academia, and law students in general. So, I guess I’m hopelessly trapped in a cycle. I can intellectualize and reflect on my issues. But, much like many other law students, I don’t know how to change.

What are some of your hobbies?

Working in Big Law doesn’t really provide many opportunities for hobbies. However, between sessions of work, I’ve come to enjoy working out at the firm gym, wine, and sewing and knitting. I once knitted a beautiful hat for my cat, Charles. He doesn’t really like wearing it, but it gets a laugh.

What kind of law do you practice?

Litigation.

More specifically?

Complex Commercial Litigation.

What was some good law school gossip from your time here?

Yeah, a lot of the drama happened 1L. Everyone came in happy and excited to be in a new place with new people. Then, a lot of people started hooking up in their sections, which really made things messy. Lots of unaddressed and unresolved tension in group situations. I think it stemmed from a lack of emotional maturity and conflict resolution skills in group settings. I imagine it’s not as bad now though, because there were some external, societal factors at play that made the damage worse. Also, there was this weird reporting system. After all the 1L drama, it wasn’t so much that there was active drama going on, just tension. That tension really never got resolved, but everyone just grinned and bore it.

What was your favorite restaurant in Charlottesville? Hopefully it’s still here!

I actually really like Miller’s. It’s a nice way to get away from the Law School. Honestly, anything that gets me away from there is good. The smoky haze of the third floor feels like home. It’s also just so much quieter than The Corner—that place is an absolute nightmare on Fridays. And, really, who wants to party with undergrads?

Lightning Round!

Favorite animal?

Sharks. But it used to be puppies.

Favorite flavor of ice cream?

Rocky road. In line with my legal career.

Least favorite thing about the law?

The suffering it puts into the world.

Favorite case? 

Whatever the winning precedent is.

Favorite word?

Zealous

Dream job?

In-house counsel. I have very realistic aspirations.

Favorite movie?

Avatar–the one with the blue people, not the one with the kids moving elements. I’m obsessed with plots about living other, alternate lives.

Submit your questions to Jane Doe by scanning the code below:

---
Interviewed by Jon Peterson ‘23
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Students v. Empty Food Table

---

Students
v.
Empty Food Table
75 U.Va 10 (2022)

Kulkarni, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

Background

The case before us comes from a multitude of students, spearheaded by 3Ls. They complain of a lack of food on the so-called “Food Table” in front of the Law Library. This table is the same that is normally used for Cookie Fridays. On other days, this table serves as the host for leftover food from events hosted by student organizations on grounds. In years past, this table has been covered with tanks of coffee, boxes of pizza, and the occasional healthy meal. Whether through tradition or simply silent norms, this table has been a staple of the law school experience for at least as long as the members of this Court have been enrolled in this Law School. For many students, checking to see if there is any food available on the table is the only reason that they deign to open their class GroupMe.

Issue

The complaint before us is simple. Complainants state that the Food Table is far more barren than in past years—on most days, it lies empty, they argue. In these 3Ls’ minds, something they have come to expect is no longer available to them. They argue that, as law students, they are losing an essential source of nutrition each week. There were also arguments by amici[1] that this source of easily accessible food is especially helpful to students who face mental health issues that make it hard to cook on top of everything else law students face each week. Moreover, both Complainants and amici noted that this table can be especially helpful to students facing financial difficulties.

In general, the overarching argument is that this Food Table is an effective source of nutrition that has been rendered less useful by an increasing lack of food. Respondents, represented by student organizations that frequently place food on said table, argue that 1Ls as a class should be impleaded into this case. They have chosen to assert an affirmative defense: Although they admit guilt for not placing as many food items on the table, they argue that this is not their fault. Respondents state clearly and boldly that the current crop of 1Ls is the most gunnery class they have ever had the misfortune of interacting with in recent memory. These student organizations are formed and exist for the purpose of promoting camaraderie and supporting students. They argue that they have a desire to share their leftovers—but how can they do so when the gunner 1Ls don’t allow any leftovers to exist?

