Sandra Day O'Conner speaks at Pomona. Photo Courtesy of Stephannie Herrick.

By: Stephanie Herrick, 2L

Former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke about the importance of judicial independence and education during the Distinguished Speakers Lecture at Bridges Auditorium at Pomona College on Tuesday, March 30.

An audience of roughly 1,000 people enthusiastically greeted the retired justice, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006.

“When I retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, I had become aware of a serious problem in the United States that affects our nation’s courts, both state and federal,” O’Connor began. “There are a great many people in the U.S. today who think that judges are just politicians in robes.”

She said that the general view among Americans is that judges are “activist, secular, godless humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us.” As a retiree of the court, O’Connor said she felt she should discuss this issue. She said that the courts play a vital role in our country. “It’s clear to me that we have to care about the judicial branch,” she said.

“Having your day in court in this country means standing before an impartial judge or panel of judges, and having the merits of the case decided without passion or prejudice. It means that there is at least one safe place, where being right is more important than being popular. And where fairness trumps strength,” O’Connor said.

“I worry that this ideal of having one’s day in court is being eroded by the ever increasing threats to judicial independence across the country.”

O’Connor then discussed the importance of judicial independence, the modern day threats to it and how she believes people might better defend against those threats. She stated that these problems should concern not only state but also federal judges since people see judges as a group, and do not separate them by city, state, appellate and federal. She said one major problem is how to choose judges.

“Should our judges face recurring elections, or do their jobs require a higher degree of insulation from popular reprisal? Should judges have a life term or specific term limits?”

She said that these problems are not easy to answer, but we might look to how our founding fathers decided to choose Supreme Court justices as a guideline.

“Many Americans today do not even see the need for independent judges. Many tell us they prefer a judiciary that merely acts as a reflex of popular will,” said O’Connor. “A great majority of our state court judges are elected. California still elects some of its judges. No other nation in the world has chosen to elect their judges.”

“This system has had a harmful effect on how the public perceives judges and their role.” O’Connor stated that a system that relies on popular elections to select judges destroys the respect people have for judges.

She said that if she could do just one thing to improve the reputation of this country’s judiciary, it would be to convince states to stop having elections and instead switch to merits selection or some other appointment system.

“The single greatest threat to judicial independence is fairly modern and uniquely American,” she said. “And that is the flood of money that is coming into our courtrooms by way of increasingly expensive and volatile judicial campaigns. One reason for this is well-organized special interest groups who have strong preferences in the outcome of certain kinds of cases.”

“Campaigning for a state judicial office is often as expensive as campaigning for a seat in the United States Senate,” she said.

O’Connor discussed a case where a single donor contributed more than $3 million for a judicial campaign – and how the judge elected voted in favor of the donor, who was also a party to a case pending before the court. She said that judicial campaigns and cases like this breed distrust in citizens.

“The mere appearance of such a gross impropriety drastically undercuts the public respect for the judiciary,” she said.

“Voters in states that elect judges are more cynical about the courts, and . . . are less likely to believe that judges are fair and impartial.” She said that some studies show that judges are, in fact, influenced by campaign contributions.

“An independent judiciary is critical for all citizens, and unregulated judicial campaigns threaten Americans’ trust in the process.”

O’Connor went on with her next main point, which was that ignorance about the role of the judiciary is a big problem in this country. She said that the long-term solution to this problem is education.

“We have to bring real and meaningful civics education back into our classrooms. Knowledge of our system of government is not handed down through the gene pool,” O’Connor said.

“According to the Annenberg Public Policy Institute, two-thirds of Americans know at least one of the judges on American Idol, but only 15 percent can identify the chief justice of the United States,” she said.

To help combat this problem, she launched the website www.ourcourts.org, which features free interactive online games about civics targeted to middle school students. In one of the games, students play a law clerk to a Supreme Court justice and help decide a case, and then students can help write the majority opinion. In another game students help run a Constitutional Rights law firm, advising clients of their rights. The website also has resources for teachers, online videos and information, and a forum to discuss civics topics.

After her lecture student audience members were given the chance to ask questions directly to O’Connor. She made the audience laugh many times throughout the question-and-answer period.

“I thought it was great, I was surprised how much I laughed. She was funny. I love her wittiness and quick comebacks,” said Caroline “Tina” Morales, who graduated from Southwestern in 2003.

By: Natalie Wright 3L

On March 27, 12 SW students boarded the REAL Justice Bus, bound for a two-day trip to San Luis Obispo County. The mission: to provide pro bono legal aid to one of California’s most underser

Justice Bus participants arrive in San Luis Obispo. Photo courtesy of Natalie Wright.

ved rural communities.

For two days, the students –representatives of several SW programs and class levels– interviewed rural clients and, supervised by licensed attorneys, provided legal advice on consumer credit and housing-related legal issues. The students benefited greatly from the practical experience in interviewing and client-counseling, while the clients benefited from a rare opportunity to receive free legal counseling on complex legal issues.

