Public Understanding of Bankruptcy Law

I'm deep into this semester, and my schedule is quite heavy. In addition to coursework in Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Secured Transactions, Federal Criminal Law, and Evidence, I am in the depths of Moot Court (and that is all I'm allowed to say about Moot Court, apparently) as well as representing the student body as a member of the Indiana University Student Association. That would explain why I haven't blogged since I got back from the ABA Annual Meeting in New York (which, incidentally, was one of the most enjoyable law-related activities I have yet to participate in).

There is no doubt that the press sometimes picks up stories about the law and frames them in the context of "Judge is evil for enforcing law X". Sometimes I agree; the law in question is sometimes abhorrent and should be overturned on Constitutional grounds. Even better, here in Indiana, let a jury find that the law is something other than it seems to be. But other times, the press is making something sound horrible without considering anything in the world of the law.

Today the AP picked up a story about a bankruptcy court ordering a victim to pay back a thief. The story begins:

Mark Poveromo feels ripped off twice over. A judge ordered him to repay money he collected from a builder convicted of stealing from him — and told him to kick in the thief's attorney fees and court costs, too.
Some legal experts say the case, in which a criminal case in Connecticut intersects a bankruptcy judgment filed in St. Louis, shows a need for Congress to revise the nation's bankruptcy laws to better treat people who are awarded money as part of ruling in a criminal case.

Apparently, the builder stole a lot of money from Mr. Poveromo. Then, two months before being convicted, the thief declared bankruptcy because, well, he was bankrupt. The thief paid off a large portion of the stolen property. Then the bankruptcy judge took it back because, as we all know, Article 9 of the U.C.C. says unsecured creditors are on the bottom of the totem pole (nevermind that the reporter never mentions the law behind this judge's reasoning... just make the judge out to be a jerk).

Now, a few months ago I may have thought to myself that this is completely unfair; a miscarriage of justice! But I've taken a few weeks of Secured Transactions now, and, unlike the general populace, I won't fall for this reporter's trickery.

The story advocates altering the bankruptcy code to allow victims of crimes to essentially become secured creditors after their judgment. As the law exists now, as Mr. Poveromo puts it, "Crime does pay." Obviously, this would be a hard law to write. Why limit the law to protect only victims of crime? If your legislative intent is to protect victims, shouldn't every victorious plaintiff in a tort claim be granted this secured status? And what makes a victim more important than a commercial lender? After all, if a new class of secured parties suddenly appears, lenders will be less likely to grant loans (because they will be in a worse position), or at least will demand higher interest rates to compensate them for the additional risk.

Do I feel bad for victims who, unfortunately, don't get the protections of Article 9? Sure. They've been wronged, and they deserve restitution. But why should we put them above commercial lenders, or anyone that was wise enough to get a security agreement? Mr. Poveromo's lawyer should have done enough research to know that the thief had filed for bankruptcy.

Of course, my biggest complaint here is the reporter who covered this story. He should have at least put the judge's reasoning in the article instead of making judges out to be evil dictators taking money from victims to compensate thieves (or, as one law professor was quoted, making "outrageous decision[s]" and executing a "miscarriage of justice"). If the populace feels judges are acting improperly, the press is certainly responsible for leading them in that direction.

A Quick Catch-Up

I recently realized that it has been a month since I last posted, and that makes me seem at the very least forgetful, and possibly even negligent in my duties as a blogger. However, I had to make it through a final LRW assignment, several difficult finals, a job search, planning next semester's courses, and a basic maintenance of sanity. In the end, blogging seemed like the least of my worries. I'll try to catch you all up to date with where I am with regard to these various tasks.