Analysis

The arguments from Complainants and Respondents are compelling. This Court, as we often state, is dominated by 3Ls. As such, any opportunity to call it a day and simply accept the arguments we are presented with is another chance to resume 3LOLing. However, it is important to bring in some legal analysis here. Primarily, the issue we are faced with is one of reliance. Law students have come to expect a table full of leftovers that they can peruse to their heart’s content. There is an expectation created by the norms and traditions of this Law School that, at least a few times a week, students can expect a message warning them to “hurry or miss out” on free food. While there was no written agreement between student organizations and non-member students to this point, there is a clear argument for promissory estoppel based upon the students’ reliance on the expectations of free food.[2] So, two questions remain. Did the complainants rely on this unspoken promise to their detriment, and, if so, what relief should they be given? It is clear to this Court that Complainants have lost a source of weekly nutrition. They have lost, at times, an entire free meal (if they can get to the table quickly). There is no doubt that losing a source of free food is an absolute detriment to anyone who has a reasonable expectation of said food.

The tougher question is the relief. It is clear to this Court that the student organizations have made a full-faith effort to make their leftovers available. They cannot produce more food if the amount they budgeted for is consumed. However, so long as the table lays bare, they bear a portion of the blame for the lack of free food. The fact is, however, that the real relief for Complainants comes from court action against the true culprits: 1Ls. As usual, this Court does not hesitate to strike down unruly members of the Class of 2025. 1Ls are invited to far more events. This year’s 1Ls are even presented with IN PERSON firm events—a luxury that previous classes were not given. Such events come with their own free food. Rather than appreciating this unique treatment, these 1Ls continue to grasp at that which belongs to all. As such, the Court only has to reiterate the case that plays the same role in the Court of Petty Appeals as Twombly[3] and Iqbal[4] play in other courts: 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else.[5] The rule provided by that case is simple and absolute. 1Ls always lose.[6] As such, this Court does not hesitate to levy an injunction against 1Ls from accessing the food at events or at the free food table unless they are actual members of the organizations hosting the events. No longer can these students be networking gunners and take away free food from other students under the guise of attending events regarding issues that they absolutely don’t care about. Free food belongs to all law students, and 1Ls—who are already spoiled with a litany of specialized in-person events—should not monopolize such a key resource. Especially since they haven’t even taken the final exam that tests on promissory estoppel yet.

---

Pazhwak, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

My esteemed colleagues once again deal with a disturbing and disruptive issue at the University of Virginia School of Law: the overconsumption of event food by an overactive 1L class, to the minor detriment of 2Ls and major detriment of 3Ls.[7] The majority here picks up where the majority in 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls left off by recognizing that 1L overconsumption at events, in addition to depriving 2Ls and 3Ls of event food at the time of the event itself, creates the subsequent problem of a dearth of food at that most hallowed of Law School sites, the “Food Table” or “Free Food Table.” The majority in the previous case issued an injunction “limiting 1L consumption to 33.3% of event food, regardless of the number of them present at an event,” thereby ensuring that “66.7% of all food will be reserved for 2Ls and 3Ls.”[8] In the instant case, the majority issues a further injunction requiring that 1Ls be members of the organizations from which they take food. This must be read alongside the previous injunction, meaning that only 1Ls with organization membership—as opposed to all 1Ls—can consume, at maximum, 33.3% of available event food.

This raises the question of whether the 33.3% limitation on 1L consumption of event food set in 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls extends to 1Ls taking food from the Free Food Table.[9] Given the well-established principle that “1Ls always lose,” it is only logical that this former injunction be read to cover both situations where food is available, thereby creating a comprehensive regulatory regime.[10]

However, the majority’s ruling must be read narrowly. In no way should it be understood to constrain 2L and 3L non-members of an organization from taking event food or Free Food Table food.

