INTRO TO LAW: FIRST YEAR SURVIVAL
.................by William R. Slomanson*
© 11 Legal Reference Services Quarterly 185-200 (1991)

This article is a revised version of a speech delivered to entering law students. After a dozen years as a law professor, Professor Slomanson developed this novel departure from the comparatively bleak message which some law school administrators present to new students.

The editors of the LRSQ decided to publish these remarks for two related purposes. First, the reader is given the opportunity to "eavesdrop" while the speaker develops a provocative theme. Second, potential users may evaluate whether to adopt a comparatively positive approach to counseling new law students.

After the professor enters the lecture hall, there is an uneasy moment. He stares at the new students. They anxiously await his opening remarks and wonder what to expect. The seeming eternity of silence is ended by the following remarks:

BUENAS TARDES Y BIENVENIDOS!
EN LOS MESES ENTRANTES,
USTEDES VAN A OYIR UNA LENGUA NUEVA
POR LO TANTO, ES MUY IMPORTANTE
ENTENDER ESTO Y NO DESESPEREN.
OTRA VES,
VAMOS A ESTAR USANDO UNA LENGUA NUEVA.
POR FAVOR, NO OLVINDEN ESTO,
ESPECIALMENTE EN LAS PRIMERAS SEMANAS.
TIENEN PREGUNTAS?

Can anyone translate my opening statement? I see some rather curious looks. By the way, not all of our classes are conducted in Spanish.

At the outset of your legal career, you will experience what some analysts might describe as jargon barrier. It will sound like your professors are speaking a foreign language, making the biblical Tower of Babel pale in comparison. Jargon-shock should not be an unfamiliar experience. Recognizing this recurring phenomenon up front will help to put it behind you. Haven't you previously embarked upon new educational or professional journeys, where people like me seemed to delight in tormenting you with unfamiliar jargon? Like deja vu, the same ordeal resurfaced when you entered college, when you first opened your high school algebra text, and when you started to speak.

Assuming that my remarks will be occasionally noteworthy, I have chosen the following point of entry. It consists of a jocular punchline and an important message. What is the difference between a college class and a law school class? In the college classroom, the instructor enters and says "good morning." The students respond "good morning." In the law school classroom, the instructor enters and says "good morning" - and the students write it down.

Your first decision should be to contemplate the various modalities of personal learning curves. For example, some of us learn more in a listen/concentrate mode without much writing. Some learn more by using a combination of hearing and writing. Too much writing, however, can interfere with digestion of insights exchanged between the professor and your fellow students. You should periodically assess and reassess your preferred mode of learning. Are you losing something by writing too much - or too little? The most useful combination is different for each of us. This blend can vary from course to course, from professor to professor, and from one year to the next.

The English portion of today's remarks will be divided into two parts. First I will speak briefly on "law school myths." Second, I will concentrate on the central theme of first year management.

.....................................MYTH #1: Law School is accurately depicted by the movie Paperchase.
Two good examples of legal mythology are the movies Paperchase and Soul Man. The Paperchase takes place at Harvard Law School in the vicinity of the sacred platform under the curmudgeon, Professor Kingsfield. He has been teaching for the last twenty-seven decades. He is the one who makes Mr. Hart expel his breakfast on the first day of class. In Soul Man, the student-teacher relationship is quite similar. A very demanding instructor develops the classroom dialogue in a demeaning way that affirms many adverse presumptions about lawyers. Such movies no doubt spawn the perception that law students are merely mice studying to be rats. These two novels - defining the term "novel" to mean a work of fiction - have regenerated many of the misimpressions with which you have arrived. My goal is to dispel some of those fictions by addressing the myths which permeate the public's perception of the study of law.

The benchmark of law school education is the Socratic Method. It differs from the pedagogy of other disciplines. The Paperchase form of the Socratic Method is supposedly derived from the student-teacher relationship between Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece. There is a modern pedagogical problem with these famous dialogues. Socrates generally formulated his questions so that the answer was quite obvious to his student. Do not expect our questions to necessarily suggest the correct answer.