My final exams were certainly more difficult than those in the Fall, despite that I have done this process twice before. I think it was the subject matter rather than the procedure that made them more difficult. This semester I has coursework in Property and Constitutional Law rather than Torts and Ethics, in addition to substantially different material in LRW, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. I really enjoy the topics of Property and ConLaw, and I feel like I'm fairly knowledgeable in those arenas, but I tend to do what some consider foolish: I try to learn and understand the law rather than learn for the exam. This may harm my scores in the end, but at least I can feel like I know something, and can discuss it in ordinary conversation (when non-lawyers are willing to listen or make the mistake of asking me my opinion on something). In the end, I think the finals went well. Probably no A*s, but good nonetheless.

I did find and accept a job for this summer, though it is unpaying, which meant more loans. I will be working for a Circuit Court judge in southern Indiana. I think for the purposes of this blog my exact court and position will be confidential, but I expect to have interesting work to post about when I can find the time (the School requires these touchy-feely essays about what I'm doing, which will probably consume my spare time). The downside is that there is a considerable commute, and gas prices are hovering at $4. The upside is that I get to work inside one of the beautiful old courthouses of Indiana.

I have a full plate in the Fall. In addition to participating in Moot Court, I will be taking six courses for fifteen credit hours. Included in that reading-laden schedule are Federal Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure I, Constitutional Law II, Evidence, Secured Transactions, and Appellate Advocacy. I am used to taking exorbitant numbers of credit per semester, but not in law school. If I disappear completely in the Fall, you'll know why.

I spent this weekend in Louisville, Kentucky, for the 11th Annual National Firearms Law Seminar, hosted by the NRA Foundation. It was a worthwhile experience to learn about law from various professors and practitioners. Some of the topics included discussions about Heller, federal firearms laws, civil rights and guns, and an enjoyable keynote speech by Lt. Col. Oliver North about the Rules of Engagement. Afterwards, we spent some time at the Expo Center and I experienced my first NRA exhibition. We also drove over the Sherman Minton Bridge, mostly to get good luck in the Moot Court named after him at IU, as well as to celebrate the only Hoosier to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

This August I will be attending the ABA Annual Meeting in New York. Any of my readers that will also be in New York can feel free to drop me a line if they'd like to chat or go out. After this weekend, I think I can find interesting things to do just about anywhere.

IU Law Tuition... this better be worth it

Well, it was bound to happen. We got an e-mail from the dean alerting us that tuition would be going up a bit this year, despite the $25 million gift that we recieved from Lilly. More money for professors, in turn leaving us with more money for scholarships. But scholarships for next year's class, not for me. So I don't care.

I hear that last year the tuition for out-of-staters (60% of our population) went up dramatically, and many were angry. Well, now it's my turn. My in-state tuition is going up 12%, while the out-of-staters get a mere 8.5%. Granted, my tuition is still only half as much as their tuition, but still. 12%! I want to work in government, and these student loans are soon going to make doing so rather difficult.

On the plus side, our dean basically guaranteed us that the tuition increase will be used to improve our rankings drastically in the next two years. I suppose that's good, since IU-Indy moved up twenty spots this year. And Notre Dame went up 6. If we don't move up soon then it'll start getting much harder to compete to get native Hoosier law students.

And yes, I'm aware that rankings are a thing to be shunned. Too bad lawyers don't think so.

Oral Argument: Great Fun, or the Greatest Fun?

It's that time of the year in 1L land, where we get to do enjoyable things in LRW. Not that I didn't enjoy bluebooking and learning research methodology (insert sarcastic eye-roll), but I much prefer doing, you know, lawyerly things. Unlike some of my comrades, I quite enjoyed my experience with oral arguments. It was the first time we actually got to go head-to-head against our classmates and test our legal acumen, even if it was just for 10 minutes in a summary judgment hearing.

Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought I did a reasonable job at the podium. On my official notecard, I had six phrases, each beginning with the word "good" and none with any bad words. Which is good, because I didn't think I did well at all. Among my earned accolades was "good presence at the lectern" and "good analogy." The analogy in question was one that I thought up in the shower the night before. I think the RedBull I drank before the argument made it stick.