In addition, the majority errs in several of its assumptions. It claims that the 1Ls taking event food are “networking gunners” who “take away free food from other students under the guise of attending events regarding issues that they absolutely don’t care about.” While the latter part of this might be true in some cases, it suggests an unhelpful binary of 1Ls caring or not caring about an event’s subject matter. In reality, many 1Ls might have different levels of interest that inform their decision to attend. This leads to the issue with the former part of the Court’s assumption, that the 1Ls attending are “networking gunners.” This, too, misconstrues the motivation to attend, with some 1Ls simply desiring to feed themselves at low cost, and so put a dent in their mountains of loan debt. They might listen, grab their food, and get out without anything approaching gunner activity or networking. Thus, the Court ought not to focus on an analysis of the subjective intent of student event attendees.

---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu

---

[1] An amicus brief authored by 2Ls was, in fact, the most eloquent statement of the facts and legal issues. This proves, once again, that 3Ls can’t be bothered to even argue in their own favor without 3LOLing.

[2] Much to the surprise of Justice Walsh, I can indeed include real legal concepts when writing for the Court.

[3] Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

[4] Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

[5] 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019).

[6] Id.

[7] See Class of 2025 v. Classes of 2023 and 2024 (1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls), 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019).

Hot Bench: Cooper Lewis '24

---

Hi, Cooper! Give us a little background on yourself. Where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and how did you end up coming to law school?

I’m from South Pittsburg, Tennessee, which is a small town on the Alabama state line.[1] I first started thinking about law school when I was in high school. I had an interesting relationship with a juvenile court judge—he was a football ref for the region, and I’m a chatty guy, so we started cutting up. Later, he ended up interviewing me for a scholarship. I didn’t get the scholarship, but after that interview, he said, “I think you should consider going to law school at some point.” So, it’s always kind of been sitting in the back of my mind.

Then, I went to Sewanee—The University of the South—for undergrad and majored in politics. After leaving Sewanee, I hopped on the campaign trail and did some interesting campaign work for a few years, and I ended up running a campaign in Tennessee, which was really satisfying. But I knew that law school was the end game, so that’s how I ended up here.

Tell us more about your campaign work and what you enjoyed the most from it.

My campaign experience was unique because I got to do something cool called political advance. I was working for a firm out in D.C. that was hired by Democratic candidates across the country to come out and set up big events, essentially. I got to travel the country and work with high-profile candidates, and I got to be the busy twenty-two-year-old in the airport, somehow getting first class while wearing sweatpants. But I found that I really enjoyed plugging in to each individual community as much as I enjoyed that big exposure to the high-profile politicians. So, I left that to knock on doors in Northern Virginia for the 2020 elections, which was exactly where I wanted to be.

After that, I had the option of going back to the political advance world or just trying something new, and I sent a text to a woman that I had interned for after graduating, back in Tennessee, and asked if she wanted me to come volunteer. Fortunately for me, her campaign staff wasn’t performing as she had hoped at that moment, and she asked me to come run the campaign.

How much of that experience has transferred to law school?

Getting that job—getting trusted with something that important to a candidate—gave me confidence where I was like, “Wait a second, I can really continue to climb in whatever direction I choose.” Learning how to communicate with people and sort of punch above my weight, and just being confident in my own abilities, are the two things that I think ended up being the most relevant to law school.

What has been your favorite experience so far in law school?

Easily softball. I think the reason that I enjoy that is part of something bigger at UVA, just the culture. This is the right place to go to law school, I think.

Speaking of softball, you’re a co-captain for Co-Rec Blue, one of UVA’s teams in the annual UVA Law Softball Invitational. What was it like last year, playing for the team as a 1L?

Oh, it was super exciting! I got to do it with my good friend, Andrew Becker ’24, who’s also my co-captain this year. We were not the victors, of course—congratulations again to Co-Rec Gold; I’m sure someone from that team is talking about the run differentials as we speak—but it was fun just to see students from other law schools appreciate what we’re doing here and enjoy it as much as I feel like we enjoy it.