Justice Bus was a collaboration between SW’s Community Outreach Director Laura Cohen, the Public Interest Clearinghouse, or PIC, a nonprofit legal aid foundation based in San Francisco, and the California Rural Legal Assistance nonprofit corporation.

PIC was founded in 1979 by a group of law students. PIC created the Rural Education & Access to Law, or REAL, Project to expose urban law students to the tremendous need for legal services in rural areas of California and to inspire them to provide pro bono work when they become lawyers.

The student volunteers worked alongside attorneys Julie Mercer Ingram, Mike Blank and Abby Lassen of California Rural Legal Assistance, a federally funded nonprofit legal aid organization with offices throughout California. Students counseled clients directly and conferred with the attorneys in a closed-off area to preserve confidentiality. The intake process and funneling of legal issues made it possible for the attorneys to advise more clients in a short period of time.

Clients’ problems are often too complex to solve in a few hours. Instead, REAL Trip clinics serve to triage each client’s most urgent legal needs and inform clients of their legal rights. Debt and housing issues, including foreclosure and eviction, can be very emotional and overwhelming, especially when students have never met with clients before.

That said, the clients were very grateful for the support – even those who received unfavorable legal prognoses. They seemed to truly appreciate the volunteers’ time and effort, knowing that without it, they may never have a similar opportunity to such legal access. Likewise, the student volunteers were gracious and enthusiastic about the opportunity to help. The experience of putting hard-earned skills to practice was extremely rewarding, especially in a setting where they could have such a visible impact.

To date, the REAL Project has engaged more than 230 law students from more than 15 law schools to address the legal needs of more than 600 rural clients and their families.

While this was SW’s first Justice Bus trip, based on its success and the sheer enthusiasm from applicants, it will not be the last. The 12 participants were selected from a pool of more than 40 candidates – the most applicants ever received for a REAL trip. Students were chosen based on the quality and timeliness of their applications. REAL trips are no cost to law students. Food, accommodations and transportation are provided. Additionally, students who participated received 25 public service participation hours. Keep your eyes out for the next REAL Justice Bus trip! Here is what some of the participants had to say:

Quotes:

- “The Justice bus was amazing because it allowed me to have an unscripted real-life client interaction. More such programs that create a similar experience would go a long way in preparing students for real-world legal practice.” – Jessica Wright, 3L

- “I’m a 1L Evening student, and I have to say the Justice Bus was a great experience. Not only was I involved in helping real people with real problems, I learned a tremendous amount from both the participating attorneys and my fellow students. I’d do it again in a heartbeat.” – Lorenzo Callender, 1L

- “The Justice trip is a great experience for 1Ls since we really don’t get real-life client experience in class. It’s a great way to gain experience of working with clients while understanding how much you can help another person’s life as an attorney.”
– Vanessa Manzi, 1L

The Tower Bridge in London. Photo courtesy of Chad Derby.

By Lucy Chan Derby

As a student who participated in the International IT Law Program in London last summer, I highly recommend this experience for anyone who does not already have summer plans. Sure, you can take summer school courses on campus, but keep in mind that the school generally offers the same courses each summer so you certainly would not be missing out. Why not earn your units attending class in London instead? The full cost of the program is $7,250 for six units for five fabulous weeks in London, with housing and breakfast included. You do not have to be a mathematician to realize that $7,250 for six units is cheaper than taking six units on campus, which currently totals $7,350, not taking into account the likelihood that tuition will increase by 4 percent effective summer 2010.

Students will be staying in a dormitory where they each get their own bedroom with a personal bathroom, internet access, weekly housekeeping, and a complimentary traditional English breakfast of sausage, hash browns, eggs and fruit every morning. The dormitory is just a short walk to the University College London, where classes are held from Monday through Thursday every week. Yes, that’s right . . . you get a three-day weekend to maximize your studying time – of London that is! Did I also mention that classes are only half-day, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.? Studying abroad is just so hard.

The four courses being offered this year are Comparative Information Privacy Law and Regulations; Comparative Electronic Commerce Law and Regulations; and Interviewing, International Cybercrimes, Counseling and Negotiating (ICN) in the IT Sector. Comparative Information Privacy Law and Regulations and Comparative Electronic Commerce Law and Regulations are taught by non-SW professors who have expert knowledge in their fields and presents students the international laws and arising concerns.

The other two classes are taught by two favorite professors at SW. Our own Prof. Michael Scott, an expert in the area of technology law, will be teaching International Cybercrimes this year. I greatly enjoyed this class last summer because it was interesting and simply different from anything else in law school as I learned about hacking, malicious spyware, the Fourth Amendment as applied to computers and software, and more. Another SW favorite is Prof. Nyree Gray, who will be leading a hands-on course in teaching students how to negotiate agreements, interview, and counsel clients. A winning SW combination makes this program hard to pass up.