I do have this to say about the whole process: it sounds like it was better before. Last year, they brought in outside judges and we would have had to argue in front of a panel of learned scholars. We also would have had to write an appellate brief at some point. I don't know if we exhausted our judge rolodex, but arguing in front of our professor and opposing counsel doesn't have the same fear factor. I'm sure the LRW staff had something in mind. It just seems like the way things were was better than the way things are.

The Petri Dish

The Law School has become a petri dish. Dozens of students have been out sick (including this one). Classes have shrunk to half their size. Some professors have been calling in sick. I had forgotten how volatile biological systems can be when you pack 700 of us into one building during flu season.

To make matters worse, briefs are due for LRW tomorrow. From what I can tell, many people are struggling to keep working while the viruses keep working. As for me, I'm nearly done. But only with the help of a lot of tea.

"Oeniphile Rejoice" Part III

Some of my luckier colleagues at IU Law today did not have their usual Constitutional Law class. That is because their professor, Mr. Patrick Baude, had oral aruments in Chicago before the Seventh Circuit regarding the Indiana wine shipping case, Baude v. Heath. I wrote about the decision before Judge Tinder back in November.

The 16 filed briefs are available here, while an MP3 of the oral argument itself can be heard here. From what I can tell, arguments went well... for the state. Judges Posner and Easterbrook did not seem to like what Professor Tanford included in his brief (chastising him like they were LRW professors). Nor did they like the way he argued, nor the way he listened. Hopefully the court finds for the oeniphiles so that we Hoosiers can be one step closer to having the freedom to buy what we want through the internet and the mail, but I'm not holding my breath for that holding.

I would think it would be beneficial for his class to read some of this stuff. Always good to hear someone you know arguing before a circuit court, even if it is a bit brutal.

Back at It

After a long delay for Christmas break, and a warm vacation in Arizona, I am back to post. I would have posted over break, but, to be honest, I was enjoying relaxation and working on getting out résumés for this summer. I spread my net wide, and hopefully my undergraduate record will help me get a few interviews. Several federal agencies received my information, as did a few firms in Indianapolis. I am hoping that I can find a paying job, but I won't be holding my breath.

I am particularly excited by my schedule this semester. Not that there was anything wrong with my schedule last semester, but rather than Ethics and Torts, I get libertarian lovables Property and Constitutional Law. Further, we get into advocacy in Legal Research and Writing, which I think is my strength. I found it difficult to write completely neutrally last semester, and the opportunity to practice oral advocacy will lend itself well to whatever is in my future.

I am keeping up with the election coverage, but I won't get political here other than to say that the candidate I support is gathering far more votes than the "mainstream media" believed he would. Hopefully he will make a splash in Michigan, where he was running ads in Arabic to the Muslim communities there. I was disappointed to see Bill Richardson drop out of the race, since I believed he was the Democrat most qualified to be President, and a man who developed far more innovative solutions to problems (boycotting the Beijing Olympics to put pressure on China to get involved in Africa, for example). He should have gotten more votes, but apparently he wasn't liberal enough to win in the primaries. He also didn't say the words "change" or "hope" enough on stage. C'est la vie.

Mid-Finals Update

Along with a little bit of snow, finals season has fallen on us here in Bloomington, and I am in the thick of it. My toughest exam, and the one I was most dreading, was Torts on Wednesday. My worry was, perhaps, not founded. Actually, I knew more than I thought I did, which I think is the general consensus about the law among 1Ls. It doesn't feel like we know anything about the law, but suddenly when an outsider asks us a question, we seem to have the answer. None of us are sure when it happened - I suspect that it was over Fall Break - but most of us know the basics of the law, even if we don't think we do.

That said, I have this one recommendation to anyone thinking about coming to law school: take plenty of Economics. They tell you that a couple of courses will make you well suited for law classes, but that is an understatement. In undergrad, I took (I think) five or six Econ courses. On my Torts exam, I think I used each of them at least once. Well, except Labor Economics. I suppose I will have to wait until 2L to apply that one.

