Race Judicata - Virginia Law Weekly

2 News & FeaturesVIRGINIA LAW WEEKLYFriday, 21 March 2008► BAKERcontinued from page 1Congress Scores Political Points atExpense of Federalismwhich the nation was founded.“What happens when you havewide-scale, broad federal law enforcementis you have an enforcementof a particular [national]“Almost allpoliticians endup being formore federalcrimes. Congresshas a completeinabilityto vote againstsubstantivecriminal law.”-Professor Darryl Brownmoral code” that cuts against federalism,Baker said.Abandoning local and statesovereignty in this manner underminesthe principles that haveSean ConwayExecutive EditorMichael WarnerColumns EditorRyan DoughertyReviews EditorMike LecarozBusiness EditorNick NelsonAssociate Photography EditorContributors:Columnists:Reviewers:Craig SmithEditor-in-ChiefAllison MuthManaging EditorRogan NunnNews Editorallowed the “people of Massachusettsand the people of Georgia [to]live together in the same country,”Baker said, tongue only slightly incheek.Professor Darryl Brown, on handto rebut Baker, did just a little rebutting,agreeing generally withmuch of Baker’s assessment regardingthe expansive reach of federallaw but “quibbling with somenuances” on a few issues. The culprits,both agreed, have been legislatorswho find it difficult to voteagainst tough, politically popularmeasures.“Almost all politicians end upbeing for more federal crimes,”Brown said. “Congress has a completeinability to vote against substantivecriminal law.”But Brown was quick to addthat, despite Congress’s inabilityto restrain legislation, “they have apretty good ability to limit enforcementresources.” Thus Congress’s“congenital weakness to votingagainst crime” is balanced out bytheir “taking back with the otherhand” through the limitation of enforcementresources, Brown said.“So the expansion of crimes mightnot be as threatening as it looks onthe books.”Still, Brown conceded, “It’s notcomforting if you’re one of those20 kids who gets prosecuted for[music] piracy . . . or misusingSmokey the Bear.”VirginiaLaw WeeklyCOLOPHONNeal HayesProduction EditorDipti RamnarainFeatures EditorNick NelsonWeb EditorPublished weekly on Friday except during holiday and examination periods and serving theLaw School community at the University of Virginia, the Virginia Law Weekly (ISSN 0042-661X) is notan official publication of the University and does not necessarily express the views of the University.Any article appearing herein may be reproduced provided that credit is given to both the Virginia LawWeekly and the author of the article. Advanced written permission of the Virginia Law Weekly is alsorequired for reproduction of any cartoon or illustration.Virginia Law Weekly580 Massie RoadUniversity of Virginia School of LawCharlottesville, Virginia 22903-1789Jen GoodlattePhotography EditorSmitha DanteAssociate News EditorMishima Alam, Katherine Demamiel, Samson Habte,Alec ZadekNatalie Blazer, Andy Howlett, Stefanie Kim,Chris Langbein, Klinton Miyao, Ryan QuillianKara Allen, Brian ChanPhone: 434.924.3070Fax: 434.924.7536editor@lawweekly.orgwww.lawweekly.orgEDITORIAL POLICY: The Virginia Law Weekly publishes letters and columns of interest to the LawSchool and the legal community at large. Views expressed in such submissions are those of the author(s)and not necessarily those of the Law Weekly or the Editorial Board. Letters from organizations must bearthe name, signature, and title of the person authorizing the submission. All letters and columns musteither be submitted in hardcopy bearing a handwritten signature along with an electronic version, orbe mailed from the author’s e-mail account. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. the Monday beforepublication and must be in accordance with the submission guidelines. Letters over 500 words and columnsover 700 words may not be accepted. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit all submissionsfor length, grammar, and clarity. Although every effort is made to publish all materials meeting ourguidelines, we regret that not all submissions received can be published.Katherine Demamiel ’10ContributorLaw Weekly Through the Decades:1958-1967[Editor’s Note: The VirginiaLaw Weekly, founded in 1948, isenjoying its 60th year of publication.This is the second in a seriesof six articles looking back at theevents, milestones, controversies,and student life chronicled in theLaw Weekly’s pages.]Looking back at the seconddecade after the founding of theVirginia Law Weekly, one noticesstriking similarities and differenceswith the institution we callhome (or that damn hellhole youcan’t make me go back to, dependingon how close it is to finals).Caplin, Spies, and Dillardweren’t just names on the wallsbut professors in the halls. Menstill outnumbered women, althoughthe paltry sixty-forty ratiotoday pales in comparison: in1966, the school saw its highestfemale enrollment to date, with 8females out of 247 students.The extended wait for gradesstill perplexed and frustratedmost students, although insteadof the constant furtive ISISchecks, students were “bulletinboard hopping” weeks into thespring semester. The first danceof the year in 1958 was held atFry’s Spring Beach Club, a circustheme with decorations providedby the Virginia Law Wives’ Club.Incredibly, the Law School waspermitted to hold that event atthe same location several yearsin a row. Remarkable.Parking was still a major issue,with one letter to the editor in1965 lamenting the fate of firstandsecond-year students whodid not have a “chauffer servicein a wife” to take and pick themup from classes on main grounds.Second- and third-years were► RACEcontinued from page 1the only ones even given parkingpasses, and in 1959, secondyearparking privileges were restrictedto weekdays after noon.There was even the suggestionof allotting parking places basedon GPA. The lesson here may be:first-years, don’t complain abouthaving to walk “all the way fromthe blue lot” to get to class andsecond- and third-years, maybeit is time to start campaigning forregressive parking reform.Given that the school was stillpredominantly male, footballwas the sport of the decade,with the editors of Law Weeklyconsistently trouncing the editorsof Law Review in the yearlyrivalry game. However, softballwas staging a coup as 1958 saw acall for the renewal of the annualstudent-faculty softball tournament.The largest female presenceon the law school groundsseemed to be the Virginia LawWives’ Club, which held an annualfashion show that, in 1965,featured “futuristic” designs including“hemlines inches abovethe knee.”The Law Weekly’s second decadealso saw a revolution intechnology and modernizationfor the Law School. Those airconditionedclassrooms lobbiedfor in 1956 were finally addedin 1961, along with a new thirdfloor for Clark Hall. The additionincluded a fully air-conditionedfaculty lounge, although the studentlounge remained in the lesstemperature controlled basementof the hall, where studentswere apparently so lax aboutcleaning up after themselves thatthe Law Weekly staff resorted towriting “letters to the editor” inthe voice of Horace the Cockroach,thanking students wholeft their lunches for him and hisfamily members to munch on. In1962 the head librarian attendeda meeting to assess the workabilityof a “computer-like” machinedesigned to index and retrievewhole bodies of legal information,and in 1964, the law libraryobtained its first Xerox machine.With Libel Show this week, theshow’s ’60s flair deserves mentionas well. Up to this point, theLibel Show was still put on byPhi Delta Phi, the largest legalfraternity at UVA, and was thereforestill all male. At the time, theshow focused much more on thefoibles of professors, so much sothat in 1959, Professor Gregoryactually “picketed” Libel Showrehearsals with a sign proclaimingthe “unfair” nature of theshow. The show did, however,experience a change in 1962, thefirst year it was performed as amusical.Speakers at the Law School includedformer President HarryS. Truman and Robert Kennedy,who spoke to the school abouthis role as chief counsel for theSenate Select Committee on ImproperLabor and ManagementActivities. (No reports could befound on whether he was weirdedout by that freaky eyelessbronze bust of him in the law library.)In 1959, the Virginia LawReview featured three articlesby E. Barrett Prettyman, a judgeon the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe D.C. Circuit, a UVA graduate,and owner of the decade’s sweetestname.What the next decade holds forthe Law School and the VirginiaLaw Weekly is anyone’s guess. Actually,it is probably not much ofa mystery, and if you just cannotwait until next week, go bug ProfessorStephan, class of 1977, orthat Jeffries guy, class of 1973.Challenge Issued to Sprigman: Lose the Bikeship, friendship, and support tounderprivileged children. Manyvolunteers brought their “littlesiblings” to the race to cheer therunners on during the latter stagesof the course when encouragementwas needed the most.The top male finisher was second-yearMike Dolan and the topfemale finisher, Heather McMillan,came from outside the LawSchool’s ranks. Prizes also wentto the top male and female finishersin each class.Runners were impressed by thebeautiful weather and the dedicationof all the students whosacrificed a Saturday morning ofsleeping in to come out and run acharity 5K. One runner commentedthat the hills on the trail madeit “very challenging.” The last legof the race, on the Rivanna Trail,was completely uphill, an intimidatingfinish to an already toughup-and-down course. It was sotough, in fact, that people werepositioned on the course to ensurethat the runners didn’t getoff track.The race’s three organizerswere thrilled by the turnout.“The weather was perfect andeverybody had a lot of fun,” Weisnersaid. She also praised thefifteen or so volunteers as “amazing.”Second-year Pamela McElroysaid that organizing the race hasinspired her to take up running inpreparation for next year. FirstyearCasey Fitzmaurice felt that agood goal for next year is increasingthe faculty and staff turnout.In what can only be viewed asthrowing down the gauntlet, sheclaimed that Professor Sprigmanwould have had the faculty prize“all locked up” if he had participated.The event went off smoothlyas ABLE volunteers appearedvery well-organized. Due to thediligence of organizers and volunteersalike, the runners allenjoyed themselves regardlessof their race times. Various sponsorsthroughout the communitydonated gift certificates andprizes so that no runner wenthome empty-handed. But whatimpressed runners the most wasthe overall strength of the fieldand the competitiveness of theparticipants.As first-year Ben Bryant putit, “I didn’t realize that I wentto school with so many talentedrunners.”Race Judicata WinnersOverall Male: Mike DolanOverall Female: Heather McMillan3Ls: Rebecca Brown andJustin Ross2Ls: Christina Zaroulis andMike Dolan1Ls: Lisa Miller and Joey Cohen

Friday, 21 March 2008Ryan Quillian ’09SBA PresidentSBA Notebook: No Photo, No SmileHappy Friday, folks. I hope everybodyhas had the opportunity to seethe Libel Show this week. If not, Ihope you’re going tonight. Over 180of your classmates have dedicateda remarkable number of hours intomaking the 100th Libel Show a spectacularperformance. Even though itseems like Libel is dominating everybody’slives these days, this last weekwas chuck full o’ fun, so I thought Iwould use this column to keep youup to date.After the SBA elections that wereheld last month, one position remainedopen—the Law School’srepresentative to the ABA. I knowyou have been holding your breathin anticipation, but you can relax becausethe day of the announcementis finally here. Your new ABA Rep isDan Rosenthal. Last week, Steph Fier(your courageous Vice President)and I conducted interviews of severalqualified candidates, and Danreally stood out as the applicant withthe best ideas and clearest vision forthe position. As your ABA Reps, Danand Linda Otaigbe are not only votingmembers of the SBA and UVA’sliaisons to the ABA, but they are alsoin charge of keeping our student organizationsapprised of upcomingABA award opportunities. Feel freeto get in touch with them if you thinkyour organization is eligible for anABA award.Steph and I also interviewed a fantasticgroup of applicants for committeechair positions. Without furtherdelay, your new committee chairsare: Academic Concerns: Becca Vallas(returning) & Adam Whitehouse;Admissions: Lance Brimhall & T.J.Parnham; Barristers: Jackie Choi,Aaron Friedman, & Erin Thompson;Career Services: Warren Allen &Casey Fitzmaurice; Diversity: AaronFriedman & Crystal Shin; Fundraising:Patrick Mott & Kristen Poole;Graduation: Jackie Choi & Mia Morgan;Programming: Chad Logan &Miles Sasser; Public Service: CaseyFitzmaurice & Clare Wuerker; StaffAppreciation: Lindsey Bartlett & LizLim; Student-Alumni Relations: CoreyNeal & Minoo Sobhani; Student-Faculty Relations: Eitan Goldstein &Emily Honig; Yearbook: Jackie Choi.Steph and I are really excited towork with every single one of thecommittee chairs, each of whom hasgreat and innovative ideas for theirrespective committees.Over the course of the last weekwe also had the first Admitted StudentsOpen House of the year, forwhich there was a turnout of over160 admits. The high numbers wereprobably due to the musical stylingsof DJ Andy George and the deliciousHank’s BBQ, and not becausewe started paying people to attend.Admitted students were able to socializewith current students bothat the BBQ Thursday evening andlater during The Restatements’ tremendousperformance at Wild WingCafe. Friday was a mix of academiaand introduction to student organizations.Overall, the admitted studentsappeared to have a good time. Iheard one admitted student remark,VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY Student Life & Columns 3“This is a very collegial place and thelaw school newspaper is in no wayoffensive . . . I think I’ll come here.”Convincing 160 admits to accepttheir offers is no easy feat, but theunstoppable 1L tagteam of Jen Longand Lance Brimhall organized andexecuted the event to perfection.Also thanks to the 70-plus currentstudents who volunteered last weekend.There is another open house aweek from today. If you would like toget involved, send me an e-mail.Last weekend was also Race Judicata,for which over 70 people wokeup five hours before I did to supportABLE by running over three miles.The event raised over $1,000, butit wasn’t all about altruism—everyrunner came away with a T-shirtand a prize donated by a local business.As an anonymous 1L was overheardsaying, “Between the T-shirtand the gift certificate, I feel like Iwon, even though I finished deadlast.” The actual winner of the racewas second-year Mike Dolan, whilethird-year Will Bushman took theover-30 division in a photo finish.Casey Fitzmaurice, Christy Weisner,Pamela McElroy, and the other volunteersdeserve all of the credit forthe