The contemporary perception of the law school Socratic dialogue is woefully distorted. There is no one Socratic paradigm, no singular model in which all law teaching is rooted. The so-called Socratic Method varies with the goals of the institution and its instructors. Its worst form is portrayed in the movies Paperchase and Soul Man. Professors are distinct individuals, just like each of you. They have distinct teaching styles. This exposure to their various idiosyncracies prepares you for dealing with a variety of adversaries and judges.

There is one similarity about the student-teacher relationship: you must prepare the work, read the case, and teach yourself the law - as best you can prior to class. Your comprehension of the assigned materials will be challenged in class - so that you will learn how to think like a lawyer. Your professors will intentionally interfere with your normal thinking processes. They will stimulate a change in your thinking habits. As aptly stated by Professor D'Amato of Northwestern University:

[A] good law school teacher has to begin by assuming that the minds of her students have to be changed, a notion encapsulated in the cliche that law school is supposed to teach a student to think like a lawyer. Lawyering is having the ability to look at some facts, decide what is missing and what could be added, and relating those facts to "the law" in such a way as to solve the client's problem. It is preposterous to assume that students come into law school already equipped with this ability, or that all they need is "more" information. Rather, students need to have their minds challenged, changed, and expanded; they have to learn how to solve the problem of relating facts to law and law to facts in diverse and representative contexts; and this need opens up an exciting possibility for real teaching. A law school teacher can actually affect the most important thing in the universe - the mind of another human being. A good teacher effects a change in the structure of the minds of her students, whereas a classroom dispenser of information only adds facts to the students' minds in the same way that Time magazine adds facts.

................................MYTH #2: All law schools are filled with brilliant people.
As long as the public thinks that all law students are brilliant, let's not burst their bubble. In the Paperchase, you may recall Hart's study companion with the photographic memory. He had an astronomical LSAT and a stellar GPA. He also flunked. There are brilliant people who cannot adapt to this mode of education. Hart's ill-fated companion was not flexible enough to readjust his transmission to the demands of a different racetrack. One should recognize, from the outset, that good grades and admission test scores got you in. It is tenacity, however, that will get you out. You will soon realize - that - whether you are matriculated in the Ivy League or elsewhere - success is measurable by the familiar formula of one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.

........MYTH #3: The quality of law school education is directly correlated to the reputation of the law school.
Like so many truths, this too is a half-truth. In many instances, there is a positive correlation between reputation and quality. In certain cases, however, the more elite the institution, the less it is a "teaching" institution. The professors are less available to the students. You will recall the Paperchase's Mr. Hart who spent two weeks trying to get past Kingsfield's secretary in order to ask a single question. When Hart was finally successful, Kingsfield immediately told him to return when Hart knew how to properly ask that question.

The student-teacher relationship at many educational institutions is markedly different for one reason: it exists! If you know any lawyers, they will have definite opinions about the "flavor" of the law school they attended. It is readily discernible from the degree or quality of the student-teacher relationship. You will find a good student-teacher relationship at this institution. Thus, I invite you to take advantage of it.

There is another leak in the myth that the quality of law school education axiomatically varies with the reputation of the law school. Let me identify it by asking the following questions: Does a more elite school necessarily offer a better product? Does a lesser-known school with higher bar results offer a better product? Is the quality of education about the same in both institutions? Are we comparing apples and oranges? Many law schools have a unique raison d'etre. A law school cannot be all things to all students. It must thus specialize or be just another wanna-be Harvard. While law schools are constantly compared, the surveyors often fail to factor in the individual characteristics of each institution. Instead, the concentration on variables such as age, size, geography, and latest bar results tend to obscure the distinctive attributes of the institutions within the comparable pool. At this stage in your career, you need only appreciate that the school you attend will make you proud to be a graduate. The quality of our reputation begins and ends with your performance - now, and in practice.

