1L Done

 

Just a thing I made featuring some of the year's most iconic cases.

I have officially completed my first year of law school! 

Don't expect this to be a sweeping reflection of the whole year, though. Since I already reflected on my first semester, I mainly have to reflect on my second semester. Here goes something!

I. Curriculars

Similarly to how I did my blog entry last semester, here are some thoughts I have about the classes I took. Overall, I found the first semester to be more challenging. I wasn't as intimidated by these classes as I was last semester, but that's probably also because law school wasn't as new anymore and I kind of knew what to expect. Nevertheless, classes were challenging, and I was never for want of something to do or review. 

Anyway, as you'll see, this semester I started drawing on the covers of my class notebooks so I can distinguish them, so here you'll find pictures of that instead of Quimbee screenshots. (I still love Quimbee though!)

I.A. Contracts

My interest in law came from more grave subjects such as transitional justice, but contracts showed me a whole other side that I didn't know I would find so...entertaining. Unlike the kind of previous high profile cases I was interested in that related to crimes against humanity and genocide, contracts cases had no "obvious" winner for me. A lot of it was just companies with money being petty, and I didn't feel bad about laughing at their misfortune or snarky judges' opinions. Instead, I found that I was weirdly interested in the concepts that make up contract law, even if they weren't taught in the best way. This is good I suppose, because I will never escape contracts during my legal career! This is true whether I work in labor law or international dispute resolution, the two fields I am currently most interested in. 

Probably my favorite case of all time (not just in contracts but among the 1L classes) is Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., otherwise known as the chicken case. If you know me, you know I am a language nerd, and you will see why I love this case so much. The opinion literally starts out something like, "What is chicken?" The dispute arose when an American company and a Swiss company misunderstood the word "chicken" as it was used in the basis of their deal. In German, there are two relevant words for chicken: Brathuhn, chicken meant for broiling, or Suppenhuhn, chicken meant for stewing. The Swiss company wanted Brathühner from the American company, but the American company understood chicken to be any chicken. And thus the lawsuit was filed.

The funniest thing about this to me is that the two parties communicated in German beforehand but explicitly used the word "chicken" in English. You'd think they'd be a bit more vigilant. Anyway, because the Swiss company couldn't produce enough proof that both sides had agreed on Brathuhn, the court ruled in favor of the American company. 

I.B. Criminal Procedure

Northeastern calls this course "Criminal Justice," which I find kind of annoying because there is no real justice in America's criminal legal system, even with supposed reforms. It would take too long to share my thoughts on the latter, so I will keep it light for the purposes of my blog and my sanity and talk about my favorite case instead, Wilcox v. Jeffery. 

This case sits at the intersection of labor drama, immigration, and the world of professional musicians, and I find it completely absurd. Back in the 1940s, musicians' unions in America and the UK had some beef and the UK made it illegal for American musicians to take paid gigs in the UK. This became known as the Aliens Order. The defendant Wilcox was convicted of violating the Aliens Order, though he was not the actual musician performing. The actual American musician was a famous saxophonist, Coleman Hawkins. Wilcox was found to be complicit and thus guilty, because he helped Hawkins to play and be paid for it. As the court's opinion reads, Wilcox "did not get up and protest in the name of the musicians of England that Mr Hawkins ought not to be here competing with them and taking the bread out of their mouths or the wind out of their instruments." So he was complicit in the commission of the illegal act. Hawkins, however, returned to America and (thankfully) got off scot free. 

Clarence Earl Gideon from the case Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer to represent them.

I.C. Constitutional Law

Let me just say now that I don't believe in the constitution, and my closest friends at law school and beyond don't, either. This sentiment is especially salient now as Roe v. Wade is being threatened. I groaned at the thought of having to take this class and read all the puffery Americans and the Supreme Court make about it, but it actually turned out to be interesting to see how the document has been interpreted throughout the years and how its meaning has been construed to suit certain beliefs. Some people like to think SCOTUS and the constitution are apolitical, but that is far from true. It was written by and for wealthy white men, and it shows, and it should honestly just be replaced. But before I get too deep into my rant (and I could rant about all of my required law school classes, actually, just so you know), it's time to hear about my favorite case!

Of all the topics we studied in this class, the one I was most unexpectedly fascinated by was the line of cases relating to the commerce clause. The commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, which sounds pretty straightforward and boring, but as everything does in law school, it gets complicated. The chicken case of commerce clause cases is NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., which held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was constitutional and an appropriate manifestation of Congress's power under the commerce clause. For some background, the NLRA was passed in 1935, and it established a system for regulating labor-management relations. Notably, it facilitated collective organizing and bargaining (yay unions!). 

