Hot Bench: Sarah Walsh '23, Editing Editor

Virginia Law Weekly March 23, 2023

In this issue's Hot Bench, we say hi to Sarah Walsh ’23, our outgoing editing editor. Two questions to start us off: First, how are you doing; and second, can you please tell me the origin story of your utterly ridiculous colophon title?

I’m doing alright! I’m probably (definitely) not 3LOL-ing as hard as I should be, but I’ve made my peace with that. I’m also a little sad to be leaving the Law Weekly colophon life behind, but the sadness mostly comes from the knowledge that I won’t be passing the Editing Editor title along to anyone. I do appreciate that someone noticed the title, though, which was inspired by Mason Pazhwak ’23 and his “Hand of the EIC” title. By the time I worked my way onto the colophon, all the standard “____ Editor” titles were already taken, so when asked what I wanted my position to be, I decided that it should be something ridiculous but also appropriately descriptive of my role on the paper—resulting in Editing Editor.

Can you tell us where you’re from and why you ended up at UVA Law?

I grew up in Atlanta, Georgia and attended UC Berkley for undergrad (go Bears) before coming to UVA Law. One of the reasons I wanted to attend UVA Law was the baseball J-term class, which I mentioned in my admissions interview. I passed it off as a joke, but it wasn’t a joke.

I know you're very involved across UVA Law, but I have to shout out of your involvements here because it's so close: The Libel Show! How are you involved with Libel, and can you give us any sneak peeks into what we can expect to see later this week?

We appreciate the publicity! I am a director (along with Ruby Cherian ’23) and a head writer (along with Jack Brown ’23) for the show, as well as an actor in it. While I don’t want to spoil any of the surprises that Libel has in store, I will say that this year’s show has something for everyone: a murder mystery, Real Housewives-inspired intros, fake babies named after various Law School locations—you want it, we’ve got it.

How long have you been working at the Law Weekly? What drew you to it?

I first started working at the Law Weekly during the spring semester of my 2L year (proof that it’s never too late to join), beginning with my first-ever article, “Balls to the Wall: Softball at UVA.” I’ve always loved writing, especially as a creative outlet, but “creative” isn’t exactly the word that I would use to describe legal writing. While writing for Libel during fall of 2L helped provide that kind of outlet, I wanted more, and lo and behold, there was the Law Weekly to give me exactly that.

Tell me either the favorite piece you've written during your time here, or your favorite types of stories to edit.

I know you asked for either, but I’m going to hit you with answers to both. My favorite piece that I’ve written during my time here is “C Them Run: Cold Callers Win Crown” about this year’s 1L Softball Tournament. If I weren’t doing this whole law school thing, I would probably want to pursue some kind of career in sports journalism, so writing the article gave me the chance to live out that dream for a little bit. I also had a great time covering the games (although my notes from them were absolutely unhinged, since I didn’t really know any 1Ls at the time and thus knew barely any players’ names).

Meanwhile, my favorite types of stories to edit are Jon Peterson ’23’s animal articles. They’re not really stories per se, but they are excellently written, informative, and—this is key—almost completely error-free, which makes editing them way easier. I also love animals, so getting to learn about them while I’m editing is a huge plus for me.

What's next for you after law school? What non-law-related thing are you most excited for in this next chapter?

After law school, I’ll be working in white collar investigations at a firm in San Francisco, and I’m definitely excited to be going back to the Bay Area—I went to UC Berkeley for undergrad and miss the area dearly. What I’m most excited for, though, is a Minor League road trip that a couple of my friends and I are planning on doing right after graduation. I’m a huge baseball fan, and Minor League Baseball games are especially entertaining (if you’d like to learn more, look up the Lehigh Valley IronPigs and their “Whack-an-Intern” promo). Driving around and going to those games with some of my closest friends is about as perfect of a law school wrap-up as I can imagine.

What is your favorite memory from Law School?

Either winning the NGSL Spring 2022 Tournament with §A & Pals or driving down to watch Game 5 of the 2021 World Series in Atlanta with Jack Brown ’23 and Parker Kelly ’23.

Lightning round:

Describe your relationship with your parents using a cream cheese flavor.

Herb (specifically the Bodo’s herb) cream cheese. I will not be elaborating further.

Dream vacation.

Anything involving a beach.

Favorite font.

Georgia—I love a good serif font, and I’m partial to this one, having grown up in Atlanta.