sensation that was Race Judicata.Thank you all for your tremendouseffort this weekend.In the week ahead, keep an eyeout for the next Admitted StudentsOpen House (next Thursday and Friday,March 27-28), the finals of theLile Moot Court Competition (nextSaturday, March 29), and UVA’s inevitablevictory in the prestigiousCollege Basketball Invitational.Porn, Lies, Murder, Deceit, Killer Whales!Now that I have grabbed your attentionwith an exciting headline, likeany proper journalist should, sit backStefanie Kim '08Columnistas I weave for youa verbal tapestry.One blustery Halloweennight, twoM&Ms locked eyes in the basementof Belhaven Manor. He—an impishblue oval with hands like handshapedmarshmallows. She—a sassygreen number looking for the timeof her life. Could it be? In the knockdown,drag-out world of law schoolromance, could they have found areal connection, as evidenced bytheir identical selection of adorableand sexually non-threatening costumes?Tragically, they were neverable to find out. For in that momentof sweet M&M love, the blue M&M’sex-girlfriend stormed over and delivereda glare so menacing and venomousthat she was later dubbed “Evilstare.”And despite the fact that Evilstareto this day denies any trace of ill willthat fateful night, the damage wasalready done. The candy-coated loversnever had a chance. How do Iknow all of this? Well, friends, [dramaticpause] I am Evilstare. But I stillmaintain that there was NO evil staringwhatsoever and that fiction wascrafted by a certain excitable andchatty farmboy from Pennsylvania.Anyway, that was the night I realizedthat, even at the beginning of 2Lyear, it would be figuratively impossibleto avoid getting tangled in thelaw school web.By this point, basically any guy Imight be interested in already has hada history with one of my friends, or atleast a friend of a friend. Conversely,any guy that might be interested inme is now friends with a number ofmy ex-“friends.” It’s a sticky web ofboredom and insecurity connectingone person to another, and once youget stuck, it’s very hard to free yourself.So what can one do, short of holingup at home and secretly outliningin advance for finals?One good thing to know is thatbeing someone’s first link is key. Thelonger down the line you are, themore potential there is to piss someoneoff by inadvertently “bumpinginto” her high-school boyfriend inthe coatroom at X-Lounge. Or something.But by the time you get to 3Lyear, everyone is damaged goods. Noone has made it this far and remainedunscathed by the wear and tear ofpoor late-night decision-making and4 a.m. “wht’s up” texts. And that isprecisely why 1Ls hold the keys to thekingdom. They’re pure as the drivensnow—still filled with wonder andinnocence. Get to them before someoneelse does, and thereby avoid allrisks of awkward linkages. Sure,they’ve likely been with a few other1Ls, but who cares about pissing 1Lsoff? I have literally been in law schoolTWO MORE YEARS than they have.And as for you 1Ls, get busy already!That handsome young gentlemanin your con law class will, in thecourse of a few semesters, transforminto a devastating playboy who goesthrough girlfriends faster than Hillary’scampaign advisers go throughirrelevant character assassinations(topical!). Two years later, you cansmarmily point out that you werethere first. No one will really care,but it might bump your self-esteemup a notch.If you’re not really digging the 1Loption, then all you can do is embracethe madness. Repeatedly getting upsetany time an old flame finds a newmate will only drag you down andmake you sad. Then you will seekcomfort in food and emotionally eatan entire bag of Tostitos Hint of Limechips in the span of ten minutes. Thenyou will probably throw up. And whowants that?For example, that green M&M Imentioned earlier? Love her. Andwould our friendship have ever blossomedinto the tender flower it isnow had I continued to give her EvilStares for the rest of the year (eventhough I didn’t in the first place)? Ithink the answer to that is obvious.It’s important to embrace the inevitabilitythat someone you made outwith, dated, or even just super-likedand Facebook-stalked will probablyget with someone you know fairlywell.And when that day comes, unlessit involves your ex-girlfriend andyour best friend or some other unnecessarilymean combination, it’seasiest to just mask your jealousyand indignation. Mask it with alcoholor studying. Or buy an actualmask and wear it when you want tocry. Or mask it with a retaliatory romanceof your own. That is my recommendedoption, mostly because itgives me something to gossip about.Although, if someone wore a maskto school and wept softly inside itslatex womb, I would probably gossipabout that too.If you follow my humble imperatives,I guarantee you can make themost of your remaining days here atdear old UVA. You will emerge fromthis prestigious institution with aremarkable ability to repress yourfeelings, a string of emotionally detachedex-lovers, and a mild drinkingproblem. All this in addition to a J.D.!Then, years later, when your husbandaccuses you of being “robotic”and “lacking in the ability to care foranother human being,” you can pointto your diploma and say, “Well whatdid you expect?” And then he willlaugh, and you will laugh, and afteryou finish loading the dishwasher,you will go up to the bedroom andengage in perfunctory, emotionlessreproductive activities for ten minutes.You’re welcome.Email: sk3yp@virginia.eduIn case you somehow didn’t notice,Annie and Steph’s beautiful,smiling faces have been replacedby our much less appealing mugs.As next year’s co-directors, we’restepping into some really largeshoes, which we have no expectationsof being able to fill. Butdon’t worry, we’ll do our best tofollow the instructions they leftus, and we have their cell phonenumbers.We want to thank everyonewho applied to be a peer advisorfor next year. We received a significantnumber of applications,which is a great indication of howenthusiastic UVA Law studentscontinue to be about maintainingthe school’s special character.We know that being part ofthe PA program was a particularlyrewarding experience for both ofus, and if next year’s 1Ls are anythinglike the Class of 2010, we’resure that the 2008-09 Peer Advisorswill feel the same way.► IMMIGRATIONcontinued from page 1Last week’s article on renovationsinvolved a confusing flip of quotations.It was Ph.D. student and parttimelibrary employee Beken Saatciolgluwho expressed a concernthat the bulk of library seats areroutinely filled, not Library DirectorTaylor Fitchett.The Law Weekly congratulated“1L Kate Gregg one her engagementto Tommy Larkin.” This was notmeant to express the editorial staff’slow expectations for the success ofPeer AdvisorAnnouncementsChris Langbein ’09 and Klinton Miyao ’09Peer Advisor Co-Directorslangbein@virginia.eduksmiyao@virginia.eduWe’re also really excited aboutPA interviews, which start tomorrow,and we look forwardto meeting all of the applicantsin the coming weeks. Unfortunately,there are only 84 spotsavailable, even though we’reconfident that pretty much everyapplicant would make afantastic PA. It’s important toremind applicants that we’re operatingunder a severe informationdisadvantage; with only apaper application and about 10minutes of interview time perapplicant, we’re going to makeplenty of mistakes…for those ofyou who know us, this certainlycomes as no surprise. So we’dlike to go ahead and apologizefor that in advance.Our goal is to announce finaldecisions