Final question for this section (and the most important): Tell us about your cat.

My cat, Joe, is twelve years old or so—but not if you check the vet records, because I’ve told them all that he’s between eight and ten, since apparently prices go up around eleven or twelve. He’s a tuxedo cat that I got from a funny rescue place in Maryland; I couldn’t tell you what they were doing up there. He is a monster, he is my best friend, and he wakes me up at four o’clock every morning. If I look tired, it’s because I am—it’s because my cat keeps me up all night. But, hey, I love having a furball to go home to every day. 

Okay, time for the Lightning Round.

Favorite punctuation?

I love an em-dash. I’m not totally convinced that anyone really knows exactly when to use it.

Favorite word?

I think the German word for butterfly, “schmetterling,” is funny.

Favorite band?

Changes on a daily basis, but this is an opportunity to plug—I have great taste in music, I swear—Mo Lowda & the Humble.

Favorite animal?

A stray, friendly one. I can’t choose between cats and dogs because I grew up with both, but my favorite animals in my life are the ones that show up for a couple months and hang out, and then I never see them again.

City you want to visit but not live in?

Chicago. I’m a Cubs fan, but it’s just too cold in the winter.

What instruments do you play?

I can play somewhere between four and six songs on the banjo. They’re all in this genre called “old-timey” music.

What’s your hottest take?

Law school is a good time.

And finally, any shoutouts you want to make?

Shoutout to Section B, Class of 2024. They’re a great group of people who are really supportive of one another and who really avoided stress culture. I think most of my answers about UVA generally, like that law school is a good time, are just from my experience with my section. So, shoutout Section B, 2024.

---
Interviewed by Sarah Walsh '23 and Jack Brown '23
uer6rj@virginia.edu

---

[1] A fun fact for readers that we discovered while Googling South Pittsburg to make sure that we were spelling it correctly: South Pittsburg is home to the National Cornbread Festival.

Court of Petty Appeals: Literally All Law School People v. The Darden Foundation

---

Literally All Law School People
v.
The Darden Foundation

75 U.Va 9 (2022)

Bninski, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Today, my colleagues and I return to a subject that has plagued the Law School community since January 2021—namely, the construction of the seemingly as-yet-unnamed hospitality facility that will “replace the long-time UVA Inn at Darden.”[1] While, like many legal professionals, the members of the Court normally rejoice in the opportunity to hold forth, and may, for that reason, write many unnecessary and repetitive articles bemoaning minor inconveniences, it is with great sorrow that we raise the topic of this neo-“UVA Inn at Darden” once more.

Facts and Posture of the Case

It has come to our attention that, despite being enjoined in 2021 to halt construction “and return Grounds to their former glory,”[2] Darden has persisted in constructing a brick behemoth; a hospitality horror;[3] a conference center cataclysm. We note this blatant disrespect for the authority of this Court as we turn our attention to the new, more specific, complaint  before us.

Literally All Law School People brought this class action, seeking relief from the incessant noise of the Darden hospitality facility construction. The complaint cites months plagued particularly by beeping that is audible in every outdoor Law School space. The Class of 2023, which makes up part of the general class of plaintiffs, points out that, given the coincidence of their tenure at the Law School with the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and its attendant need to spend time outside if at all feasible, they are particularly injured by the construction noise. They note that the construction project will not end until after their graduation, and so they have no hope for any beep-free era during their Law School years.

The District Court of Petty Complaints granted the relief sought by Plaintiffs, and we now address the Darden Foundation’s appeal.