If you woke up and you had been magically transformed overnight into a fully sentient, literate aardvark—so you retain all of your knowledge and human intuition—would you drop out of UVA Law and try to lead your fellow aardvarks to rise up against humankind? Or would you prefer to become the first aardvark to graduate law school, with the trials and tribulations that entails?

Aardvark revolution, no question. I’m barely willing to endure the trials and tribulations of doing law school as a human, plus an aardvark uprising sounds like a pretty exciting time.

---
Interviewed by Ethan Brown '25
bwj2cw@virginia.edu

1L Students v. Virginia Law Review et al.

Virginia Law Weekly March 15, 2023

1L Students
v.
Virginia Law Review et al.
75 U.Va 18 (2023)

Allen, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The case before this Court concerns one of the quintessential facets of the law school experience—journals. 1L students have recently completed the Unified Journal Tryout, submitting their personal statements, along with their editing and writing components, to be judged against one another in a process much akin to law school admissions. Several 1L students, as representatives of their class, have filed an emergency application alleging multiple procedural defects which combine to deprive them of their due process. Petitioners seek to prevent grading of their submitted materials, along with an injunction requiring changes to the tryout process. We granted a temporary stay in order to consider arguments on the merits.

II. Discussion

The first question is an issue of standing. Students allege a harm based on the inconsistency of dates listed in communications on personal statement prompts, resulting in the deadline for these statements being pushed back. Additionally, those running the journal tryouts originally indicated that no physical copies would be produced, with students left on their own to print nearly two-hundred pages of material if they desired. They eventually changed course, providing hard copies which had to be picked up and returned at specified times. In both these behaviors, Petitioners allege they suffered harm insofar as their ability to complete the requirements of the journal process was impaired due to uncertainty and changing circumstances, forcing them to change plans.

Defendants counter that no harm actually occurred, as all changes or uncertainty were eventually resolved in Petitioners’ favor. Further, even conceding a harm, no remedy is available from the Court to redress the harm, as forcing students to engage in another round of journal tryouts would surely inflict more harm to the class.

These objections are well-taken and would likely prevail in a lesser court. However, the Court of Petty Appeals derives its jurisdiction from pettiness. What complaints are pettier than those which lack a reasonable solution? As such, these standing objections only strengthen Petitioners’ case and reinforce the authority of the Court to hear the dispute.

Having considered the positions of the parties at argument, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of the originalist understanding of due process requirements for journal tryouts. The earliest law review was founded in 1852,[1] and journals were thus known at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s passage in 1868. Some argue that due process requirements are not fixed to those existing at the time of passage, either evolving over time or allowing for limited changes that reflect longstanding historical practice. While these concessions square with reality and allow for the functioning of society, we must reject them and insist on a return to the procedures known in 1868.[2] I do not know what these procedures were—I am no historian. I presume it would require handwritten editing and writing components, as computers are a modern invention. Students probably wrote in cursive back then, so that will be required as well.

The Court recognizes that such a requirement is backwards, obnoxious, and unreasonable. Unfortunately, our hands are tied by the interpretive methodology we have chosen to accept and apply, which compels this outcome. Accordingly, we hold that in all future journal tryouts, the procedures need to conform to those employed in 1868, leaving to journal administrators the task of discovering what such procedures were. Additionally, we require the administrators to do a better job proofreading the materials and information provided to 1Ls to ensure dates are correct. Given the emphasis on editing and accuracy which the tryout process demands, and which journals expect from their staff, we can require nothing less.

Coleman, J., concurring in part.

The originalist methodology employed by my Brother Allen is obviously correct. But I am forced to write separately, as I would never defer to historians. Instead, it is the duty of this Court to clearly state what the law was in 1868.

The lens through which we look is this: the plain meaning of the due process clause to an educated reader in 1868. The next step is to determine who you would like to win. As I regularly dine with 1Ls and have yet to be invited to the Virginia Law Review, I choose Petitioners. Finally, I now choose which historical documents support my preferred outcome.

But Brother Allen’s deference to historians makes this methodology unpredictable. For example, there is debate among historians as to what powers the Presidency was actually delegated. If I were to come to a measured conclusion based on the weight of that evidence, then it would destroy my ability to pick between various Federalist Papers or dictionaries based on the political views of the sitting President. This is an untenable state of affairs because historians are far too squishy in their conclusions, and the law needs bright-line rules.