.....................................MYTH #4: Law school is ecstatically exciting or basically boring.
Having discussed a number of half-truths, I now coin the term "half-myths." Some law students describe law school in the following terms: fun flies when you're doing time. I describe it as follows: you will have a three or four year experience here. You can thus accumulate four years of experience or you can cumulate the same one year experience over, and over, and over. Law school, like anything else in life, is what you make of it. You can grow or grimace in different ways, depending on your attitude. How you do your time depends on whether you view that glass of educational water as being half-full or half-empty.

....................................MYTH #5: Legal education is completed when you graduate.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Completing your education here marks the beginning of your education out there. When I was graduated, I knew the overall body of law in much greater detail than I do now. I immediately took a bar review course to further prepare for and pass the bar exam. Yet, as they say, a little knowledge is dangerous. I then knew just enough to get me into trouble, if I had chosen to remain static. Law school education is not a talisman. It is designed to provide some basic structure, from which your legal career can evolve. We help you build the legal foundation while you are in law school. You can frame the superstructure to suit your career path.

You are a generalist when you graduate. That follows because most courses are either directly or indirectly required. Many law schools offer few electives to flesh out the skeletal structure furnished by the required curriculum. Even in schools were few courses are required, state bar examinations dictate a significant portion of the student's remaining course selection - thus precluding time to take many of the "boutique" electives. You are exposed to the fundamentals in your brief three or four years of formal legal education. If you do not pursue clinical educational offerings or graduate legal education, you are limited to the usual potpourri of general law school courses.

Most lawyers did not get specialized training in their chosen specialty while in law school. They received the important building blocs, upon which they built their practices. The practitioners who criticize legal education - for what "they didn't teach you in law school" - conveniently forget that actual law practice consists of a multitude of specialties. I know of no lawyer, however, who criticizes legal education because it is too short.

Regardless of the number of required units, law school education can be divided into two distinct orientations. Imagine a distinction between metallurgy and welding. Some faculties tend to emphasize the philosophical underpinnings of metallurgy. Some faculties are oriented in the nuts and bolts of welding, exhibited by practice-oriented offerings. Many faculties tend to gravitate toward one philosophy or the other. Some schools may exhibit the earmarks of these prototypes of legal education. You must, regardless of orientation, continue your education throughout your professional career. You at least learn to "think like a lawyer" in law school - a term which you will soon recognize as overused and misunderstood. Specialization comes later. Popular potshots at this basic mode of education unfairly degrade its importance.

Enough about myths. Now it's time to speak the truth. I have decided to characterize the thrust of my presentation as "The Ten Commandments of First Year Management." As Professor Irving Younger used to say, "There are really only a few, but ten has a certain literary ring."

..............................................COMMANDMENT #1: THOU SHALT READ CASES
You are, no doubt, thinking that this advice goes without saying. It is not followed by all law students. Some of you may have heard some rather controversial remarks on this theme from upper-division students. Contrary to one school of thoughtlessness, there are some practical benefits to be derived from observing my first commandment. Our examination grade distribution, for example, is partially dependent on the different amount of time that students devote to reading cases. Reading cases is similar to the examination process. During a mid-term or final exam, you will read a page resembling a page from the various cases in your reading assignments. It, too, must be briefed and analyzed. The more analytical experience during the semester, the greater the comfort level during examinations.

I suggest that you ask some lawyers whether they read cases; whether that process is the lifeblood of their practices; and whether they would kill for an organized collection of cases which conveniently define some corner of the legal universe. If the response is negative, then you might also ask to see a recent profit and loss statement. Successful practitioners will respond that if they did not read cases as much as they should have in law school, they are certainly doing so now. They spend much of their time dealing with adversaries who earn a three-figure-per-hour fee to read and interpret the cases (and statutes) which will kill or cure the legal health of the dispute.