Because this Court is not only petty but also capricious, we are prepared to overlook the fact that the Darden Foundation persisted in its unlawful construction project after the injunction of 2021.[4] For that reason, we do not immediately dismiss the appeal or hold the Darden Foundation in contempt of court.[5]

The Darden Foundation argues on appeal that noise is an inherent part of any construction project and that beeping, specifically, plays an important role in assuring the safety of the construction site by notifying personnel that machinery is backing up. Moreover, the Darden Foundation points to two Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4) and Section 1926.602(a)(9)(ii). These requirements, the Darden Foundation argues, place on it a legal obligation to provide “audible alarms” that accompany the reverse movement of any motor vehicle or earthmoving equipment that suffers from an obstructed rear view. The appellant’s brief expresses horror at the idea of deviating from OSHA’s requirements.[6]

The appellees’ brief consists largely of unhinged ramblings about “that hideous BEEP.”  The appellees claim that this is because the brief was written “under the tent in Spies and BEEP we are really struggling to think straight with BEEP all the interruptions, sorry petty judge people.”

Discussion

This Court has great respect for safety. And because each year, thousands of constructions sites will see a fatality,[7] we recognize the importance of the Darden Foundation’s commitment. However, the Foundation has overlooked guidance from OSHA which indicates that, in lieu of hideous beeping, an observer can signal to a driver that it is safe to back up. This approach has much to recommend it, namely a lack of beeping and the creation of a job.[8]

Because this Court is capricious, we also took it upon ourselves to develop the record. On the Law School lawn, outside the august entrance to our institution: beeping. Outside Slaughter Hall: beeping. In the outdoor spaces surrounding ScoCo: beeping. In the Purcell Garden: beeping. In Spies: beeping. The Court finds it all very annoying.

Conclusion

Due to this annoyance, and bolstered by the Darden Foundation’s failure to adequately explore alternatives open to it under OSHA, we uphold the judgment of the district court. The beeping is enjoined. The Darden Foundation can supply one or more signal persons to ensure safety of movement, or it can refrain from ever allowing its machinery to back up. This Court, for one, will not back down.

---

Pazhwak, J., concurring.

The majority correctly upholds the injunction against the annoying beeping of construction vehicles at the new “UVA Inn at Darden” site. However, due to their varied places of residence away from said site, my dignified colleagues failed to recognize another subclass of law students who have suffered great and terrible injury from the construction site noise: Copeley Hill residents. Many of the graduate Copeley Hill apartment buildings, especially those near Copeley Field, were often exposed to copious construction noises during many of the daylight hours of the weeks and weekends for the past three years. Given the thin walls of these apartments, the noises often penetrated at inopportune times, waking up bleary-eyed law students sleeping off major memo hangovers, among other things. The now-3L Copeley residents were particularly affected, forced to endure construction noises while confined to their abodes during the pandemic.[9] The majority ought to reconsider additional sanctions beyond enjoinment, including uncapped punitive damages or, in the alternative, ordering lifetime access for affected 3L Copeley residents to the amenities that will be available in what is sure to be a luxurious building befitting the wealthy donors for whose benefit it was built.

---

 Walsh, J., concurring.

I agree wholeheartedly with the majority’s reasoning in today’s decision. After all, the only good thing to come out of the Darden construction is the fact that law students keep trying to aim for it when playing softball on Copeley Field. I write separately today because I wish to underscore the incredible, yet unsurprising, callousness that the Darden Foundation displayed in choosing to maintain their construction project’s incessant beeping, when hiring a signal person—as Justice Bninski so wisely observed—had been an option this entire time.

While I expect little from the Darden School—and even less from the corporation that supports it—I am astounded by the audacity of the Darden Foundation. I respect OSHA requirements as much as the next Justice, but it is outrageous for the Foundation to cite safety considerations as their excuse for inflicting yearsof emotional, mental, and physical damage—in the form of beeping—on generations of UVA Law students. What of the students’ safety? Or the faculty and staff employed by this institution, for that matter? Do you think that constantly being forced to listen to the obnoxious BEEPs emitted by the Darden construction site is goodfor us? It isn’t—after all, aside from the hearing damage that is all but ensured to result from the beeping, the distractions created by the beeping must also be considered. The overwhelming annoyance presented by the beeping is enough to distract anyone, even those with ears of steel and otherwise-endless focus, from important tasks, such as looking both ways before crossing that weird diagonal crosswalk next to the school that was created as a result of—you guessed it—the Darden construction.