While imposing the standards of 1868 onto present-day journal tryouts is well and good, as it redounds to the benefit of Petitioners, one must never forget that it is the Justice who is empowered with that insight into the past.

Morse, C.J., dissenting.

All that is old, is new again. So it is, that once again the burden falls upon the more experienced members of this Court to explain to both 1L petitioners and 1L members of this Court the error of their ways. In both instances the result, as always, is that 1Ls lose. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

First, concerning Petitioners’ claims of pain and suffering of which they so loudly protest, is simply a fact of life at a reputable law school, not some malicious torture targeted solely at this newest crop of aspiring lawyers. For one thing, every single thing that Petitioners misdiagnose as a harm was experienced by the current 2Ls. Confused and sometimes contradictory communications? Check. Having to pick up and return printed materials at specified times and locations? (Gasp). Check. But again, all of this is mere tautology since Petitioners are 1Ls, and under this Court’s precedent they must lose.

Second, the Majority’s analysis errs in two respects. First, the majority considers an argument not raised in briefing or at oral argument. As heartening as it is to know the 1Ls of this Court have heard the words sua sponte, have access to Google, and a tenuous grasp of the English language, they mistakenly conflate what this Court may consider sua sponte with what prudence and precedence command. Prudentially, this Court, in recognizing a more appropriate basis for a challenge, should dismiss the suit as improvidently granted. Thereby, 1Ls lose and we have to do less work. Precedentially, the majority (this is what happens when you let 1Ls write opinions) neglect this Court’s most important, and oft-repeated precedent: 1L’s always lose.[3] I don’t know how many times we need to say this.[4] So, just to be as clear as possible: 1L’s always lose. Any other result is irreconcilable with the very foundation of liberty.

---
guj9fn@virginia.edu
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu

[1] It was only Penn, but it still counts. https://www.pennlawreview.com/about-the-law-review/.

[2] See Thomas, J., dissenting (citing Thomas, J., dissenting).

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

[4] 1L Section D v. Virginia Law Weekly 75 U.Va 5 (2022).

Hot Bench: Dana Lake '23, Deposed Tyrant

Virginia Law Weekly March 15, 2023

Dana, it is my honor to be interviewing you for your first issue as Editor in Chief (“EIC”) Emeritus. Let me remind you, you no longer have any editorial immunity, and the Court of Petty Appeals (“COPA”) is always looking for fresh defendants. Now, let’s get down to business. Where are you from and why did you come to UVA Law?

I’m from Jupiter, Florida. I lived in South Florida pretty much my whole life before law school, including for undergrad (go Gators). I worked in publishing for a few years and hit a professional ceiling, where my choices were to really double down on publishing or make a pivot into something else. As much as I loved publishing, it’s an industry with pretty low salary caps. Transactional work is a lot of the same skill set with a much better compensation scale, and a law degree really gives you a lot of freedom in the career choices you can make.

You’ve been part of the Virginia Law Weekly since you were a 1L. When did you start plotting your coup d’état thinking about running for EIC?

Oh, from day one. When I told [’20-’21 Law Weekly EIC] Christina I had InDesign experience, the gleam in her eye told me I was going to be more involved, whether I wanted to be or not (lol). I really enjoyed being Production Editor on the ’21-’22 editorial board, and I used that time to mine the previous EIC for all the insider tips he had on the job. I have zero desire to litigate or become a judge, so I had to at least seize the opportunity to be Chief Justice of the Court of Petty Appeals.

Each EIC brings their own personality, style, and priorities to their reign atop the Law Weekly. You were definitely known for your efficiency. What would you say was your biggest priority or the impact you are most proud of?

Efficiency is a legacy I can be happy with! My biggest priority was to recruit a larger editor pool to replace the big group of 3Ls leaving this year. Other org leaders know the pressure of keeping the pipeline flowing and how far-reaching the impact of a bad recruiting year is. I keep saying it, but only because it’s true: The Law Weekly needs a wide variety of voices to really capture the Law School experience. A small, tight-knit group is a lot of fun to work with, but a lot of different contributors ultimately makes the paper better.

Of the many articles you wrote over the last three years, I have two favorites. The first is your very first COPA majority, Loiterers v. The Powers that Be, 73 U.Va. 14 (2021), and the second was not an article at all, but an heroic effort to fill unexpected blank space in the October 19, 2022 edition, titled “The End of the Line.” What is your favorite article that you’ve written?