I have three exams remaining: Legal Profession, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. I feel the best about Civ Pro, though LP is a take-home exam this Saturday. It finds itself due at the exact time that IU will face off against Kentucky in basketball. I suspect that I will be turning it in early.

One final note. Today we received an e-mail telling us that the faculty has approved a new grading scheme that will benefit us ever so slightly. This makes me breathe easier about Torts, and since the grades are retrofitted, and because I was right on the edge, my Criminal Law grade from the summer should be moving up. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the new grading system. Sure, it benefits me. But it doesn't do much for the competitive nature of things. Despite the negative image law school competition has, I believe that competition is what drives a vast majority of us. I suppose we'll have to see how it all works in the long run.

IU and Indiana Law Rankings

Yes, we all know you're not supposed to care about rankings. But they exist, and, if nothing else, they make for fun conversation.

The TaxProf Blog posed an interesting question recently: how much is a law school helped or hurt by the university of it is a part? "Of the Top 100 (105 with ties) law schools in the most recent ranking, all but 13 are affiliated with national universities." He posted a list of the biggest positive spread and the biggest negative spread schools. I'm proud to say that Indiana Law is #27 on the biggest positive spread list, with a spread of 39 ranks (#36 law school with a #75 undergrad). Maybe we're holding them up.

Although the administration of our law school officially shuns the rankings, it's good to know that we continue to make upwards strides. We are consistently ranked in all sorts of rankings, from U.S. News and World Reports to TaxProf to Professor's Articles Receiving Citations. I'm glad I made a good choice in law school.

One Month Left

It occurred to me, as I checked my official Indiana Law day planner, that my finals are in less than a month. This must explain why I haven't been posting much. I have two papers to write (one would best be described as an undergrad touchy-feely paper that has little place in a law school curriculum, but I digress) in the next week, and eventually I'll have to solidify some sort of outline for my four finals. So far I've felt that law school has been, well, exactly what I thought it would be. I don't think I came in with inordinate fear, but I don't think I was sugarcoating what life would be like in a Tier 1 law school either. I've seen a lot of people start to fall apart from the stress, and a lot of folks have been getting sick lately. I don't know if my general comfort with the process is aided by my summer start or not, but I suspect that my nature is helping keep my sanity.

On top of all that, I've been working incessantly to secure myself a job for my first summer. Somewhere along the line I decided that I would best fit into bigger law firms in Indianapolis (where I intend to stay after graduation), so I've been looking into all of them, along with a few government agencies. I'm hoping for the best, and the few hiring partners I've had casual conversations with seemed interested in my business experience. I'll be happy anywhere I work, but I certainly have my preferred places.

Lastly, I've met a few potential 1Ls at various law school events, and I've noticed an increase in traffic coming from searches by sundry students. I'll try to keep both in mind over the next few weeks, as prime application season begins, and as more seek advice on which law school to attend. I certainly vouch for the quality of Indiana Law. I'm sure my comrades in the blogroll to the right will certainly agree.

Shadow Day

As part of the first-year PRACTICE program that IU has implemented, we get the chance to link up with an alum and shadow them. Since I was going home for Fall Break anyway, I opted to seek only persons in Lake County. I was very fortunate that one of our grads is a senior judge in the Lake County Criminal Court, specifically the high crimes division. I jumped at the opportunity, and it was fantastic.

I knew that shadowing the judge would make my options clearer in terms of career planning and summer work, and indeed it did just that. His career path after IU was fairly straightforward: several years as a prosecutor, then a stint as a defense attorney, then election to the bench. This certainly is one of the paths that I thought might fit my own ambitions.

I have to admit that the day was fast-paced and surprising, and I realized just how little I actually knew about the function of a felony court. The first part of the day was almost Fordian: an assembly line of criminals and lawyers being brought to the podium as prosecutors rotated in and out of several doors. I saw plea agreements accepted and rejected by the bench, several translators trying to keep up, closing arguments in a double-murder jury trial, a sentencing for a high-profile brutal murder, and dozens of other administrative proceedings.