Why do some students react adversely to reading cases? Students are constantly inundated with new information about what some perceive as pompous know-it-all professors. Thus, they seek a respite in passivity. They start thinking (often subconsciously) that "I am tired of this day-in-day-out insecurity." Some students therefore tune out to emasculate their insecurities. They rationalize that "These are not my cases. When I graduate and pass the bar, then I will read the relevant cases." If you fail to treat law school cases as your own, won't you play the game like you practiced? If you have not practiced properly, you will not play well during the real contest.

I want to address a related theme concerning "cans" [the word cans is whispered at this point] - a word that should not be mentioned above a whisper. Cans are commercial case briefs. If I say that word too loudly [the word cans is whispered again at this point], I may get fired since cans are not permitted on campus.

Forgive me, because I am about to commit blasphemy: in spite of the demonic description of "cans" in your student handbook, I do not personally care if you use them. I do believe however, that the use of cans invites professional disaster. Cans defeat the goal of learning to distill and express the case in your own words. If you do not understand the law well enough to state or paraphrase it in your own terms, then you are not maximizing your potential. If you can not explain attempted murder or battery to yourself or your study partner, then you need to study more. Using cans as a substitute for your own case analysis shortchanges your legal education - that is, the reading of cases linked with the Socratic Method of classroom instruction. You will develop a false sense of security since cans are a crutch that can deter your academic health. I suspect that the more I try to discourage their use, the more you will be convinced that "he doth protest too much." I will leave you with the following characterization of a can-user: his brain is a wonderful thing. It begins to function the minute that he gets out of bed, and never ceases to function until he arrives at his first class.

.....................................................................COMMANDMENT #2:
Prior to announcing my version of the Second Commandment, I will make some preliminary remarks about outside sources for law study. There are many useful sources. Most students use, need, want, or lust for them. Commercial outlines are brief discourses covering an entire law school course. Hornbooks are more authoritative, more scholarly, and footnote-laden study tools. These are the prominent treatises in the law which are often consulted by students, lawyers, and judges.

There are also tapes, particularly suitable for those of you who travel in your business or spend the weekends sipping banana daiquiris in Tahiti. The current availability of the Bible on compact disk was predated by the availability of law school course reviews on tape. You might listen to these tapes in the early stages of a course to develop a sixth sense of its content. Or, you might decide to wait until you have progressed to the mid-term or final examination period. Tapes tend to highlight the major themes. They are good - but not very detailed - review tools.

There is a variety of collateral sources for learning the law. I do not intend to cover the waterfront. You should chat with your instructors or upper-division students about the utility of each tool. A far more important theme is the subject of my second commandment:
...............................................................USE ONE OUTSIDE SOURCE.
You are not going to have time to read cases and to read more than one outside source. Do not adopt the following syllogism: "I'm dumping a bunch of money into my legal education. I might as well spend whatever it takes to develop a complete personal library of outside sources. If there are two or three sources available, I'll use all three." You will not have the time to digest your new collection of best sellers. You must choose the single outside source with which you are most comfortable. You may make a mid-stream decision to switch sources. You can switch, for example, from commercial outlines to tapes or to hornbooks. The fundamental theme is to use only one source at a time. Otherwise, you will never master any outside source. If you use multiple outside sources for the same course, you will unwittingly pressure yourself unlike never before. You will begin to feel like you called dial-a-prayer and they hung up on you - or, that your classmates are racing down an interstate highway and you are still trapped on the onramp.

...............COMMANDMENT #3: RECOGNIZE THAT ONE TERM MAY HAVE MANY MEANINGS.
Meaning is in the ear of the beholder. The same phrase, in other words, often means different things to different people. That is one reason why you learn to think like a lawyer and later enjoy extensive employment opportunities. Assume that parties to an agreement decide that the seller is going to ship ten tons of edible widgets ten miles. Is this contract for a ton consisting of 2,000 pounds or for a long ton of 2,200 pounds? The term "miles" is also subject to interpretation. There are 1,760 yards in a land mile, versus 2000 yards in a nautical mile. Further, industry standards may fill contract gaps in ways which were unintended by one or both of the parties. A standard commercial practice may determine whether the term "mile" means road miles or miles as the crow flies from Point A to Point B.