That COPA is a real throwback! It was written passionately, directly from the heart of someone who basically lived in Brown 121 during 1L fall. That was one of the roughest springs of my life, and losing out on that little bit of community was a disproportionately tough blow to weather.

My favorite piece has to be “Ode to Tiny Door,” which (unlike that COPA, which took me days and days) I wrote all in one shot in probably fifteen minutes while in a total fugue state. Those thoughts had been bouncing around my head for months by the time I was ready to put them to paper and send them out into the world.

A close runner up would be a financial advice article I wrote with the help of Dean Hulvey. She was so welcoming of me going and pestering her with questions. Anyone who is unsure about the massive amounts of money they will be making after law school, or the massive amounts of debt they are in, should definitely talk with the Office of Financial Aid.

The last year has had some notable ups and downs, and you had a unique perspective as EIC of the most powerful publication at UVA Law. What was the most surprising aspect of your time as EIC?

The most surprising thing to me, over and over again, was that people read the paper. There is a total dissociation in my head between writing and designing and printing and putting the paper out, and the fact that people will then read (and enjoy!) this thing we have created. Seeing students with copies of the paper in the hallway, receiving emails from former EICs about current editions, Student Affairs playing along with COPA orders, hearing about professors angling to get into the quotes box—it never fails to make me really happy.

You wrote several articles advising students on how to live their best lives, including how to fully embrace home-cooking, how to be financially responsible with your summer associate money, and when it is time in November to “get it together.” Are you an eldest sibling, or are you just a natural purveyor of wisdom?

I’m a younger sister; I’m just really bossy. The paper gave me a platform to force my worldview onto a wider group of people, which I definitely took full advantage of.

As you know, we need some new editors to replace the many incredible graduating 3Ls. What is your pitch for law students to join the Law Weekly?

It’s fun! It’s a Law School tradition! It’s good for your mental health! It’s better for your resume than any journal!

Lightning Round!

Any shout outs?

Weekend Thursdays, of course.

Zodiac sign?

Capricorn, predictably.

How do you take your coffee?

Milk, no sugar.

Favorite study spot?

At home with my two cats curled up nearby.

Post-grad plans?

Big Law in Houston and becoming an Astros fan.

Dream job? Other than EIC, of course.

Working for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be really interesting, but if I were doing something outside the law, I would be a chef.

How have your free Mondays been so far?

I haven’t had one by the time of this writing, but I am looking forward to being better able to pregame The Bachelor finale.

Any (much-needed) advice for the incoming EIC?

I hear he’s a pretty cool guy with a good head on his shoulders, so I’m sure he’ll be fine. The Law Weekly is a dictatorship, but you have an editorial board for a reason—don’t hesitate to lean on them when answering the big questions that will come your way (like who will pick up the pizzas on Monday).

---
Interviewed by Nikolai Morse '24

Court of Petty Appeals: Everyone v. Parking and Transportation

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2023

Everyone
v.
Parking and Transportation

75 U.Va 17 (2023)

Peterson, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

This is not the first time I have written about parking enforcement for this Court.[1] In UVA Gym-Goers, I enjoined “all future enforcement of . . . metered parking” at IM-Rec facilities. That decision was handed down on January 26, 2022. Just recently, less than a month ago, this Court’s own Justice Kulkarni released another scathing opinion regarding parking, Students v. Parking Enforcement.[2] In his concurrence to Students v. Parking Enforcement, Justice Morse referred to the practice of charging students for the use of parking spaces as “one of the most pernicious and extractive practices condoned by the Law School.” So, why are we here today?

On February 14,[3] Dean Davies forwarded an email to the student body. That email, originally written by Greg Streit, the Assistant Dean for Building Services, stated in matter-of-fact terms that, despite “inconsistent” enforcement in the past regarding parking violations, this was no longer going to be the case. Further, Parking and Transportation (P&T) would be limiting the spots available in the D2 lot for ParkMobile parking to only fifteen. However, perhaps the biggest change is the decision to adjust the rate from an affordable $1.75 per day to an outlandish $2.50 per hour for parking. What was once a charge that I was absolutely willing to accept now has me reminiscing about the good old days of only paying $14 per day to park in San Diego.