in mid-April. Ifyou have any questions in themeantime, you can reach us atksmiyao@virginia.edu and langbein@virginia.edu.Judge Highlights Difficulty ofAsylum Reviewof review in appeals cases fromthe previous de novo standard torequiring appeals judges to deferto the IJ’s fact-finding, unless it isclearly erroneous. Streamliningalso imposed tight time limits onimmigration cases, establishinga 90-day deadline for adjudicationof “normal” cases, with evenshorter deadlines for adjudicationof certain criminal cases.After Osuna’s remarks, JudgeNeal provided perspective on hiswork as an Immigration Judge.He described his job in one word:“frustration.”According to Neal, “Everyoneknows what your job is better thanyou.”Neal went on to describe some ofthe frustrations of his job, includingthe struggle to stay neutral. Healso cited the language barrier asa major struggle: applicants oftendo not speak English, so both the IJand the defendant are dependenton a translator. Furthermore, inconsistenciesoften exist in asylumseekers’ stories, and it is up to thejudge to decide whether these inconsistenciesare the result of poortranslation, confusion on the partof the applicant, or outright liesand deception in the hope of gainingasylum.Neal also discussed some of theunique challenges brought on bythe fact that IJ’s must make extemporaneous,spoken decisions,and are not given the opportunityto issue written opinions. This cancause some problems when casesare appealed to federal courts,and has led to tension with circuitcourt judges. One of the solutionsthat Neal has helped implement isa program he described as “bringyour circuit court judge to workday,” in which circuit judges andtheir clerks, particularly those whohave been critical to the developmentof this area of the law, areinvited into the immigration courtsto view the process. According toNeal, this initiative has helped circuitjudges understand what IJ’sface, and has in turn helped to reducecriticism.Last to speak was ProfessorRooney, who currently teaches atUVA Law but who, as former directorof EOIR, was responsiblefor hiring both Judge Osuna andJudge Neal. Rooney described hisrole as a go-between for the AttorneyGeneral’s office and the immigrationcourts.The panel closed with a questionand answer session, when studentsand professors alike were able tointeract with the panelists. It providedmembers of the Law Schoola valuable opportunity to learnabout a complicated and fascinatingarea of the law from the practitionerswho know it best.Law Weekly Correctionsher pending nuptials nor imply thatMs. Gregg is polyandrous. Only inthose two scenarios would we havebeen correct to label this engagementnumber “one” in anticipationof additional proposals of marriage.No, instead the Law Weekly meant tocongratulate “1L Kate Gregg on herengagement to Tommy Larkin.” Wewish them both well.On an unrelated topic, the LawWeekly is always looking for productionand copy editing help.

4 PILAVIRGINIA LAW WEEKLYFriday, 21 March 2008Smitha Dante ’10Associate News EditorPublic interest work among UVALaw students took off this year, duein no small part to the efforts ofthe Public Interest Law Association(PILA), as well as the Caplin PublicService Center. More so than everbefore, students are aware of theopportunities that exist for themto engage in public interest work.Many first-year students took thatmessage to heart, planning theirsummers around public interestjobs, while anticipating a PILAgrant to fund their summer work.Students’ plans were thwarted,however, based on the limitednumber of PILA grants and theunusually large number of applicantsthis year. A large percentageof applicants were waitlisted forgrants, some having already committedto public sector jobs. Manyof these students are now inquiringinto the process by which UVALaw provides funding for summerpublic service work, with somestudents questioning PILA and itsrole in both providing and disbursingfunds.This debate regarding the bestrole of PILA and the summergrants is especially timely in lightof Harvard Law’s announcementthis week of a new, broader, andvery generous initiative to supportpost-graduate public interestwork. Starting next year, the NewYork Times reported Wednesday,Harvard students who commit tofive years of public service employmentafter graduation will notbe charged tuition for their thirdyear.A student-run organization thatbegan as an SBA committee in1982, PILA became an independentstudent group in 1997. In itsvarious incarnations, PILA hasbeen funding grants for summerpublic interest work for the past 26years. In this time, PILA has beenable to fund all applicants onlyonce—last summer.Upon hearing last year’s statisticsrepeatedly, beginning withadmitted students weekend andcontinuing on through summer jobpanels, many first-years took thatnumber to mean that PILA wouldbe able to fund all applicants thisyear as well. Partly due to a growinginterest in public service work,partly the result of a tighteningmarket for first year summer associatesat firms, and no doubt partlydue to the perception that thosewho want funding would receiveit, PILA saw approximately twicethe number of applicants for summergrants this year as they didPILA Grants 2008: Providing Contextlast year. Unlike last year, however,PILA was not able to provide everyapplicant with a grant.This year, PILA awarded 50grants to first-years and 22 to second-years,which represents a 33%increase over last year in terms ofthe number of grants they wereable to fund. Despite this increasein the number of awards, severalstudents find themselves withouta PILA grant—and hence withoutfunding for the summer—afterhaving already accepted publicsector jobs.Many first-years are unhappywith this state of affairs. In the aftermathof the awards, rumors andtheories abound about what wentwrong. First-years also feel misled,citing last year’s results and theenthusiastic advertising thereof,as evidence that they were promiseda grant. PILA’s President,Katie Schleeter, denied that anysuch promise was made, saying,“The PILA Board absolutely understandsthat 1Ls feel upset. Whilewe were very proud of achieving a100% funding level last year andspread the news widely, we neverindicated that grants were guaranteed.At the PILA Grant InformationSessions, as well as at PILAcareer panels, we made very clearthat (1) yes, we did fund everyonelast year, but (2) we cannot guaranteefunding this year.”Other rumors circulated thatfunds for grants were depleted byPILA’s having to pay for damageto a suite that occurred during thefall auction, and that PILA had notreceived matching funds that hadbeen promised by a third party.Responding to both these rumors,Schleeter wrote, “PILA didreceive matching funds from theLaw School Foundation (LSF). TheLSF’s very generous dollar-for-dollarmatch, which has been in placesince 2004, greatly contributesto PILA’s ability to fund students.