Assume that just after Intro to Law is completed today, you hopefully hear someone say "Slomanson was fired with enthusiasm." In other words, he really enjoyed this event and he really poured his soul into this lecture. Assume, on the other hand, that it is the end of your first year. You are standing outside of the Dean's office. The Dean emerges and you overhear her remark to the University President: "Slomanson was fired with enthusiasm." Identical words - different meaning.

Remember the adage that people hear what they want to hear. Human nature creates communication gaps. The varied interpretations of what was said or written will be a central theme of courses like Contracts or Uniform Commercial Code. Adversaries often represent clients who have very different beliefs about the content or context of the contract they signed, even after extensive negotiations.

................................................COMMANDMENT #4: THOU SHALT "IRAC."
The term IRAC translates as follows: Issue; Rule; Application; Conclusion. When you are preparing your written briefs and are writing your examinations, you will need an organizational tool. This traditional method provides a useful approach for one who is uncertain. You need not be mechanical. You will learn the attributes of "IRACing" in your first-term Legal Analysis course or from other students. My immediate goal is merely to acquaint you with a common approach for the uninitiated.

Another briefing technique is to diagram the essential facts. There will be many times when the facts of the case will be far more complicated than the legal issue. A diagram will provide a snapshot of who's on third. knowing the facts is a fundamental prerequisite for tackling the legal analysis.

None of you, of course, will ever utter the following stock phrase, made by law students only at other law schools after grades are posted: "I knew the law but I didn't know how to write it." The English translation is that they didn't properly IRAC.

...................COMMANDMENT #5: REMEMBER THAT IF IT'S IN PRINT, IT'S QUESTIONABLE.
Do not assume that the court's result is necessarily correct. All assigned cases are, of course, good ones but some are better than others. The assigned cases may have been selected by the author and your teacher because the court's analysis is either an A or D answer to the legal issue presented in the text.

Sometimes, the assigned case is "the" case - like Miranda for example. It is the fundamental case that defines a particular area of the law. If you experience difficulty in following the court's analysis, or its various opinions within the opinion, remember that the Supreme Court is correct because it is final, rather than final because it is correct.

The cases should stimulate your thought processes. There will be good arguments on both sides which propelled that case through the trial and appellate courts. Be prepared to articulate the competing considerations presented in those cases and their dissents. Further, there may be more than two sides. I use a case in one of my courses wherein the same state supreme court judge wrote both the majority and concurring opinions. That is the quintessential example of the following adage: if you put twelve lawyers in the same room, expect at least thirteen opinions. A judge's "answer" to the legal question is not necessarily "right" or "wrong." Courts often choose the best, or the least undesirable, of competing alternatives. The result may be a choice between the stronger of two competing values. How it was decided - the analysis - is what really matters.

I am thus reminded of what one might term, if not a true story, a true joke. The C.E.O. of a local corporation summoned his top accountant, mathematician, and lawyer. The C.E.O. asked each to answer the question of "How much is 2 and 2?" After an exhaustive calculation, the accountant answered "4, according to generally-accepted principles of accounting." After consulting her slide rule, the mathematician answered "4, rounded off to the nearest integer." The lawyer, after an hour's delay, asked the C.E.O.: "How much do you want it to be?"

.....................................COMMANDMENT #6: MASTER THE MAINSTREAM.
You will experience constant time pressures. You will have to learn to conquer the unwritten law school agenda. That is, at the risk of oversimplification, separating the wheat from the chaff. You must develop this skill now, so that you can manage numerous cases in practice.

But what is the wheat? What is the chaff?