Now, onto more important matters such as sightseeing, activities, and traveling inside and outside of the United Kingdom. London has a plethora of attractions from free museums and vast, green parks to historical monuments and buildings. Less than a block away from the dormitory is the renowned British Museum, which holds some of the world’s most precious treasures like the Rosetta Stone and Greek Marbles. You can spend days there taking in the rich history and all for free, of course. Hyde Park is a park that one could get lost in, but a popular place for summer concerts and Sunday soapbox preachers. Parliament is breathtaking in all its splendor, and if you are lucky, you may even be able to sit in on sessions of the House of Lords or House of Commons. And do not forget to visit the Tower of London where Anne Boleyn and a few other wives of Henry VIII were beheaded.

Transportation via the Underground can transport you in a matter of minutes to all the tourist attractions and shopping spots. Students should buy an Oyster card, which allows them to put on as much or little value as needed and simply gets deducted as they tap their card at each station. London has amazing sales during the summer, and if you have an eye for couture, be sure to check out Harrods, Selfridges, and Bond Street. Flea markets Camden Market and Notting Hill offers a full day of browsing clothes, souvenirs, accessories, books, antiques, and more. If you love Shakespeare, the Globe Theater is a must, and tickets can be easily ordered online. This year is power-packed with Macbeth, Henry IV, Henry VIII, and more. Be forewarned that it is highly recommended you purchase your tickets as soon as possible if you want to see a particular production with good seats.

Visiting other parts of the U.K. is a breeze now that the Oyster is valid on National Rail, allowing you to visit other famous cities like York, Oxford, Edinburgh, and more via train. Another alternative, if you are brave (or crazy) enough, is to consider driving in the U.K. by renting a car and splitting it amongst a group. We found it more economical and timesaving to rent a car and drive out to Stonehenge and then Windsor Castle on the way back. Travelling outside of the U.K. is also quite easy as students often take extended weekend trips to Amsterdam, Barcelona, Prague, Scotland, Ireland, France. The Eurostar is a short fast-speed train ride to Paris through the “chunnel” in two and a half hours.

Two participants of the 2009 IT London Program share their thoughts. “The program was the chance of a lifetime! I loved the classes, my professors, and I had a blast traveling all over Europe and learning about different cultures,” said Jennifer Carter, 2L,. Also, Mark Feriante, 3L, shares, “IT Law is fascinating. Prof. Scott was so accommodating, and he set us up with the leading experts in the field.” You will not regret this summer if you sign up for the International IT London Program. Technology and international law is where our future is heading. So why not take advantage of learning from the brightest minds in the field while seeing the history of where our country originated from.

by Tegan Sattel, 2L

On the night of Jan.13, 2003, Susan Wright came to her breaking point with her husband, Jeff Wright, whose behavior she alleges turned abusive shortly after their marriage in 1998. She claims that her husband came home from a boxing lesson and punched their 4-year-old son, Bradley, in the face, after Bradley told Jeff that he didn’t want to play-box with him anymore. At that point, Susan gave her husband an ultimatum – either he had to get help for his drug and anger issues, or Susan was going to take the children and leave. Determined to make Susan pay for her desire to leave him – for what he saw as her “disobedience” to him – Jeff attacked Susan, according to her brief, first pushing her to the floor, and then repeatedly kicking her in the stomach, before dragging her to their bed where he sexually assaulted her. Sometime after Susan drifted off into a fitful sleep, she claims that she awoke to see Jeff straddling her with a knife in his hands, yelling, “Die, bitch, die.” Susan managed to summon the strength to shove her husband aside, grab the knife, and stab him 193 times.

The abuse that Susan suffered at the hands of Jeff over the course of their marriage instilled in her a constant feeling of being trapped, according to experts in the field of battered women’s syndrome, or BWS, whom Susan’s appellate attorney, Brian Wice, referred to in his briefs, and caused her to build Jeff up in her mind as an inescapable, omnipotent presence. As a result, after killing him, Susan was convinced that her husband wasn’t truly dead, and that he was coming back to kill her. Using a work dolly, she took Jeff’s body to the back yard and buried him in a hole that he had dug months earlier for a new fountain. Over the next five days, Susan made multiple trips to the gardening store to get more dirt to cover her husband’s body, still convinced that he was going to come back and kill her. Even after Susan’s family retained counsel and checked her into a secure psychiatric facility on the fifth day, she still believed that Jeff was coming after her.