Law and Order tries to make the process look busy, but nothing compares to just sitting in the room watching everyone. Since I was nearer to the back, I got to watch the reactions of the families. Some took it rather well, almost stoic. Others fell apart. I watched a girl and her mother respond to the sentencing of their brother and son, respectively, and saw how a life can be destroyed by one stupid mistake. There were eighty-plus year old mothers, and little children who might never see their parents without bars. The emotions were hard to deal with, even as a neutral bystander.

To be honest, I'm not sure how the whole day affected me. On one hand, it made me want to be a prosecutor even more. The opportunity to be on a stage, performing for a jury, is appealing. The ability to decide how and why to prosecute someone is appealing. The high-profile nature of it all is appealing. Yet, on the other hand, it was overwhelming. You have to keep your emotions hidden. You have to keep from being empathetic. You have to do your best to be "the state." It's a lot to take in at once.

As a result, I know a lot more about the criminal justice system, in reality and out of the books. No matter what I decide to do, at least I will know that I did all I could to be informed before making it.

Reader Opinions Sought

I am in the midst of deciding how I should spend my first summer. I have two basic alternatives: study abroad or find a job. I would like opinions (in comment form) on which would be better in the long run, and why. Obviously the opinions of practitioners and upperclassmen are more valuable at this point than opinions from fellow 1Ls.

I know (with a fair amount of certainty) that I want to work in criminal prosecution when I finish law school, and I also know that I want to stay in Indiana. Although nearly all study abroad programs I found involved international business or human rights, I was able to find a study abroad program through Tulane University that focuses on Criminal Law. It takes place in Amsterdam, because of its proximity to the Hague, among other reasons. The focus of the coursework would be comparative criminal procedure, international criminal law, and terrorism (as seen in the European way, as a crime rather than something upon which to declare war). The downside is that it is costly, and I would have to take out additional loans to fund such a trip.

My other alternative is to find work in a prosecutor's office or courtroom somewhere in Indiana. More populous counties like Marion, Lake, Monroe, Tippecanoe, and St. Joseph have large court systems, but I would love to work in a rural office (say, Park or Adams county) just as much. I have also looked into the Army JAG summer internship program, and wouldn't be opposed to working there, either. All of these alternatives give me valuable networks for when I want to find a job in a prosecutor's office in three years. The downside is that many of these positions are unpaid, so I might still need to take out loans.

So, for all the practitioners, judges, professors, and upperclassmen reading this: in your opinion, which is the better alternative? Your help is much appreciated.

Terror-Management Theory and the Law

Today I made the hike up to the Psychology Building to listen to a lecture. The lecture, by University of Missouri-Columbia professor Jamie Arndt was on the topic of Terror-Management Theory (TMT). The topic of the lecture was "Is Death Hazardous or Good for Your Health?: Understanding the Impact of the Awareness of Mortality on Health-Relevant Behavior". The lecture was quite enjoyable, especially since I am sure I was the only law student there.

The basic premise of TMT (and I apologize to Professor Arndt if I falsely describe it) is that when you combine 1) the human biological need for self-preservation and 2) the fact that humans are unique in their knowledge of the inevitability of death, you get the potential for extreme terror. Some have called it a fear of death or a fear of annihilation. When we reach that point, we respond in one of two ways: we take better care of ourselves (trying to delay our inevitable demise), or we take worse care of ourselves (either through denial or, if death is soon anticipated, risk taking).