The fact of the matter is that the Darden Foundation’s claims of concern for worker safety ring hollow in light of their clear disregard for the safety of all others who may be affected by their construction project. In classic Darden snake fashion, the Foundation attempts to use rules and considerations that are meant to help others so that it may benefit only itself. Thankfully, this Court saw through these attempted manipulations of the law and chose the remedy required by justice: enjoining the beeping.

Accordingly, I concur.

---
amb6ag@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
saw8rc@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://news.virginia.edu/content/dardens-new-hotel-halfway-its-spring-opening

[2] Students v. Construction, 73 U.Va. 17 (2021).

[3] This is, we concede, dramatic license; the building itself is not that bad.

[4] And perhaps, someday, we will get to confer at the Conference Center. The members of the Court love to confer, fancily.

[5] We don’t want to tempt fate. The Darden Foundation probably already has contempt for this Court.

[6] We find the Darden Foundation’s newfound respect for the law honestly just insulting.

[7] https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats

[8] We note that the Darden Foundation’s assets were listed in 2020 as in excess of $500 million; It can afford to pay a signal person. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/university-of-virginia-darden-school-foundation,546046419/

[9] Some particularly unfortunate 3Ls with exceptionally disconnected pandemic sections had the double whammy of enduring construction noises at some times and roaring softball game cheers at others, reminding them of their tragic, lonely situations. 

Hot Bench: Katie Poore '25

---

Katie Poore ‘25

Hi, Katie! Thanks for joining me on Hot Bench. Let’s start with an introduction: Where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what brought you to law school?

I am originally from Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I actually went to UVA for undergrad. I graduated in 2019 and tried out a bunch of different things over the last three years. I came to law school because I feel like a J.D. offers a lot of flexibility, and I’m still not entirely sure what I want to do. But I know that I’m interested in law in some capacity and in working with individual people. I worked a job in book publishing for a while that had a lot of lawyer components, like drafting of contracts and negotiations. I really liked that work.

What is your hometown Tuscaloosa famous for?

Football! That’s where the University of Alabama is. But my whole family is made up of Auburn fans, and they’re major rivals. The Alabama-Auburn rivalry is of a different kind. UVA has its rivalry with Virginia Tech, but it pales in comparison. We had Auburn decorations in our yard in Tuscaloosa, and they’d get stolen or vandalized.

Wow! I have some classmates that are Bama alums. Hopefully they won’t read this and come for you. Or me. But you’re a double ’Hoo! Are you in love with Charlottesville?

I love Charlottesville. Originally, when I was applying to law schools, I was interested in going to New York because it felt more adventurous. But I visited a friend who’s a 2L in February, when I was starting to decide on law schools, and she seemed so happy here. Everybody here told me that it was the best choice they’d ever made. It kind of sold me.

I understand you also lived in France after undergrad. Parles-tu français?

Oui! I was in a little college town called Chambéry, an hour south of Geneva, in the Alps region. I taught sixteen classes of high school to local French kids. It was the best. I lived with three French roommates because I really wanted to be fluent. They were all ridiculously good cooks, so we did a lot of apartment dinners. They tried to teach me to ski, with not a great amount of success.

Had you never been skiing before?

I did when I was eight. But I just don’t really think that counts, right? That’s about as late as I played softball, too, which seems to be an advantage here.

So, what are you going as for Halloween this year?

My two roommates and I have been planning to go as Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss. It’s been shocking the number of people who haven't understood what that is. It makes me feel like I’m on TikTok more than I need to be… When I told you, I thought, “What if I have to explain?” It’s an internet thing, it’s a commentary on Lean In feminism, but that’s not why we’re doing it—we just think it’s funny. But we did lose our Gatekeep, so now we’re just Gaslight, Girlboss.[1]

What do you wear to represent Gaslight? It sounds pretty abstract.