In February of 2004, Susan’s case went to trial and very quickly became a three-ring courtroom circus. Kelly Siegler, the top prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, took advantage, according to Brian Wice, of Susan’s lawyers’ failure to call experts in the field of BWS to testify that her belief that Jeff was going to kill her or her children was reasonable, given the mindset of domestic violence victims that their only reasonable course of action is to kill their abusers. Siegler, argued Wice, was able to exploit the many myths and misconceptions surrounding BWS, painting Susan as a cold-hearted liar and cold-blooded killer. Besides failing to produce BWS experts, Susan’s young, inexperienced, and ultimately overmatched defense team failed to call the psychologist who had evaluated Susan after the killing. Wice later argued on appeal that the psychologist’s testimony would have been invaluable in helping jurors understand Susan’s traumatized, disoriented, and borderline-psychotic mental state. Specifically, he argued the psychologist would have explained the fact that Susan stabbed her husband 193 times was symptomatic of her loss of control that also showed her reasonable belief that Jeff was going to come after her. In addition, defense counsel failed to produce Jeff Wright’s former fiancée, Misty McMichael. According to Wice, McMichael’s testimony would have not only corroborated Susan’s claims of abuse, but also would have strengthened the reasonableness of Susan’s claim of self-defense, as well as her contention that she acted as a result of sudden passion, which would have reduced murder to manslaughter. Finally, Siegler actually reenacted her theory of the murder, using the Wrights’ bloodstained bed and a fellow prosecutor as Exhibits A and B. The jury ultimately rejected her claims of self-defense and sudden passion, and sentenced her to 25 years in prison.

Believing that justice was not done, defense attorney Brian Wice, who had covered the Wright trial as a legal analyst for NBC’s Houston station, KPRC, as well as MSNBC and Court-TV, decided to take on Susan’s appeal without charge. Six years and several hundred-thousand dollars of pro bono legal fees and expenses later, Wice managed to do what most legal pundits, according to Wice, thought was virtually impossible. Last October, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one of the most prosecution-oriented appellate courts in the nation, unanimously held that Susan’s trial lawyers’ failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence as to BWS denied Susan the effective assistance of counsel during the punishment stage of her trial. With the new evidence, the court held that a jury could very well have decided that Susan acted out of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, making her guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter, reducing the punishment range.

Susan’s case has drawn a great deal of media attention not only on a local level, but on a national one as well, with an episode of the CBS news program 48 Hours Mystery dedicated to the case set to air on May 15. On April 19, SW will host a lecture by Wice, who will talk about his experiences working on Susan’s case and its significance in terms of broader legal issues, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial over-reaching, and the importance of BWS experts in cases where the accused are battered women in order to defuse the myths and misconceptions about battered women that jurors likely have.

You can come support this exciting event, hosted by the Criminal Law Society, Women’s Law Society and Law and Medicine Society on Monday, April 19, at 12:30 p.m. in Bullocks Wilshire 370. Food and beverages will be provided.

The U.S. Supreme Court cast its first vote in January in the latest fight over gay marriage. At issue was whether the District Court improperly changed its rules to permit a broadcast of the federal case , Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. A bench trial began on Jan. 11 in the North District of California.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court stayed the broadcast. The Court reasoned that the District Court violated a federal statute in amending its local rules to permit a broadcast to several other federal courthouses.

The Court said that “[a]pplicants have shown that irreparable harm [would] likely result from the denial of a stay, [and] it would be difficult - if not impossible - to reverse the harm from those broadcasts.” The Court also noted in Hollingsworth v. Perry that “some of applicant’s witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment.”

The Court observed that in those districts where broadcasting was permitted, courts had allowed the broadcast of their proceedings on the basis that those cases were not high profile. Since this case involved “issues subject to intense debate in our society,” the Court concluded that this case “[was] not a good one [to broadcast].”

According to the Court, “federal law . . . requires a District Court to follow certain procedures to adopt or amend a local rule. Local rules typically may not be amended unless the District Court ‘giv[es] appropriate public notice and an opportunity to comment.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83(a). A limited exception permits dispensing with this notice-and-comment requirement only where ‘there is an immediate need for a rule.’”

The parties disagreed about whether the District Court had allowed for a meaningful notice-and -comment period. On Dec. 23 the District Court indicated on its website that it amended Civil Local Rule 77-3. The revised version created an exception to general prohibition against broadcast to allow “for participation in a pilot or other project authorized by the . . . Ninth Circuit.”

On Dec. 31, the District Court revised its Web site to remove the previous announcement about the change to Rule 77-3. A new announcement was posted indicating a “proposed revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3,” which had been “approved for public comment.” Comments on the proposed revision were to be submitted by Jan. 8.

On Jan. 4, the District Court again revised its Web site. The announcement regarding the proposed revision of Rule 77-3 was removed and replaced with a third version of the announcement. This third version stated that the revised Rule was “effective December 22, 2009,” and that “[t]he revised rule was adopted pursuant to the ‘immediate need’ provision.”

On Jan. 8, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order approving the District Court’s decision to allow the broadcast.