[Also] there were some expensesincurred at the Auction—damagedone to the First Year Councilsuite and lost revenue from severalguests checking out because of thenoise from some hotel rooms—butPILA was able to work with theSBA and others to pay the bills,thus not taking money away fromfellowships.”Students were also concernedover what they viewed as a lack oftransparency on PILA’s part regardingthis year’s application statistics,as well as candidates’ specific rankon the waitlist. Regarding the applicationstatistics, PILA was workingto secure grants for more students,and while they were in the processof doing so, felt that it would be in-appropriate to prematurely releasesuch statistics, which would laterhave to be revised. As for the waitlist,Schleeter says, “PILA keepsthe waitlist confidential for severalreasons. Most importantly, in yearswhere there is a very small waitlist(say of 5-10 students), publishingthe rankings would be a very sensitiveissue. Also, we have no ideaat what rate students will be pulledoff of the waitlist—publishing theplace on a waitlist would not helpapplicants because the ranking isn’tcorrelated to the ‘chances’ you’ll bepulled off.”In reacting to the shortage,many first-years have begun toquestion UVA’s methodology forfunding summer public interestwork. Although many schools doindeed guarantee funding, it isnot quite that straightforward [seeHow Other Top 10 Schools Fund Summer PublicInterest Work1. Yale University: Providesfellowships to “all Yale studentswho need funding to work atgovernment and nonprofit organizations.The law schoolprovides fellowships of approximately$417 to $500 a week for12 weeks to about 150 studentseach summer, totaling more than$450,000 per year.”2. Harvard University: Guaranteesfunding through stipendsand work-study. Students canseek supplemental funding fromadditional sources, up to a maximumof $6,000 for first-yearsand $7,500 for second-years.“Harvard Law School has themost comprehensive supportfor summer public interest workavailable. No law school offersmore guaranteed funding for abroader range of public interestjobs.”3. Stanford University: Studentsmust apply for grants,which are funded by the StudentPublic Interest Law Forum butadministered by the university.Applicants must demonstrate financialneed, in the form of federalloan eligibility. Recipientsare expected to demonstrate atrue commitment to public service,with the requirement that,“After graduation, summer fundingrecipients are expected tocontribute to SPILF if they do notwork in public interest or whenthey are financially able to repay.”I have heard rumblings thatsome first-years boycotted Pongfor PILA out of discontent thatthey or their friends did notreceive PILA grants this year.While some might have a validgrievance against those who cultivatedthe misperception thatPILA grants were guaranteed(they never have been), I humblysuggest that not participating inPong for PILA or any future PILAfundraiser is precisely the wrongtype of “protest.”Ninety percent of the thousandsof hours that I’ve seenfriends on the 14-member PILAboard put in every year is gearedtowards raising money to giveto fellow students. Unlike theother amazing student organizationsthat have to raise theirown money to go to symposia,conferences, etc., PILA’s fundraisingis geared solely to give itright back from whence it came:the students. Thus, while notbeing willing to participate ina fundraiser that probably tooka couple hundred hours to planand execute might hurt some onthe PILA board’s feelings, it doeslittle to address the substantiveproblem, namely funding.So, then, what is the result ofnot paying $50 to join in a funtournament with your friends,get a t-shirt, and play a game youwould probably be playing anyway,but with free beer? I suggestyou look at either your friendswho will be applying for a publicservice job after their secondyear while we are getting scoresof free lunches, or the admittedstudents who will be roamingthe halls next week. Indeed, theonly effect such a protest has isto make the reason why somecould not receive grants worsefor next year’s applicants.So, how should we, the studentbody, “protest”? First, weshould be excited that so manypeople have such a desire to participatein public interest work.Truly, with so many third-yearsreceiving prestigious public servicegrants, and so many applicantsseeking PILA grants, publicinterest work is on the rise hereat UVA. Second, if you feel thatthings need to be different orsidebar], with schools providingeither grants, loans, or a combinationthereof, and some schoolsrequiring students to demonstratefinancial need. Dean John C. Jeffries,addressing whether UVA hasany plans to change the currentprogram, responded, “The LawSchool, and indeed the University,has a long and rich history ofstudent self-governance. We givesignificant amounts of money anddiscretion to our student groupsand trust them to use the fundswisely. There may be times whencertain student groups allocatetheir funds differently from whatother students would like, but Ithink the best remedy in thosecases is for students to make theirconcerns known to each.”Ultimately, it is not clear if anychange will satisfy everyone. PILANote: The 2008 application isnot yet available publicly, butseveral Stanford students indicatedthat the application is verysimilar to 2007’s.4. NYU: “As the most ambitioussuch program in the nation, thePILC Summer Funding Programguarantees funding for all firstandsecond-year students whowant to work in public interestand government positions.” Studentsare expected to help fundraisefor the program by workingon the school’s auction.5. Columbia University: “ColumbiaLaw School guaranteesfunding for all 1L and 2L JD studentswho timely apply and workin eligible public interest summerinternships.” Guaranteedfunding is part of a new programbeginning this year for the summerof 2008.6. University of Chicago: Studentsare guaranteed fundingin the form of eligibility for upto $6,000 of a forgivable loan.“If you complete at least fourfull-time weeks in a qualifyingposition in your first summer oflaw school, $3,000 of the loanis forgiven . . . The $3,000 balancemay be repaid as much asfifteen months later, so that youcan use your second summer’searnings (which average morethan $2,000 per week for 2LChicago students) as a source ofrepayment. If you also work in aA Letter to the Editor About PILAyou have ideas for new and innovativefundraisers, join the PILAboard. You don’t need to be agrant recipient (last year’s PILApresident was turned down for afirst-year grant), just interestedin helping to raise money foryour fellow students. Third, becomemore involved in existingfundraisers. Do you have ticketsfor a sports team? Then, donatesome tickets to the PILA Auction.Do you have textbooks or studyguides lying around? Give themto PILA to sell to your classmatesat a reduced cost. Whatever youdo, do something.At last year’s AcaPILA, judgeand Professor Jody Kraus commentedbefore a Wild Wing Caféfilled with UVA students that thisawarded more grants than everbefore by a wide margin, thoughnot with the level of transparencysome would desire. In applyingfor grants in record numbers,UVA students have also shown anadmirable commitment to publicservice. Many students will facefinancial difficulties this summerif they have committed to publicservice jobs but have not receiveda grant. This has always been arisk that first-years take in choosingsummer jobs, whether or notthey want to do so—the realityis that high-paying firm jobsare scarce, public sector jobs areplentiful, and funding is always alimited resource. Perhaps the differencethis year is the exceptionalpassion with which students haveapproached the entire summer jobsearch process.qualifying position during yoursecond summer, the entire firstsummerloan will be forgiven.”6. University of Pennsylvania:No guaranteed funding,although “the Law School providesat least partial funding tomore than 100 law students whowish to undertake public interestwork in U.S. government, nonprofitorganizations, and