Let me use the following hypothetical to launch this theme. On Monday morning, you will have a class in Contracts. Assume that the first case deals with the question "Was there, in fact, a contract?" The legal issue is whether the defendant accepted the plaintiff's offer. The plaintiff argues that the defendant did so and therefore sues to try to enforce his or her rights under the contract. Assume that the procedural context wreaks with something called a judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV).

Those of you who have spent your lives raising kids, working, or undertaking other normal activities, just may not have encountered that term in everyday parlance. "JNOV" is a procedural term being discussed in the contracts case - along with the question of whether there was a contract. Should you consult a commercial outline or hornbook concerning the details about a JNOV? Not necessary. This procedural matter is there only to help develop the substantive story of what happened in the case. Concentrate on the contract problem, not the procedural quagmire.

Assume further that on the same afternoon, you are attending your first Civil Procedure class. You are studying the details associated with a JNOV. The first case involves the substantive question of whether the parties actually formed a binding contract. In that class - assuming that you read the same case in the morning contracts class - you should pay little attention to the underlying contract matter. Key in on the JNOV and the related procedural posture of that case. The focus of the afternoon class is procedure, rather than the substantive elements of contract law.

.........................COMMANDMENT #7: ALWAYS ASK YOURSELF: "WHERE ARE WE?"
Constantly ask yourself that question to maintain whatever sanity remains after today's lecture. You can not learn it all. Recognizing this limitation is also a part of the important process of separating the wheat from the chaff. One tactic is to peruse the casebook's outline at the front of the casebook, hornbook, or commercial outline. Do this at the outset of each unit of study. A snapshot of the "big picture" will help to keep your socks on while you are racing through the course. Otherwise you will be out of focus. If you constantly reconsider where you are, you will more readily organize the course material.

.......COMMANDMENT #8: This one is the shortest. It is one of the most important. It consists of one word:
.........................................................................PARTICIPATE.
I believe that silence is very active conduct. Students may be ignoring their instructors when they do not participate. Responding only when called on may be their way of stating that they could care less about the class. One who loses sight of these Ten Commandments will subconsciously rebel against legal education. A number of students develop the unconscious conviction that their nonparticipation is a way of reacting to a system which can be very threatening.

Avoid this gambit by convincing yourself that the only dumb question is the one that is not asked. You will often have the same question, yet unasked by many of your classmates. Put aside your insecurities. You are here to learn. You are in training. Why not practice your communication skills while you are in boot camp? It is a bigger mistake to minimize your oral advocacy opportunities prior to obtaining your license.

Now a caveat related to this theme. There are three types of questions that you can ask in law school. Two of them are unacceptable. The first is the question designed to make the student look brilliant. The second is the question designed to make the professor look stupid. Only the third type of question is acceptable to the rest of the class. While you may not know exactly what I mean today, you will soon find out.

........................................COMMANDMENT #9: The ninth Commandment is the shocker.
........................................The tenth Commandment is the only one that you must remember.
...................................First, the shocker. Many of you are not going to agree with me - at first.
......................................................THE TEACHER IS NOT "THE" TEACHER.
I rebel when I am introduced as "the teacher," particularly in graduate education where I am dealing with adults. I squirm when I hear the label "teacher," due to the misconceptions that often attend that term.

Let me continue this theme by asking: Who taught you how to study? (Pause.) Most of you taught yourself, although you may have been favorably influenced by some professors along the way. You will similarly find that you have to teach yourself the law. I rationalize my position as follows: your job is content. You must grapple with the day-to-day problem of learning the various tort elements, recognizing contract defenses, and selecting the proper court in civil procedure class. My job is context. Having taught yourself the basic elements, I will help you to understand them via my classroom questions and variations on the basic themes.