In light of these facts, the Court believed the District Court failed to make a good faith effort to provide a sufficient period for notice-and-comment. It believed that the District Court’s express purpose was to “change its rules at the eleventh hour . . . to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.”

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that since the trial judge discussed with the parties on Sept. 25 the possibility of broadcasting trial proceedings, the parties themselves “had more than adequate notice and opportunity to comment before the rule was changed.” Breyer also criticized the court for micromanaging District Court administrative procedure and granting certiorari for a legal question for which there is no conflict among the state or federal courts. The dissent also noted that by Jan. 8, the court had received 138,574 comments, all but 32 of which favored broadcasting the proceedings.

Written by Luke Hornblower, 1L Day Staff Writer

As law students, you worry about gaining a good grasp of civil procedure or knowing how to write a motion before graduating. But have you wondered about . . .

How does it feel to talk to a victim of domestic violence? Will all your brilliant legal knowledge make you into an effective attorney if your social skills are lacking? What do you do as a member of judicial chambers when you know one of the litigants before the court? What happens when an attorney’s papers are a mess or are filed late? Can you look and act like you’re still in college and garner respect? Will “good enough” cut it when your research and analysis will affect a child’s life? Is non-stop trial practice the right career path for you?

To be prepared for legal practice, you should explore the answers to these questions - while you’re still in law school. Although you may grapple with these and similar questions in the classroom setting, nothing will match the educational value of being faced with these questions in the real world of legal practice.
Effective legal education involves learning the law as well as developing legal skills. But a third critical component also goes into legal education - professionalism, in its widest sense, ranging from internalizing rules of professional responsibility to developing a professional identity. Experiential education is particularly well suited to educate law students about professionalism. Southwestern Law School has always regarded professionalism as a critical component of legal education and provided great opportunities for students’ development in this area. The Externship Program is one example of Southwestern’s curriculum with a strong focus on development of professionalism.

More than 300 students each year take advantage of the externship elective course (which is a requirement for the last period of the SCALE II students) to gain hands-on legal education through externships. Through their part-time or full-time externships, students learn the law and gain legal skills in the real world of legal practice. Most importantly, though, they get to deal first-hand with the above questions. The externships expose them to the real demands and conditions of professional practice, creating an opportunity that forces the law student to think, feel, talk, and act like a legal professional.

Students pretty much unanimously report that an externship is one of the highlights of their legal education (if not THE highlight, according to some). They note that their in-class courses prepare them for reviewing entertainment licensing agreements, analyzing habeas corpus petitions, or conducting preliminary hearings but that nothing comes close to engaging in the real work, in the real world.

The Externship Program Office invites you to experience first-hand the myriad benefits of developing professionalism through an Externship Course.

Visit the Externship Office Website

JudgeJames P. Gray is no ordinary judge. In his newest book, Wearing the Robe, he states that as “a judge you are in a visible position to eschew mediocrity and pursue excellence in yourself and others. You can help to mentor our nation’s children and many other people in need. . . . You can speak for society in holding people rightly accountable for their actions, but you can also be understanding, patient, and helpful to people at times when they are most vulnerable. You can be an artist and apply the law not only fairly but also with passion and compassion. In other words, you can be a person who helps bring justice to our land, and thereby you will be a force for peace in the world.”
Gray was appointed to the Orange County Superior Court in 1983. He retired in 2009 after 26 years of service as a bench officer. He is one of the most dedicated and courageous people I have met. His experience includes service as a volunteer in the Peace Corps in Costa Rica, a staff judge advocate and criminal defense attorney in the Navy JAG Corps, a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and a civil litigation attorney in a private law firm, in addition to being a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in 1998 and a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004.

He has stood behind numerous causes and worked hard to better multiple institutions. However, his dedication to ending the war on drugs is incomparable. He explained in his book that in 1992, while serving as a trial judge, he held a news conference behind the courthouse in Santa Ana where he “set forth [his] conclusions that our country’s attempts through the criminal justice system to combat drug use and abuse, and all of the crime and misery that accompany them, were not working.”

Many people advised Gray to not go public with his contentions. After all, won’t the public think our judges have lost respect for the law? Some told him he would face serious repercussions and possibly lose his seat on the bench. Further, “some were outraged and wanted to punish me for my comments.” However, in the face of the adversity and uncertainty, he did not waver. He stood up for the truth, because “in short, I had seen our drug laws were a failure, and I simply could not keep quiet about it any longer. . . . Friends tell friends the truth.”

Gray’s position is simple. The problem with the war on drugs is that it has failed in nearly all of its goals. The war on drugs increased violence and the supply of drugs, endangered our communities and children, supported terrorism, destabilized many nations, destroyed numerous families, corrupted public officials, and reduced our constitutional rights. The “war” has attacked the supply without addressing the demand for the drugs. In an interview with Bill O’ Reilly, which is available on YouTube.com, Gray said, “We can have drugs in our system with druglords or without drug lords.” Drugs are a part of our free society; the only way to control them is regulate them to the best of our ability. As he says, “Prohibition never works as well as regulation and control.”