publicinterest law firms.”8. UC-Berkeley (Boalt Hall):Guarantees funding. “For Summer2007, fellowship funding isavailable through the Boalt HallSummer Fellowship Program,which provides up to $4,000 offunding to all JD students whorequest the support and meet theprogram requirements, whichinclude, among other things, atleast 25 hours of public serviceor pro bono work during the yearpreceding your application forthe funding.”8. University of Michigan: Noguaranteed funding, althoughOffice of Public Service providesassistance with seeking out andapplying for grants and fellowships.10. Duke: No guaranteed funding.Students may apply for grantsthrough the Public Interest LawFoundation, and students whostay in North Carolina “routinelyreceive grants from the state baras a source of funding.”showing of student support forPILA, which is in turn a showingof support for your fellow public-interest-focusedstudents, isone of the things that makes ourlaw school so great. So, let’s notlose that sense of communitythat drew so many of us here inthe first place over $4,100 thatyour peers were just not able toraise for you this year, and worktogether so we can say that thiswas the last year that the studentsof UVA Law couldn’t provideenough money for studentswho want to pursue public service.Sincerely,Ryan Dougherty ’09

Friday, 21 March 2008VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY PILA & Features 5OPINION: Point-Counterpoint on PILA Grants 2008Andy Howlett ’10ColumnistThe economic reality is that as faras summer internships go, most ofthe ones in public service are unpaid.Combine this with the fact that mostof us find ourselves in a quasi indenturedservitude amounting to hundredsof thousands of dollars of debt,and we face the inescapable conclusionthat, without additional funding,it is simply not feasible for us to takeunpaid internships this summer. Thisis where PILA grants are supposed tocome in.There are three problems withthe current situation. First, there’s areliance and notice issue. I talked tomultiple first-years in varying situationsand virtually all of them placedsome degree of reliance in obtaininga PILA grant in planning their summer.One student claims her PILAsection representative repeatedly toldher that there should be no problemreceiving a grant. Another told methat, in accepting his unpaid summerinternship over winter break, he didso on the information and belief thatmost, if not at all, qualified applicantswould be given a grant. (He didn’t getone, though, and now is an extremelyuncomfortable financial position.) Athird student echoed these thoughtsand told me that a “big deal” wasmade of the Law School’s summergrants for public interest work to herat Admitted Students Weekend lastyear, which led to her not only focusingon public interest employmentduring her job search, but also choosingto attend UVA over other lawschools.Simply put, a lot of students reliedon the grants, and I feel that their reliancein light of the circumstances wasreasonable. The worst part about all ofthis, really, is that students – many ofwhom were committed to public service– who chose not to rely on a PILAgrant and applied for paid positionsat law firms were basically punishedfor it in the application process. Putanother way, in counting applyingfor firm jobs against applicants, andindeed, grilling them about it, as oneperson put it, during the interview,PILA was basically inducing a sort ofreliance on getting a grant in that itfavored applicants who applied onlyto public interest jobs. Needless to say,this is illogical and wrong, especiallysince the reliance turned out to be anunreasonable one.A second, related issue is a lack ofinformation form PILA itself. Why,for example, is there a ranked waitlistof applicants that’s being kept confidentialfrom the waitlisted applicantsthemselves? I also think that PILAshould disclose exactly how manypeople applied, and how many peoplewere offered grants. Furthermore,PILA should move the application andawards process up during the schoolyear so people will not be in the uncomfortableposition of having to acceptor decline a public interest jobnot knowing whether or not they willreceive a much-needed PILA grant.Third, there is an institutional supportissue. PILA is not to blame forthe shortfall in funds; it does goodwork and simply can’t raise the hugesum of money required to fund everystudent who wants to volunteer thissummer. It could neither anticipatethe much higher level of applicantsthis year nor could it do much tomake up the shortfall. The burdennow falls to UVA Law School to helpPILA meet its goal of funding everyqualified applicant. This is not to saythat the Law School doesn’t do a lot tohelp students in public service, but itneeds to take the extra step here andguarantee summer funding to anyfirst-year who meets the qualificationsand still wants to work in publicinterest. Doing so would put us on thesame page with many other top lawschools, and would solidify the LawSchool’s already strong commitmentto the public interest. If the new deanis serious about us becoming a top fiveinstitution in the future, it’s an importantstep to take.Disclosure: Andy Howlett is on thePILA-grant waitlist.Craig Smith ’09Editor-in-ChiefSometimes good things justdon’t turn out right. One wouldthink that record applicationsfor PILA grants would be a goodthing. On many levels they are.That so many students wanted tospend their summer in service ofthe greater good is a good thing.PILA and UVA can advertise thatmore money funded more grantsthan ever before. Everyone wins,right? Apparently not all the time.As conversations around theLaw School and the columns onthese pages make clear, reviewsof the 2008 grant process havenot been universally glowing.Smitha’s column provides thebackground and Andy raises somesalient points. To help completethe debate, I thought I’d provide aresponse to Andy’s arguments.First, the reliance issue. Thisis the weakest leg for disgruntled1Ls to stand on. From all appearances,PILA never officially promisedor guaranteed anything. Ittrumpeted the 100% grant ratefrom last year and the growth ofawards over the years to the fullest.But it doesn’t appear that, asan organization, PILA said that itwould fund every interested applicant.If it did, then the organizationis in error.But the students with whomAndy spoke probably shouldn’thave relied to the extent that theywere; no doubt when ProfessorKraus taught Bailey v. West, hetaught reliance alongside basicagency theory. First year PILA repswith limited knowledge of the historyof the organization’s grantrates, earnest and helpful as theyare, are not the source of informationupon which anyone shouldhave definitively based their summeremployment plans.The discomfort of standingin March with no summer moneyvisible on the horizon is a familiarfeeling. I was such an attractive1L job candidate that I hadto persuade a professor to let mevolunteer on projects that sheprobably created out of pity onthe fly. Taking on a part time jobto pay rent wasn’t fun; not buyingshoes for a whole summer wasworse.But the experience in theend was beyond rewardingand probably better than whatI could have found elsewhere.