Typically, when I write opinions for this Court, I try to feign some degree of judicial legitimacy or legal reasoning. Perhaps I do it by using fancy headers, like “Background,” “Analysis,” and “Conclusion.” Perhaps I do it by employing a real-life legal doctrine. However, this case defies that sort of reasoning. The depraved actions of the school in pursuing this path necessitate the removal of all appearances of propriety. Y’all wanted to play dirty, so the Court is going to play dirty.

Frankly, this decision is just shocking. It doesn’t make sense on so many levels. It leaves me reeling with many unanswered questions. So, the first question I would like to pose is: Do you, UVA, care about your students and, if so, why are you simply trying to extract every last ounce of monetary value you can from us? I already pay upwards of $65,000 per year—that’s almost enough for the diversity jurisdiction requirement—why must you not only try to rip $25 per day from me on top of that, but also make my life miserable with fines and fees for violations? To put it simply: Parking enforcement and provision seems like the kind of cost that could be buried in our cost of tuition. The University could charge me $4,000 per year for parking and, if they embedded that charge in my tuition fee, I wouldn’t bat an eye. I wouldn’t even think about it. It would be a cost of attendance, and I would be lucky enough to have a school which provides me parking.[4] The fact that I am being treated as a thing which the school can extract value from even after I have paid roughly $195,000 to be here is an absurdity, and it speaks to how the University values its students.

Further, even if this was somehow still seen as the morally and financially right decision by the University, the choice was flawed in another way: the timing. Valentine’s Day of the last semester for students that started at the Law School during the height of the pandemic is not the time to pull the rug out from under students. We are talking about a class of students who, relative to the average law student, have already had so much taken from them by the school. And not just experientially—this statement holds true monetarily as well. Because, while other classes got events like Dandelion, Admitted Students Weekend, Barrister’s, a Fall, Thanksgiving, and Spring break, and more during their 1L year, our year instead paid full tuition to attend half of our classes over Zoom.[5]

The point that I am getting at here is that this was simply a stupid time to make this change. Eat whatever costs you have to eat for the next three months before the Class of 2023 is gone. I’m sure that the endowment won’t be hit too hard by that decision. In fact, in the long run, it would likely be a boon to the school. Because all I can say is that I don’t think a single person I have talked to from the current class of 3Ls has any intention of donating a dime to the Law School after their experience these last three years. And it seems unsurprising why those students feel that way.

This Court orders the University to publicly recognize that this decision was, at best, a stupid one, and at worst, a stupid decision that revealed the University’s nefarious intent to treat its students as mere things from which to extract value. The University is also enjoined from charging for parking outside of costs hidden in tuition. Courts are rarely tasked with crafting policy, but luckily, ours is no normal court. So, the Court is happy to order the University to reverse its current parking decision, leave the status quo in place for the remainder of the semester, and then increase tuition—while simultaneously making parking free for all students—next fall. The school shall distribute parking passes to all students at the beginning of each year and still hire parking enforcement to ensure that no undesirable townies are using the parking spaces. This is a well-crafted and sufficiently insidious policy as to not immediately turn any heads. I’m shocked the school didn’t implement it sooner.

---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu

[1] UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA, 74 U.Va. 13 (2022).

[2] 75 U.Va. 13 (2023).

[3] Literally on Valentine’s Day.

[4] Even if, in reality, that school is severely overcharging me for the good.

[5] In fact, I believe we paid $2,000 for what was labeled “Activity Fee.” There were no activities. I still don’t know what I paid for. Apparently it wasn’t parking.

Hot Bench: Anna Bninski '23

Virginia Law Weekly March 2, 2023

I am so happy to welcome our esteemed Features Editor, Anna Bninski ’23! Anna, would you please introduce yourself to our vast readership?

Sure! So, I am originally a Navy brat, but I grew up here in Charlottesville after my father was stationed at the Navy ROTC at UVA. Then, I went to UVA for undergrad. After graduating, I spent about seven years bouncing around volunteer opportunities, academic pursuits, and various jobs, mostly for non-profits. Then, instead of continuing to work in communications, I decided that I would rather get into a track with the possibility for more concrete accomplishments. So, that’s what brought me to law school.

What area of the law are you most interested in?

Litigation, with a focus on employment law.

And what sparked your interest in that field?