Gray refers us to the fact that the greatest benefactors of the war on drugs are those who supply the drugs and those who build the prisons. In fact, because drugs are outlawed, the U.S. has basically given free rein to cartels, gangs and drug lords to supply the market. This is a highly irrational way for a government to operate, Gray argues. The problem has been a paternal attitude prevalent among most politicians and most of society regarding drugs as evil and as having no place in our society. Gray argues that we couldn’t design a better system than the war on drugs to help gangs and international cartels to prosper. He opines that either we deal with the drug problem “as managers or moralists.”

The Obama Administration has continued on the same tack as previous administrations. In the 2010 fiscal year federal budget, it requested $15.1 billion for The National Drug Control Strategy Budget. This includes: $3.6 billion for treatment to help drug users in need and for intervention, $1.6 billion for substance abuse prevention, $4 billion for interdiction, and $2.1 billion for international efforts to stem the trade. This does not include portions of the $6 billion requested for federal prisons and $7 billion requested for the federal courts in 2010. These figures have increased only slightly since Pres. Barack Obama took office in January 2009, with one exception for a large $1 billion increase in interdiction.

Moreover, the states spend significant amounts fighting drugs. California alone spends about $10 billion a year on its prison system. An estimated 40 percent to 60 percent of prisoners are in jail for drug-related offenses. This does not include funds for police, judicial, and other services.
Gray proposes a system of strict regulation of drugs in the U.S. The states would decide which drugs would be available for sale to adults age 21 years and older, very much like alcohol regulation. Also, the criminal justice system would continue to prosecute those who drive under the influence or provide drugs or alcohol to minors. He also proposes increased resources for education, prevention and treatment. His plan is detailed in his book Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, published by Temple University Press in 2001.

From Gray’s example we see that as lawyers - and human beings - we will all come to a juncture in our lives when our integrity is tested. This is when our experience and courage will compel us to stand up for what we believe. His example proves that there will always be people who stand in our way and tell us we are wrong. However, his experience proves more - there is nothing that can stop the truth.

Written by Shaun Cunningham, 3L Senior Staff Writer

“I have had the privilege of working three externships while at Southwestern, two of them being judicial. While all three opportunities were uniquely valuable, the most rewarding experience was seeing opinions that I independently researched and drafted ultimately being published by a California Court of Appeal justice as his final opinions.”

Brandon Fischer, 3rd year Day Student

====================================================================

“During the fall 2009 semester, I had a wonderful experience being a judicial extern to the Honorable Stephen J. Hillman. The assignments I completed significantly improved my legal thinking skills, as well as my research and writing skills. By discussing and observing court proceedings, I now have an enhanced understanding of the litigation process from the judiciary’s perspective. The opportunity to evaluate evidence, read memorandums, and analyze cases from the judiciary’s impartial viewpoint is an exceptional learning experience.”

Sipora Zaghi, 3rd year PLEAS student

=====================================================================

“I was the extern for Federal Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. I was so fortunate to work in such a rich learning environment, with wonderful mentors. The judge was in contact with me daily. She gave me an interesting variety of projects. She provided both substantive and technical advice, and encouraged my feedback and questions. The clerks were also very helpful and patient with my learning process. I was pleasantly surprised by, and very grateful for, their eagerness to enrich my experience, despite dealing with a very busy schedule.”

Natalie Wright, 3rd year Day Student

=====================================================================

“Working as an extern for federal District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper was one of the most educational experiences I have had in law school. I did everything from creating files for new cases and filing documents, to attending trials, to drafting memoranda for the judge and writing opinions for the court. Most memorable was how Judge Cooper would discuss with us her thought processes when deciding a case, and how she would routinely ask our opinions of those cases. She treated me and the other externs with the utmost respect. Working for her was a truly inspirational experience.” Judge Cooper passed away on Friday, Jan. 15.

Peter Schoettler, 3rd year PLEAS student

=====================================================================

“Externing for Judge Arthur Alarcon of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was a privilege and high point in my law school career. The judge is a friendly, wise, and patient man, and one of the best story tellers I’ve known. I felt lucky to be in his chambers. I only hope I can retain all the good advice I got while I was there.”

Thomas Miletic, 3rd year Day Student

=====================================================================

“As an extern for Judge Richard Neiter in the Federal Bankruptcy Court, I gained familiarity with a wide variety of bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related issues. I began as an extern in the fall and have stayed on for an additional semester. In this position, as with my position as a Certified Law Student with the Compton Juvenile District Attorney’s Office, I have learned just as much from witnessing effective advocacy as I have from learning for seeing what not to do.”