(The professor was less happyand ultimately slashed my tires.)Many students without grantscan hopefully take a modicum ofcomfort in students like me whohave been in similar spots andcame away in good shape.Andy’s second point, regardingPILA’s silence, is bettergrounded. While an immediateresponse to the growing discontentwas not necessary, the organizationcould have providedsome very basic information. Ata minimum, PILA should have letstudents know when it would bein a position to discuss the processand the results.The organization probablyhas a valid point about the usefulnessof releasing the ranked listbut perhaps they could considergrouping the waitlist. PILA mightinform candidates that they’re inthe top 15, the second 15, and soforth. This would give waitlistedcandidates some idea of wherethey stand in line, yet allow PILAto maintain enough generality forfuture years in which the waitlistis considerably shorter. (I don’tknow enough about PILA’s fundraisingprocess to comment onthe timing of the applications andawards.)The third issue, funding, is byfar the thorniest. Smitha’s backgroundcolumn is right: there’sno magic solution. Should theLaw School make up the fundinggap? Should the Law School takeover awarding the grants? ShouldPILA’s goal be to fund every qualified1L applicant? These are thequestions being asked most often.But there are other questionsthat accompany them. If theLaw School takes over awardinggrants, who’s going to take onthe time commitment? Would wehave to hire someone? How transparentdo we want the applicationprocess to be, given the sensitivenature of choosing who receivesmoney. Do we want to change thequalifications to match some ofthe other Top 10 schools listed onthe opposite page?These questions won’t be answeredthis week or possibly eventhis semester. But they’re importantones and 1Ls (and others) areright to raise them. With Dean Mahoneyhaving proclaimed the Top5 as our destination, we should beready to re-examine everythingwe do around here. If there’s away to do something better withoutfundamentally altering whatmakes this such a great place, weneed to embrace it. This is the firstof many opportunities to do so.Libel Show Junta Shares Thoughts About 100th PerformanceAlec Zadek ’08Senior Staff WriterThis year marks the 100th year ofthe Libel Show, an annual theatricaltalent show organized by studentsthat portrays students and professorsin a comedic light.In 1903, the Phi Delta Phi Fraternityorganized the first Libel Show.(This Show is the 100th performance,not the 100th year anniversary fromthe first show. There were a few yearsin which the Libel Show did not run.)The Show started as a fraternity traditionthat only members could participatein or attend. In the 70 years followingits inception, the student bodybecame more active in the productionof the Libel Show through 1979, whenPhi Delta Phi relinquished its sponsorshipand production responsibility tothe student body.Over the course of the last century,the Libel Show has evolved into anelaborate production that requirescountless hours of hard work frommany law students. This year almost200 students are involved in theShow. The organizational task for thismammoth theatrical performancefalls on the broad shoulders of theTroika, which consists of the Producer,Patrick Byrnett, and Co-Directors,John Sheehan and Phoebe Geer, allthird years. The Troika is elected annuallyin the Spring, approximatelyone month after the Libel Show ends.The three members devote the nextyear of their lives to surpassing theperformance of their predecessors.In an interview, Co-Director Sheehannoted the toll that the long hourshave taken on his life.“I have literally put in hundredsof hours working on the Show,” saidSheehan, who was unusually reflective.His creative cupboard of wit andhumor lay bare, with all that glistenedon the stage before me, as performersrehearsed the meticulously designedskits he had planned over the pastyear.“It is a major time commitment. Ihave not seen my family or friends inweeks, and I am fairly certain that allmy plants have withered away fromneglect,” added Sheehan, in an uncharacteristicallymonotone voice.Producer Byrnett was more upbeatthan his Co-Director as he ran aroundthe Caplin Auditorium, commandingtechnicians, singers, and actors in amanner that resembled the actions ofa great general.“It really has been a huge honor,both to be one of the leaders of thisyear’s production and to be part ofsuch an institution here at UVA Law.We are older than Law Review, thoughI think we take a little too much pridein that,” gushed Byrnett, before hewas pulled away by his duties.Co-Director Geer had the mannerismsof a seasoned professionalas she oversaw the final touchesprior to the start of a full dress rehearsal.Her stoic visage revealednone of the pressures which musthave been weighing on her; herdemeanor can only be attributedto her experience as both an actorand director prior to attending lawschool.“It is terrifically hard to keep themall in line, but everyone is really smart;it is very different than a normal theatricalperformance. The quality ofperformers and their work ethic areamazing,” said Geer.While the Troika is pivotal to thedirection of the Libel Show, the threepersoncrew is complimented by theefforts of the twenty-eight personJunta, which oversees the writing ofthe skits and songs that cause “bellyaching”laughs. The Junta is responsiblefor the majority of the dialogueof the Libel Show, but its efforts arecomplimented by creative studentswho submit their work for use in theShow.Head Writer Lauren Aronson, athird year, who is also acting in theshow, was too busy at the dress-rehearsalto sneak the Law Weeklyany gems from the script. ProducerByrnett was not much help either.He repeatedly stonewalled the LawWeekly’s questions about the scriptwith nervous laughter.“Everything is subject to revisionuntil the opening night.” Producer Byrnettnervously laughed when asked ifthe Law Weekly could quote anythingfrom Monday’s dress-rehearsal.Although she only vaguely alludedto the Show’s extensive mockery ofprofessors, Co-Director Geer was notas tight-lipped on the subject.“I hope that they buckle up becauseit is going to be a bumpy ride,” shechided, “but it will all be in good fun.”While the Producer and Directorswere producing and directing, I wasable to sneak behind the scenes andfind the actors, singers, and dancerswho will entertain their peers withtheir hidden talents.Second-year Ray Hafner, an actorand assistant director, noted the increasedpressure on this year’s entertainers.“In a typical year we get five to tenalumni, this year we are expectingover 100. It is humbling to be part of ashow with this sort of history,” Hafnerremarked.In order to compensate for theincreased pressure, Hafner has employedall of his acting acumen toaccurately perform his role mimickinga certain professor. Now that theshow is in “crunch-time,” Hafner hasskipped classes over the past week tospy on classes taught by the professorwhom he will be imitating.Second-year Caitlin Stapleton, adancer and singer in the Show, expressedher surprise when she sawthe talent of students who she hadpreviously only known from class.“What is really remarkable, is seeingthese people who you only knowfrom their adroit handling of coldcalls transform into total rock-stars onthe stage,” said Stapleton.In addition to producing and directingthe Libel Show, five membersof the Junta worked to compile a commemorativebook, 100 Years of Libel:The Comedy Tradition at the Universityof Virginia School of Law, to honor theShow’s rich history. Books will be onsale for $10 each night of the Show.photo by Alec Zadek ’08Okay, so a communist, a businessman, and a jerk on a phone walk into atalent show . . .