So, I’m pretty nosy, which means I’m interested in an area of law that has scope for some investigation-type projects. And wild stuff happens at work. That makes it an interesting area of law—and it’s also one that pretty much everyone’s life will intersect with at some point because most folks will have a job. But there are a lot of misconceptions about what are and are not legal practices. I think people often think that activities that are merely unfair are illegal. But then they don’t recognize that some things employers are doing that seem normal are actually illegal. So, it’s an area that I find very interesting that has both human and legal aspects. And I’ve been informed that I have “litigator energy,” which seems pretty accurate. I’d say I’m one of the many litigation-focused types who have only a very foggy grasp of what M&A lawyers actually do.

Besides writing and working as an editor for the Virginia Law Weekly, what other activities are you involved with on Grounds?

I was the Philanthropy Chair and am now Co-Vice President of the Domestic Violence Project. While we are not the most visible club, we have been able to do some really great volunteering and fundraising work. That has been very rewarding. For example, I was particularly happy when we raised over $700 for the Shelter for Help in Emergency. And I also work at the circulation desk at the Law Library, so come check out an iPhone charger from me. Or a book, if you’re feeling really wild.

Wonderful! So, I know you came to the Law School in the COVID year…

Oh, yeah.

What are the noticeable changes you’ve seen in the Law School?

Well, I was a complete hermit my first year because one of my roommates at the time was an essential worker. I couldn’t in good conscience justify bringing bonus germs into the house. So, if I had the option of doing school on Zoom, then that was what I needed to do. After being a hard-core hermit, things were relaxing a bit during 2L. And with that came many delightful classmates! For 3L, the ability to just hang out at school and not have to deal with the same stressful environment of early COVID has been really lovely.

And how would you say that impacted the friendships you’ve built during law school?

I would say that I made one or two good friends during 1L, and it has been a pleasant expansion of that number ever since.

Building off of that unique experience, what advice do you have for 1Ls and 2Ls?

This isn’t really for 1Ls or 2Ls specifically. While this is probably advice that you hear a lot, it’s important to think about what matters to you and not necessarily what everyone else or the institutions of the school are telling you are the best things. I feel this with myself—it is very easy to want things because everyone tells you that that is what you should want. And then you pursue those goals because they feel like the right ones. This is not to say that all widely accepted goals are bad goals and that no one should do them! But I just think that it’s important to take a minute and imagine what you want to get out of life and prioritize from there. And this reflects both career goals and academic goals. You don’t actually have to kill yourself over every class. You can be strategic about how you spend your time.

Before you leave law school, is there anything you would like to accomplish?

Well, I’m doing the Workplace Rights clinic at the LAJC right now, which is something new for me. I’m really looking forward to seeing my academic work be useful to people who are serving folks in the real world.

Great work following CREAC and tying this back into employment law. Do you have any last words that you would like to leave our audience with?

My husband and I have a mid-size dachshund named Otto. He is very long and very low to the ground and so is a constant tripping hazard.

Lightning Round!

How many siblings do you have?

I’m the youngest of four!

How do you take your coffee?

Cream, no sugar.

Favorite kind of library patron?

People who have a book on hold and are excited it’s finally arrived.

What’s your horoscope?

Scorpio. I’m great at holding grudges.

Favorite restaurant around town?

That’s a hard one…it was Anna’s Pizza No. 5 before it closed. RIP.

What are you doing for your Bar Trip?

I don’t know if I’m even doing one yet, that’s so far in the future…

What’s your phone screensaver?

It’s a picture form my wedding. Me and my husband and a lot of bushes.

Do you recommend getting married din law School?

Yes to eloping in law school, but I don’t think I can recommend a whole big ceremony. Just organizing brunch for 20 people was enough!

---
Interviewed by Garrett Coleman '25
jxu6ad@virginia.edu

Court of Petty Appeals: Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Dana Lake, et.al.

Virginia Law Weekly February 22, 2023

Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff
v.
Dana Lake, et.al.
75 U.Va 16 (2023)

Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Background

Andrew Allard and Ethan Brown are 1Ls in Section H. The two joined the Law Weekly as staff editors in 2022. They have attended probably most of the Law Weekly meetings and have contributed a combined sixteen articles, all of impeccable quality. And yet, the Law Weekly’s esteemed Editor-in-Chief, Dana Lake, recently confused Allard and Brown for the umpteenth time. This suit followed.