Ashton Inniss, 3rd year Day Student

=====================================================================

Compiled by Natalie Write, 3L Day Senior Staff Writer

The side of the building facing the street is painted gray and has a big black door with no handle. What may have been a window or a larger entrance is now sealed with a brick wall. I can see the glow of the fluorescent lights from the crusty windows on the second floor. There is no sign. I’m looking for Legends MMA.

I soon find the entrance. The parking lot gate is severely dented from some unwelcome guests. A heavy iron panel slides open, revealing the light from this old shoe factory. My friend, Tom Gavin, greets me. I crawl through the dent and follow Tom inside. The gym’s main floor is partitioned into three parts. The smallest portion is the punching bags. Perhaps ten to twelve, of various sizes, squeak as they lightly swing back and forth. Training mats cover the largest section, where, during the day, students learn various fight styles. The third section is closed off for another type of training.

I had not seen Tom for some time. About a year ago, he decided to take a hiatus from law school to pursue a career in mixed martial arts fighting. This decision was not made in haste. He has his youth, his health, and a hunger for success that other young men only think they have. Moreover, unlike most fighters, his dedication goes one step further. He and two of his comrades keep residence in this modern day dojo.

They embrace the essence of an ancient tradition, where a student’s home and school are one. Tom, Eugene, and Ryan maintain the premises. Punching bags are kept in order, blood is removed from the mats, and the dojo is well guarded. In exchange, they receive top class training from the best fighters in the country. That day, the guys were arranging the training mats back on the main floor. On the third floor, they were reassembling the octagon. The night before, Legends held a grand fundraising party. The building was packed to the hilt and there was pole dancing aplenty.

But being an MMA fighter is not all fun and games. Every waking moment is devoted to the mind, body, and spirit of the martial arts. I asked Tom and his friends what it takes to be a fighter. Simply, one must be disciplined. There are no days off. If fighters are not preparing for competition, they train four to five hours a day. They learn various martial arts ranging from Jiu Jitsu to wrestling. If they’re not on the mats, the rest of the day is spent conditioning. The month before a competition is by far the most grueling. Days are spent conditioning, training, and sparing.

Training the body with physical exercise is supplemented with the proper foods. A fighter’s diet consists of protein (chicken), vegetables, fruits, and carbohydrates (brown rice). Nowhere in this food pyramid will you see alcohol, tobacco, or even sweets. To these fighters, sacrifice in the kitchen is a small price to pay for the glory they seek in the ring. Being a betting man, I’d be hard pressed to find a law student with as much devotion to his craft as any of the three men I met at Legends.

I finally asked Tom why he decided to become fighter. He said this was literally a once in a lifetime opportunity. A person can work in a physically strenuous career only when he is young. Therefore, he courageously changed his path in life. I agree with his sentiments. An opportunity that time gives only one chance to pursue, should be taken in an instance. So what does it truly take to be a fighter? Courage. The courage to choose your own life, rather than accepting what is indoctrinated to you, is the hardest characteristic to achieve.

I have nothing against law school. Law school is a stable road to take. So stable in fact, one can take it at any age. If your dream was to become a lawyer, then more power to you. But to the rest, if you had ambitions outside of the law, then just do them. The doors to Southwestern will always open, but some opportunities have only brief windows. Whether you succeed or fail at your dream, it is impossible to deny yourself the satisfaction of attempting what will once be unattainable. If you want to act, then strive to be an actor. If you want to be a cop, then strive to be a cop. If you want to be a fighter, then join Legends. A life dictated by the default approach soon creeps in the shadows to find ambition. Do not become one of those old people who look back on life and regret not living it.

Written by Dikran Sevlian, 3L Senior Staff Writer

By now everyone has received their grades from the fall semester. Some of you are very happy with your grades, others not so happy. For most of us, law school is unlike anything we have ever encountered, and we must learn how best to meet this new challenge.

Over the last few years I’ve been given a lot of advice regarding law school. Some of it I asked for, other times it was unsolicited. The best part about advice is that you can take it or leave it. So with that in mind, I offer some tips that I have been given and others that I’ve picked up along the way.

KNOW THYSELF
Law school is nothing like high school or undergrad. The days of pulling all nighters and cramming for exams don’t cut it at this level. To best understand how to study for a particular course or exam, you first need to understand how you learn. While outlines are pretty much a constant, there are additional ways you can help yourself prepare. Over the years I have seen people make flashcards, diagrams, read secondary materials and study aids and listen to audio lectures to name a few methods.

How do you learn best? Are you a visual or an audio learner? Are you better off studying alone or in a group? Do you like to be at home, in the library or a busy coffee shop? Do you like to have background noise or complete silence? Take the time to think this through, and if you’re unsure, you might want to experiment with some different methods to find what works best for you.

PREPARING FOR THE FINAL
Probably the biggest difference between law school and our prior education is that for most classes, the grade is entirely based on our performance on the final exam. And what makes law school exams that much more difficult is the nature of the essays, the multiple choice questions and the limited time we have to answer them.