I’m wearing a lot of black and gold, and hopefully sparkles. My friend bought me a bunch of glow sticks. And I have a yellow tutu and yellow hair spray paint that I will probably not use. I want to find a feather boa that has black sparkles in it. I want to be a classy Gaslight.

That sounds very good—that could blow people out of the water at Hallowqueen.

Thank you! Girlboss is the easiest one. She’s wearing a blazer.

Oh yeah, that’s just going as a law student.

Yeah, exactly! To be fair to our lost Gatekeep, Gatekeep is definitely the hardest. What do you dress as? A fence?

Isn’t there a character from Ghostbusters that was a literal gatekeeper? Maybe you could go as that.[2] Anyway, many people are saying that law school is quite challenging. What do you like to do to de-stress in your free time?

I’m a musician. I’ve played violin for nineteen years. I like to do that. I like to play guitar. And I’m a big hiker, although I haven’t really had any time for that.

Are you involved in any musical groups at the Law School? You’d think that a law school would have a role for violinists; that feels very classy.

Yeah, that’s actually one thing that I want to do. It’ll probably happen next semester just because I don’t think taking on anything new right now would be great. I grew up playing classical music, but I love bluegrass music. I think it’s really fun, and I want to do more of it.

Speaking of talents… we have Civil Procedure together, and you have a talent for which you’re famous in class. Would you care to share what that is?

I can say words backwards really fast. It’s a great party trick. There’s no utility to it whatsoever.

Well, it impressed all of us! Could you say Virginia Law Weekly backwards?

Ylkeew wal ainigriv.

Wow. That’s great. Our readers will love that. Can you do it in French, too?

Yeah, but it’s a little harder. It has to be a word I’ve seen before because it’s really visual. I’ve been able to do it since sixth grade, but I didn’t tell anyone about it until I was twenty-two. So, when I showed my mom for the first time, she said, “That’s satanic.”

I admire your commitment to it. OK, lightning round! Which Chex Mix piece is the best?

I like the light Chex, but only when they have a lot of the spice on them. There are two or three per bag. Those are the best pieces.

Very good answer. There are wrong answers to that question.

Yeah, the breadsticks…

If you had answered breadsticks, I would have ended the interview. Best and worst Halloween candies?

Candy corn’s the worst.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. That’s a controversial one.

And Twizzlers. They’re just not worth it. I eat one every year on Halloween and say, “Nope, still sucks.” Then, the best… Reese’s cups.

Yes! Up top for Reese’s. OK, the Musk-Twitter deal closing—good news or bad news?

Bad news. I just really don’t want Trump back on Twitter. And Elon Musk is an attention hog.[3] I just wish that everyone would stop talking about it because I feel like that’s what he wants.

That sounds accurate. Favorite place you’ve ever traveled?

I’m partial to France, but I went to the Isle of Skye in Scotland. It was the most otherworldly place I’ve ever been. It looked like a place unicorns would live. There were rainbows everywhere. It was beautiful.

Okay, last one. Do you believe in ghosts?

I’d say no, but I still don’t like being near my bed in the dark at night. I’m open to the possibility, but I’d say no. Just to maintain a little bit of magic. But not too much.

A little bit of magic is important when you’re a law student.

You need it!

---
Interviewed by Andrew Allard ‘25
dl9uh@virginia.edu

---

[1] A happy post-interview note: Katie and company were able to find a volunteer to fill in for Gatekeep. (Honestly, who wouldn’t want to be a part of that trio? Commitment to the bit comes first on Halloween.)

[2] My pop-culturally inept brain was thinking of Zuul, which would be a great costume.

[3] Katie used a word other than hog, which I’ll allow our readers to imagine.

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

---

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

Kulkarni, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

I.

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

---

Professor Frost

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

---

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.

I.

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.

Exhibit 1

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

---

Pictured: William Schweller '25

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

---

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

---

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