Plaintiffs request an emergency injunction to prevent Lake and all other Law School students and faculty from repeating the error of calling each by the other’s name. In considering Plaintiffs’ request, this Court must determine whether it is properly within our jurisdiction to enjoin the Law School community from making honest mistakes, and further, whether Defendant’s mistake was, in fact, reasonable.

Defendant objects that this action cannot properly be brought before this Court. Upon notice of Plaintiffs’ intent to file suit, Lake protested, “No, please! I’m, like, totally face blind! It was an honest mistake!” Defendant’s argument cannot stand. Even taking for granted that Defendant’s mistake was an honest one—a very generous assumption, indeed—this Court has a long history of exercising jurisdiction over “many petty complaints . . . between individual students.”[1] I mean, it’s in our name, for heaven’s sake. This Court has even gone so far as to annex entire federally-owned properties in order to complain about them in the auspicious pages of this paper.[2] So likely are we to assume jurisdiction over even the most trivial disputes that it appears nearly certain that a jurisdictional argument serves only to assist this Court in reaching its word count requirements.

It is next argued that even if this Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, Plaintiffs have no basis upon which to request a Law School-wide injunction. This, too, we must reject. Plaintiffs note that renowned contracts scholar, Professor Mitu Gulati has also made the mistake of calling one by the other’s name.[3] To require Plaintiffs to prospectively identify all other Law School students and faculty who may make this ridiculous error would be unduly burdensome. Also, while my colleagues may know enough about civil procedure to figure out how to join all of those other parties, I sure as hell don’t, and I’m the one writing this thing, dammit. Thus, a Law School-wide injunction is Plaintiffs’ only adequate remedy.

It is lastly objected that two of the Justices presiding in this case are the plaintiffs who brought it to begin with. It is argued that based on the fundamental legal principle, nemo iudex in sua causa,[4] those Justices should have recused themselves. We need only note that if Justices of this country’s Supreme Court are under no obligation to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, then, under the doctrine of whataboutism, neither are we.

Having clearly established our jurisdiction over this case, we turn to the merits. Plaintiffs argue that Lake’s apparent confusion of their identities is negligent, discriminatory, and unreasonable as a matter of law. On prior occasions wherein Lake confused their identities, Plaintiffs have objected to their treatment as “the fungible Section H gays.” Lake has persisted in confusing the two despite their utter lack of visual similarity. See Appendix A. Plaintiffs also note that they have contributed many articles to the pages of this paper and even in this very Court. Thus, in light of their distinctive appearances and their towering contributions to the Law Weekly, we agree with Plaintiffs that Lake’s mistake was unreasonable.

Conclusion

Because the issue in this case is exceedingly trivial, it is naturally within our jurisdiction. Further, because they could not look any less alike and are both very unique individuals, it is mere silliness to confuse Plaintiffs simply because they are dark-haired, gay 1Ls in Section H who both write for the Law Weekly. Okay, having put it that way, I kind of see the other side’s point now. But I digress.

***

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a Law School-wide injunction preventing the confusion of their names is GRANTED.

Appendix A

Mr. Allard (left) and Mr. Brown (right). Photo credit: Jared Tay ’25.

Brown, J., concurring as to Part I and dissenting as to Part II.

For the reasons stated by Justice Allard in Part I, I endorse this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Court of Petty Appeals will remain today and forever more a venue for vocalizing petty claims, and there is nothing more petty than two catty homosexuals purposefully starting chaos in the waning days of Chief Justice Lake’s tenure as she begs tearfully to ride into the sunset. As masterfully illustrated by Justice Allard, the instances of incorrect naming are frequent and widespread enough for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction. And while I apologize to Chief Justice Lake that she bears partial responsibility for the sins of Professor Mitu Gulati, it is an insurmountable feat for me to open up my Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from last semester to check Rule 20’s policies on permissible joinder. So, she fights this battle alone.

But I dissent from Justice Allard’s assessment regarding the reasonableness of Chief Justice Lake’s mistakes in Part II. Reviewing the evidence de novo, I reiterate that Justice Allard and myself are flavors of the same person: gay, white, dark-haired, short-to-medium height men who worked in the Washington, D.C. area before graduation; enjoy David Bowie music; use too many emoticons in text conversations that do not require them; have first names starting with vowels; at least nominally identify as Unitarian Universalists; and, finally, write for the Virginia Law Weekly.