Multiple choice questions can be incredibly challenging at the law school level. Invariably you will come across a question where all four answers sound correct, or the dreaded situation of having eliminated two choices leaving you stuck with two answers that both sound equally good. The best advice I was given for this (which admittedly, I didn’t always have time to follow) is to do as many practice multiple choice questions as you can. Do any practice questions that your professor offers, do the online CALI lessons, use the Q&A books, or go to the library and use any resources they have. I think a lot of people wait until near the end of the semester to work on these, because their thinking is that they won’t be able to answer questions on material that they haven’t learned yet. This is not necessarily bad or wrong, but the earlier you start on these the better. What you will notice is that even if your professor does not use the exact same question on his/her exam, there will be patterns that will trigger certain answers. The more you do these practice multiple choice questions (and read the answers as to why certain answers are right or wrong), the better and faster you will be able to identify the correct answer on the exam.

Essays on law school exams can also be difficult to master. Sometimes, especially knowing that the clock is ticking, you might unconsciously skip over the analysis portion and go directly from the issue to your conclusion, having worked out the issue and the analysis in your head. But the analysis is where the majority of the points are to be found. Your professor wants to see how you approach the problem, the rule of law you apply, and that you argue one way or another (or both sides in some cases). Remember, too, that on almost every exam each part of the essay question is there for a reason. Most professors will not include extraneous information just for fun or to make things difficult. Read the call of the question and then the rest of the question carefully, and more than once. If you struggle with tangents, draw up a quick outline. Remember, your professor has to read a lot of these essays, so you want to make sure that yours is clear and easy to read. That’s why it is so important to use headings - it will help your professor follow your essay and make it easier for them to spot everything you included.

The way to prepare for the final all semester long is to read for class. I cannot stress how important it is to make sure that you understand the legal theories and concepts that underlie the cases in the assigned reading. The cases we read are meant to be used as examples and illustrations of these theories and concepts in practice. If you struggle with the underlying law, you must go elsewhere to make sure you understand it. Although I know the last thing anyone wants to do is to pick up another book in law school, one thing I recommend is to use Legalines or a case summary book in conjunction with the reading. These can help clear up any confusion that may result after reading the case. I don’t recommend using these aids in lieu of doing the assigned reading, but only to help clarify the reading. This can be especially helpful in the first year as we enter this new world and try to train our minds to think “legally”. If you are still struggling with the theories and concepts, you need to pick up other study materials such as an Examples and Explanations or the Nutshell books. Classes move along so fast and build upon prior concepts that any confusion will ultimately lead to a more difficult road as the semester progresses. And lastly, if you have put in the extra time but things still aren’t clicking, go and consult your professor for more help.

KNOW THY PROFESSOR
Try to figure out what your professor expects on their exams (mainly the essay portion). Go in and talk to your professor during office hours. Do the practice exams and turn them in for feedback. Every professor is different in terms of teaching style, exam writing and what they expect as a model answer. Talk to other students who have had the professor before. Are they very fact intensive? Or do they favor policy arguments? Do they want you to argue both sides, or is there only one right answer? Although the exact question can’t be predicted (and you shouldn’t waste your time trying), in some classes there can be only certain major topics for the essay. Learn these topics, see what triggers other issues and how the professor takes you into the question. Some essay questions are very straightforward and easy to issue spot. Others might be written in a more confusing or roundabout manner. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of doing the practice exams and turning them in to your professor for feedback. This will help you to determine if you are on the right track, or way off, in terms of what your professor wants on an essay answer.

WHAT YOUR MOM ALWAYS TOLD YOU IS TRUE
Remember what your parents used to always tell you - to eat right and make sure to get enough sleep? Well…they were right. Each semester of law school is a marathon. Go too hard early on and you will burn out before dead week even begins. Be steady with your work and don’t wait until the end to do everything. Especially during your first year as you adapt to life as a law student, you will feel that your entire life is devoted to school. Treat your body right in terms of what you eat - it will reward you overall. Try also to mix in exercise and fun. Both can be hard to do with the demands of law school, but you will feel better in the long run. While you should be a dedicated law student, don’t let law school consume you. And lastly, make sure to get enough sleep. I don’t think there was a single night that I went to bed feeling satisfied with what I accomplished that day. There is always the feeling that there is more to do, and that you should have done more work or studying that day. While you should be aware of this feeling and strive to do your best, don’t let the feeling overwhelm you. Your body and mind need the time to rest and recharge so that you can be fresh for the next day of class and studying.

Good luck to everyone out there, and know in the end that you will be ok
*Author’s note - The author freely admits that he has not completely mastered law school or law school exams. But his folly and mistakes can be used for your benefit…

Written by Chris Chaplin, 3L Staff Writer