........COMMANDMENT #10: This is the only commandment which is important. The others pale in comparison.
...... Those of you who are not writing anything, please pick up your pen and write the following a hundred times.
........Or, write it once now and think about it ninety-nine times before you arrive home today. This is the most
........crucial of my commandments. The rest are comparatively unimportant to your overall success.
..............................................................THROW THE FIGHT AT HOME.
You will quickly develop provocative analytical and argumentative skills. You may be a walking example of what it means to think like a lawyer. That does not necessarily mean being "professorlike" at home. Your spice (my pluralization of spouse) or your significant others will not appreciate your use of family or date time to impress them with your new skills in verbal volleyball.

Let me give you the personal example which opened that door for me. In my first semester of law school, I was watching a ship come into a harbor with my fiancee. The ship was a military ship, obviously owned by the federal government. I posed the following hypothetical: "If it goes aground, it will do so on state property. Which system do you think would have jurisdiction - the state or federal courts?" She looked at me and said the following which I will never forget: "It's for me to know and for you to find out. I don't want to hear that ____ for the next three years." A word to the wise was sufficient.

Do not, however, exclude your spice or significant others from law school events. Give them an opportunity to experience the atmosphere that occasionally makes you paranoid, obsessive, moody, and boring - even when it is very exciting for you. Bring them to law school functions. They are welcome in my classes at anytime. Such experiences will give them a better sense of why you are progressing from the person that they knew to the person that you have become.

Put another way, your professional development in law school can have both a positive and negative side. The positive aspect will be the exponential augmentation of your communication skills. The potentially negative side is that your spouse or significant other is not experiencing the same process, day-in and day-out. He or she may be the same wonderful person, who has not undergone the same training in legal argumentation. Your newly-discovered sense of oral wizardry should never tarnish your objectivity about the comparable worth of your mate.

Do not forget an earlier commandment: the word "exciting" may mean different things to different people. You must maintain a sense of balance. Your mate can quickly tire of a steady dose of legalese. Think and rethink this commandment at the outset, midway, and at the conclusion of your law school studies. If someone else repeats this point, it may be too late.

..........................................................................POSTSCRIPT:
There will likely be one time during your law school career when you will seriously consider quitting. For me, the decision to quit was based on one of the typically benign reasons. A very simple problem in the legal bibliography course stumped me. On a Friday night, I walked out of the law school and decided that I was not destined to become a lawyer. I left and was ready to try something else. On Saturday morning, I woke up and realized what had happened. I was denying the real problem - my insecurity. I decided that it was absolutely stupid to quit and not give it my "best shot." I decided that I could not look at myself in the mirror if I did not reconsider. I came back to the law library Saturday afternoon. I had quit law school for almost a day.

If or when that time arrives, you must recognize that law school has a potentially demeaning facet - not that we professors go out of our way to be the cause. The problem is often more subtle. You are constantly barraged with new information. And in the first year, you have to decide not to rationalize away your chances of surviving. Even if you do poorly, you can live with poor performance if you know that you gave it your best effort. I would not have done well in any subsequent endeavor, if I did not return to the law library on that Saturday afternoon. If you arrive at that apparent point of no return, talk to a professor, an acquaintance, or anyone who will listen. And don't forget that your mates will be there for you if you are still there for them.

And now for the surprise ending. Unlike the impressions conveyed by the movie Paperchase about law students or the movie Vital Signs about medical students, we want you to survive. You may occasionally believe otherwise. I remember my introduction to law class which emphasized one theme: "Look to the left of you, then look to the right of you; one or both of you will not be here next year." That was a somewhat oxymoronic welcome. Here, we understand our role as the gatekeepers of the profession. We admitted you into this law school. We want to do our best to ensure that you not only survive, but that you maximize your potential. Motivating you motivates us. Your success will prove that we made a good admissions choice. Thus, let me congratulate you on the eve of what should be one of the most challenging and rewarding years of your life.

Buenas tardes y buena suerte!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Professor of Law, Western State University (San Diego campus) [now at Thomas Jefferson School of Law].
LL.M., Columbia University School of Law, 1975; J.D., California Western, 1974; B.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1967.
The author thanks Michael Mickelson (WSU '92) for transcribing the original speech to text.