The case began after some workers at Jones & Laughlin were fired for union organizing activity. The National Labor Relations Board charged Jones & Laughlin with unfair labor practices, but the court of appeals reversed and held that the National Labor Relations Act was unconstitutional. (eye roll emoji) The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case. They determined that labor stoppages actually impact interstate commerce, and it would be in commerce's best interest to avoid them. In the opinion, the Court surmised that the effect of a strike would be immediate and catastrophic. Therefore, they held that the NLRA actually was constitutional and reversed the court of appeals' reversal. 

James said that the drawing of the ship was appropriate because it, too, is "an antiquated wreck of rotting wood only being kept afloat by American nostalgia and the military industrial complex."

I.D. Legal Skills in Social Context

I already talked about LO last semester, but this semester we had our final community presentation. The name of our research paper ended up being "Juvenile (in)Justice: The Role of Science and Advocacy in Sentencing Post-Jones." This was a culmination of the group's ideas, much like the paper and presentation itself.  I very happily was part of the graphics team, and I was in charge of creating the visuals for the presentation. Here are two notable slides. 

I made the image here on my iPad. We came up with the idea together as a group. The building in the background is the Moakley Courthouse at the Seaport area of Boston. The adult propping the child up on their shoulders represents advocacy, and having the child on the shoulders also represents the immaturity of juveniles. The colors were also our "brand" colors, which we chose because they weren't aggressive like reds and more brights would be, but rather represent calmness and restoration. 

The night before our presentation was due, our professor suggested we add the screenshots of the Supreme Court Justices on them from Oyez. Oyez is this site that summarizes Supreme Court cases and includes a graphic of the Justices' headshots all lined up in a row, colored according to whether they agreed or dissented. Because I care about aesthetics, I wasn't going to just take a screenshot and add it to our slides. So instead, I drew the headshots. Sure it took a while, but they look so cute. I've made it clear that I don't believe in the constitution or the Supreme Court as an institution at this point, but I still had to hand it to myself making their little portraits on short notice. 

I.E. Legal Research and Writing 

Again, I also talked about this last semester. This semester our final assignment was a persuasive brief, and we also had an oral argument. I realized while I was doing it that I quite enjoyed it. I thought of it as being on stage performing. I was maybe a tad dramatic when I presented the defense's case, but I was commended for my use of narrative and storytelling. I suppose it's what I do best. 

To honor my grandpa and his father, who were both attorneys and referred to as Attorney Perez, I introduced myself as Attorney Perez Flores when I opened my argument. It felt cool. In class we also talked about the "folder method" as a means of preparing for oral argument, and I went all out for mine. I took it to the moot courtroom with me and knowing that I had a pretty folder, more than the actual content in it, helped me do well. 

II. Extracurricular Highlights: A Photo Dump 

Rather than go through individual subheadings, I will just share some pictures and brief descriptions. Needless to say the semester was full of fun social activities to help cope with the stress of school, only a few of which are mentioned here! 

I first made shakshuka for New Year's brunch and liked it so much I invited my friends Ryan and Urvy over to have some two weeks later. Since James was back from his travels around Europe last semester, he joined as well, of course.  Ryan and I even got to jam again! 

Via my union I heard that there was going to be a solidarity action with fired Cambodian union activists. It ended up being just me and this UAW rep Mikayla, but we had a good time chatting and dropping off a letter at the Cambodian consulate in Lowell, Massachusetts. 

My roommates and our friends Tiffany and Wilber saw Dua Lipa live! It was so much fun! Ordinarily I wouldn't have decided to go on my own, but I was glad my roommates all wanted to go together. It gave me an excuse to dress up a little for a night on the town, since I normally spend my weekend nights in my pajamas watching TV. 

I spent part of my spring break in Washington, DC, where I got to catch up with a lot of friends. I saw my-high-school-nemesis-turned-patent-lawyer Adam, my college friends Jessica and Julio, my almost-roommate Isiuwa, and my art mentor Zawadi. Here's a cheesy collage of me with them all. 

Somewhat unexpectedly my best friend Sari came to Boston from Canada! Around April, I had been wondering how she was and how we needed to catch up. Lo and behold, she sent me a message saying she wanted to visit because she was between jobs and also planning a trip to New Haven. Even though she came in the days leading up to my most difficult exam, spending time with her was a welcome break for my mental health. 

III. Parting Words

Apprehensions about debt aside, I feel pretty good about my decision to go to law school. This first year has been a whirlwind, and I am so happy to have all these new friends, new skills, and new appreciation for the ways the law touches different aspects of our lives. Although I have some ideas about what I see myself doing, I'm keeping an open mind and am in full exploration mode. So much of our professional lives depends on what opportunities are available, timing, and serendipity, and I've learned not to plan things too meticulously. 

With that being said, bring on the next two years!