The similarities listed here are surely only a small fraction of the overlaps in personality, demeanor, and appearance that Justice Allard and myself share. And since there are at least five 1Ls on the paper—perhaps even six on a particularly dull Monday evening, when everyone cares enough to show up—who can blame Chief Justice Lake for mixing us up? If three’s a crowd, then six is a hellish mix of skin and bones. Requiring Chief Justice Lake to have the ability to tell us fungible gays apart is an intrusive standard for this Court to set, one that exceeds the wisdom of this Court’s jurisprudence and erodes the federalist principles this nation was built on.[5] Thus, it can be rationally construed that Chief Justice Lake’s confusion was sufficiently reasonable.

Still, despite my disagreement with Justice Allard’s analysis in Part II, I concur in his final judgment issuing an injunction against Chief Justice Lake for her conduct. What would the Law Weekly be if not a place that rewards trivial drama at the expense of our beloved staff members? Thus, despite my deeply held reservations about Justice Allard’s comments regarding our non-fungibility, I sign onto his judgment.[6]

Dana, C.J., concurring.

While I may concur with this ruling under the long-established but almost never-used mea culpadoctrine,[7] I will go a step further. This case presents the Court with the chance to evaluate a truly existential question: Are there circumstances under which 1Ls may win?

We have long held that a class of persons with no rights (such as 1Ls) do not ever have standing to bring suit against upperclassmen, no matter how direct and targeted the petty slight they face may be.[8] That this Court frequently allows such cases to proceed to discovery instead of granting summary judgment says more about the amount of free time our Justices have than anything else.[9] There is certainly precedent for belligerent and underappreciated Justices suing the Chief Justice, as seen most recently in UVA Law Student Body v. Chief Justice Tonseth.[10] While consisting almost entirely of straight dicta, this case raised several important issues: 1) whether this Court may exercise its authority over the Law Weekly Executive Board;[11]and 2) whether, and how, the precedent of “1Ls always lose” can be binding when we frequently find in favor of plaintiff groups which incidentally include 1Ls. Focusing only on this second question, we must find in favor of 1Ls for one simple reason: There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.

We find that—under an exceptionally narrow, tailored, case-by-case evaluation—1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win than it is for them to lose. We expect this rule to be rarely enforced, since there is almost nothing this Court finds funnier than ruling against the objectively correct party (multiply by 100 if the party is a 1L). Even now, I must fight the urge to tell Plaintiffs/Justices Allard and Brown to go kick rocks.

Am I wrong for misidentifying them? Perhaps.[12] Do I reject their attempts to hold me responsible for my actions? Almost implicitly. Will I stop mixing them up now that I have had to write 400 words in penance? No. I can’t change my nature.[13] The only option available to me to comply with the injunction[14] is to resign from the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. That my resignation coincides with the election of a new E-Board and my graduation is a total coincidence.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
dl9uh@virginia.edu

[1] Students v. Parking Enforcement, 75 U.Va. 13 (2022).

[2] See In re Suspicious Military Exercise(s) at the Park at North Grounds, 75 U.Va. 7 (2022).

[3] Professor Gulati has, in fact, confused Justice Allard with two of his Section H classmates. On multiple occasions. But no hard feelings.

[4] “No-one is judge in their own cause.”

[5] Is this how one does Con Law?

[6] Sorry, Dana.

[7] Andrew and Ethan have been active members of the paper, writing several wonderful and iconic pieces. Much, much, much more importantly, they always submit their articles early. It is this fact which has earned them my concurrence.

[8] See 1L Plus Ones v. Barrister’s Planning Committee, 75 U.Va. 15 (2023). But also I want to emphasize that this is NOT TARGETED. I love all the Law Weekly 1Ls equally, if not accurately.

[9] A suspicious amount of free time for a group of people who must be voluntold to write every week…

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

[11] It may not, for the record.

[12] I SAID I WAS SORRY!!!

[13] As long as you dress in a distinctive way, do not change your haircut, and do not interact with me in a place where we have not spoken before, I can guarantee a 50 percent chance I will be able recognize your person and a 20 percent chance I will correctly use your name in conversation.

[14] Which I am doing voluntarily, not because the Court told me to.

Hot Bench: Nishtha Kulkarni '23, Production Editor

Virginia Law Weekly February 22, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 15, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 15, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 8, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 8, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 1, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 1, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly February 1, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 30, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 30, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 9, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 9, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 2, 2022

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 2, 2022

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.