The experiments the psychologists in this area are running are quite interesting. Reminding people of their own mortality has been shown to increase their inclination to respond favorably to people who bolster their own worldview and negatively to those who oppose it. One test Dr. Arndt mentioned was a mention of death or cancer to a person who values tanning. The surveys show that they are more inclined to buy higher-SPF sunscreen right after the reminder of their own mortality. My business undergrad instantly kicked in and developed a marketing ploy for sunscreen manufacturers: put up a billboard with the words "Death" and "Skin Cancer" and nothing else. Further down the interstate, perhaps just a few moments later, advertise your product. The inclination will be for the individuals to buy your product, at least theoretically. Such advertising would work as well for churches and exercise clinics.

TMT has some interesting effects in the study of law (or else why would I have attended, other than for pure intellectual stimulation on a Friday afternoon). I am curious how it would impact death row inmates, for example. How would such an effect alter a person's feeling of the necessity for deadly force in self-defense? Are people who are reminded of their inevitable annihilation more likely to commit crimes?

The ideas for journal articles abound. And all I had to do was hike to the north side of campus.

Absorbing Wisdom

I found myself a new hobby.

As I described in my last post, I found myself very interested in listening to the stories and knowledge of a variety of persons in the legal field. It has taken the place of reading The Economist in my weekly schedule, actually. And, thankfully, the law school offers a great deal of optional educational opportunities for people like me.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture on mental capacity and the legal ramifications of being on the fringe of such a category (i.e. those who are capable of making good decisions, but only just, and those who are not capable of making good decisions, but only just). The main thrust of the discussion was aimed at Alzheimer's patients, and how to treat them. For example, if a person my age says "When I'm old, if I can no longer remember my children, and cannot enjoy the intellectual pursuits I once did, I would like to be killed." Do we respect that person's choice when they become old, or do we count the older self as a new person?

The lecture was given by visiting Oxford professor Jonathan Herring, a very qualified speaker (nothing like hearing about Hoo-zee-er basketball in an English accent). I found it particularly interesting that in Britain, whether a person is mentally qualified is a question of law, while here in the States it is a question of medicine. I suppose that we Americans assume doctors are better at assessing mental incapacity than judges.

In the coming weeks, we have lectures on comparative British & American law, constitutional design in emerging democracies, and others. In October we have a pair of Courts of Appeal hearing arguments (one is a military court) in our Moot Court Room. You can be assured that I will be there for all these lectures and more. The law never ceases to amaze me (although, to be honest, Contracts can occasionally cease to do so).

I must rest up. Tomorrow after class I'm going to sit in on the Monroe County Court and hopefully hear some worthwhile legal argument.

Dinner Date with the Judge

One of the new things Indiana Law is trying on us is a 1L PRACTICE program, that ties in themes of ethics, professionalism, and career-planning. Last night we were fortunate to have a pair of speakers practicing in an area of the law in which I'm particularly interested. One is a county judge and former prosecutor here in Bloomington, while the other is a top criminal defense attorney. The actual presentation was quite interesting, as the two often disagreed and bickered (over such things as whose job is harder and who has better investigators).

As insightful as the presentation was, the most enjoyable part of the evening happened afterwards. One of my professors invited a group of students to dinner with the two speakers. The dinner conversation lasted about three hours, and I was glad that I accepted the invitation. I spent the first part of the night talking to the defense attorney, a highly regarded lawyer from Indianapolis. While I have no interest in working on that side of the courtroom, it was great to talk to the guy one-on-one. His golf-course living and iPhone were a testament to the economic success that such a position can offer.

After he left, we spent a while talking with the judge, exchanging law school stories and hearing tales of the most interesting folks to enter her courtroom. I felt like her life story was similar to mine, in regards to growing up, and our opinions of the legal profession. At the end of the night I was unhappy about leaving, as I could have absorbed her knowledge for at least a few more hours. Not all my comrades shared that enthusiasm, though. In the end, I found a good connection in a prosecutor's office and a courtroom.

Moral of the story: never turn down a dinner date with the judge.

The Getting Involved

Week two. So far, so good. Classes are exactly how I thought they would be, which is comforting, even though the classes themselves are not. I've settled into a cozy routine of sleep, work, and class. And of course I leave Saturdays open for college football (Go Hoosiers!) and going out.

But, I haven't felt involved yet. In high school, I was in about a dozen extracurriculars (more, possibly). In undergrad, I participated in a few (limited more by my working than by lack of interest). And I feel like those experiences were priceless (volunteering to help poor individuals file tax returns, for example). So now that I'm in law school, I feel like I should get involved, if not to meet new people than to keep busier.

This week has been "get involved" week, where we get fed free lunch every day and find activities with which we want to get involved. My interests vastly outnumber the hours of free time I have, though, so determining which are best has been tricky.

First of all, I needed to join one of the legal fraternities. I settled on Phi Alpha Delta, mostly because of the size of the network and the names of the more famous members. This group should take care of my need and desire to participate in service projects.

I then needed to find a group to give me outreach in the political environment (especially since one of my libertarian friends turned liberal the other day). Since my choices were American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, the choice was obvious. I chose the smaller Federalist Society, mostly because I needed a place to talk to fellow conservative-leaning libertarians and network nationally. Who knows who might one day support my campaign?

I then needed something to help get me involved in the practice of law. IU has three practice programs, and the one I chose is the Inmate Legal Assistance Project (or Program?), in which I will travel to the federal prison in Terre Haute and assist inmates with legal issues. This should help me fill my need for justice while offering basic skills like, I don't know, talking to clients.

Lastly, I needed a place to feel political and contribute to the betterment of the law school. I thus decided to run for 1L representative to the Student Bar Association. The election is next week, but I have felt a great deal of support from my classmates. We have buttons made up, and all-around positive press. Even if I'm not elected, the experience of politicking is making me feel alive. As I've always said: "Life is politics."

So what do you think? Did I get involved enough?

Oenophiles rejoice!

One of the great perks of being situated in south-central Indiana is that I happen to be in wine country (as much as one can have in this particular climate). There are several wineries in the Bloomington area, and I have to believe that their presence brings Indiana Law a wealth of connoisseur law professors.

Ironically, Indiana is a harsh place to be an oenophile. The state is in the pockets of the large alcohol distributors, providing that we can't import wine from out of state, and, until recently, couldn't even have wine from Indiana wineries shipped to our homes (today, the restrictions on wine shipping are still extremely harsh). As a result of this environment, several lawsuits have been brought in an attempt to loosen the grip of these distributors. Fortunately, the biggest wine lovers I know are all law professors.

One such professor, Patrick Baude, was recently involved in a suit, and today the court ruled in his favor. I'd love to summarize the decision, but aside from its length*, I'd hate to screw up briefing a professor's case. If and when I have Professor Baude again, I'd hate for that to be hanging over my head.

"This litigation challenges the constitutionality of Indiana laws that allegedly restrict the ability of wineries, and out-of-state wineries in particular, to sell their product directly to Indiana residents, primarily by orders placed by telephone or over the Internet."

Preventing out-of-state wineries from shipping to Indiana residents violates the Commerce Clause. The defendants, the Indiana ATC and one of the wholesalers, say that the restrictions are there "for the children". Poppycock, says the court (not in those words, of course).

The gist of the decision:
"[T]he court finds the wholesale prohibition, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-7(a)(6), to be unconstitutional insofar as it bars wineries that possess wholesale privileges in states other than Indiana from seeking a Direct Wine Seller’s permit. The court also finds the requirement of an initial face-to-face transaction between a winery and customer prior to direct shipment, as described in Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-26-6(4), 7.1-3-26-9(1)(A), to be unconstitutional. These two conditions constitute a form of economic protectionism and violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

"The court does not find Indiana’s general prohibition of direct shipping, Ind. Code Ind. Code § 7.1-5-11-1.5, to be unconstitutional except with respect to the two specific conditions in the statutory provisions cited above. Nor does the court find the statute allowing an Indiana farm winery to sell its product onsite and at certain other locations, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5, to be unconstitutional."

Not a complete knock-out win, but definitely a step in the right direction. So on this night, I propose a toast to Professor Baude and his success in this litigation. Congratulations!

*Please note, Professor, that I did actually read the whole case. I just didn't think my readers wanted the details.

[Day] One: They Scare [Me] to Death

It's only day one and I already have a rule of contract law named after me. This can't be a good sign of things to come.

The day actually wasn't bad at all. I started off my day with Contracts, a course, I feared, that had great potential to cure my insomnia. First day of class wasn't bad, but I found myself in the line of fire. I was just sitting there minding my own business when, suddenly I heard the words no one wants to hear on the first day. "Mr. Blair..."

We were discussing expectancy damages, and we had the hypothetical that a buyer chose between two identical cars. One cost $37K. The other cost $34K. The buyer agreed to buy the more expensive car, but when the seller refused to turn over the car, the buyer sued. For what could the buyer sue? I said $34K, because, to me, the substitute performance penalty, worked in reverse, should make the person as well off as if the contract had been completed; in other words, $3K in the hole. For the remainder of the class period, this concept of giving the seller something for nothing was termed "The Blair Rules of Contract Enforcement." I'm not deep enough into the class to know if it is real or not, but someone said it sounds a lot like the Restatement of Contracts. I can only hope.

I also had Torts, Civil Procedure, and Legal Profession (Ethics), but wasn't cold called in any of them. I can honestly say that Torts today was the first time I ever felt like I really didn't want my name called. That class, so far, has been a mental workout like no other. I have a feeling that it will require all my effort not to let it kill me. The other two are more my style: remember and apply written rules. That I can enjoy. Common law, on the other hand... blah.

Only 991 days until graduation...

A Late-Night Post

Well, I survived orientation, which, from what I had heard beforehand, seems to be just short of a miracle. I'll post more thoughts on orientation at a time when I shouldn't be in bed. Tomorrow I begin my classes, and find out if I'm any good at this 1L thing.

Unlike my summer start course, where anyone anywhere could have found out who my professor was, I have decided to keep my regular semester professors unnamed for the purposes of this blog. While I'm sure that anyone from Indiana Law will figure out my professors from descriptions of course work I discuss (and if they were to ask me in person, I'd tell them), I think it would be most respectful to these men and women to keep their names out of my blogs. This practice will hopefully keep me from feeling the Socratic fire more than my classmates. I doubt that it will alter the quality of the posts on this blog (I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing).

I have the full array of courses tomorrow (less LRW, of course), so I should know by tomorrow afternoon whether or not I made a substantial (or procedural) mistake in going to law school. Until then, adieu.

Playing Catch-up

I'm finally back in town, after a much needed break from the hectic life of a law student. Tomorrow starts the next leg of the race, and I feel (moderately) prepared for it.

The final in Criminal Law was certainly... unexpected. I don't want to give away details about the questions or my answers, but the exam certainly shifted us out of the realms where we had practiced up to that point. I've been trying to avoid doing a post-op on the exam, and I think getting out of town helped with that a bit. I hope I did well, since my Crim Law grade matters more to my desired profession than, say, Contracts or Property, but we'll see in a couple weeks when grades are posted.

While I was away, good things happened in the Ron Paul campaign. #5 (9%) in the Iowa straw poll and #3 (18%) in Illinois makes for a dramatic shift from the 1% he had been polling with up to that point. And he spent markedly less than most of the "big name" candidates. I still don't think it's likely that the management of the Republican Party would nominate him, but he's certainly making a buzz in the electorate. We'll just have to sit back and wait.

I'll have more to post after tomorrow, when I get my fall schedule, and I see where the other persons of my study group end up. Whatever happens, I feel pretty confident that I'm ready. Summer start was the right choice for me, and I certainly feel like I got my money's worth. For all pre-Ls reading this, I recommend such a program highly, if for no other reason than the social aspects. And doing it at IU is the icing on the cake.