6 ColumnsVIRGINIA LAW WEEKLYFriday, 21 March 2008Mr. Chief Justice, That’s a Blocking FoulCraig Smith ’09Editor-in-ChiefWith the bulk of the William MinorLile Moot Court Competitionnow complete for the spring semester,this is a great time to talk aboutofficiating intramural basketball.The two activities might not seemrelated, but I’ve found that nightsin the striped shirt have paid off onnights when I step to the podium.Both were initially scary, but havebecome enjoyable.I’m competent at oral arguments,but no all-star. Good enough to enjoyparticipating, I suppose. The samecould be said for my refereeing. TheACC won’t be calling anytime soon,but intramural participants seeingme at the opening tip-off can trustI’ll earn my $7.25.In the spirit of the number of foulsyou can pick up in an intramuralgame, here are five ways in whichI’ve found that lessons learned fromofficiating basketball have applied toMoot Court:Officiating is about salesmanship.Sometimes you just don’t knowwhat is going on. A crash of bodiesunder the basket leaves you unsurewho fouled whom. Two playerscrash into each other; block or foul?You might be clueless, but you’ve gotto convince people that you’re on topof the action.Whatever you do, don’t showweakness. Don’t hesitate, don’t whisperor make weak motions, don’tshrink from anything. You get loud,you make the signals emphatic, andyou give the death stare to anyonewho questions you. Eight times outof ten, everyone will back off andbelieve you.Same thing at the podium. Judgeswill throw random cases and difficulthypotheticals at you. You maynot have even heard of the decisionthat you now need to distinguishfrom the facts at bar. Figuring outan answer is key. Equally importantis showing the judges you have aclue. Stammered responses accompaniedby shuffled papers won’t doit for you. “Boom goes the dynamite”is the kiss of death. But if your nonverbalsigns are convincing—voiceinflection, tone, tempo, and eyecontact—the judges just might backoff your substantively uninspiringanswer.Slow down.Every new official does it. Yousee the contact, blow your whistle,and before action has completelystopped you’re sprinting to the scorer’stable to report the foul. None ofthe players know what’s happened.You don’t remember who committedthe foul or if free throws should beawarded. The credibility you built byselling your calls early in the gamehas evaporated.Fortunately, you learn over timethat there’s no rush. Blow the whistleand wait for everyone to stop. Onlyafter you’re sure what happened andyou’ve informed the players do youhead for the table. (Your partnerwill step in to handle the unpleasantinvective certain to be directedat you.)Moot Court judges know how oftenthis advice is repeated to competitors.You hear a difficult question orare just generally nervous. You thinkyou’re responding thoughtfully buttheanswerscomeoutsofast. Goodbyecredibility. So take your time. Pause.Inhale. Speak one sentence at a time,not three. If you feel you’re speakinga touch too slowly, you’re probablyright at the desired tempo. Then,and only then, can anyone appreciatethe insightful response you’reproviding.Nobody’s coming off the benchfor you.It’s frustrating. A shot caroms offthe rim and bodies crash into eachother, outstretched hands knockingthe loose ball out of bounds. In a flash,you have to blow the whistle and decidewho gets the ball. “Orange!” youyell. It’s quickly clear that you, StevieWonder, should have called “Blue!”Blue’s waving their hands disgustedlyand questioning your lineage. Orangeslinks away, almost embarrassed tobe getting the ball.Now you’re on the other side ofthe court. Blue drives the lane. Youthink you see a third step. You blowthe whistle and signal a traveling violation.Blue, like ANG, is now droppingf-bombs with impunity.You want to be anywhere else.Sadly, there’s nobody checking into take you out. There’s fifteen minutesleft in the half and you’re goingto be there the whole time. You cando two things. You can start slinkingaround and let the players work youover. Or you can recover. You caneven, in a quiet moment, let Blueknow that you know you blew thecall, but things are going to be finefrom there on in. You’ve just got tokeep on moving. Focus needs to shiftfrom what has happened to whatcan happen.It’s the same at the podium. You’regoing to make a bad citation. You’llmake a weak argument, stumble ona case name, or mis-answer a question.Look around for help all youwant: Seth Waxman isn’t walkingthrough that door; Theodore Olsonisn’t walking through that door;Robert Bork isn’t walking throughthat door, and if he did, he’d be oldand gray. You’ve got to finish the argument.Figure out where you are,what you can still win, and move on.But watch out for the next point.You can’t officiate your way outof a bad game.You’re stuck out there, saddledwith the memory and foul languagethat accompany a bad call. Unfortunately,there’s no quick fix. Youcan’t grab the ball, drive the lane,and shoot your way out of a slump.There’s no big play you can make.You can’t go looking for a particularcall to make. No single action on yourpart will magically and immediatelyconvince the players that you’re actuallya good referee.There’s no cure-all for a stumble inthe courtroom either. You can’t get ahot hand, get on a roll, heat up, or goon a 12-0 run. You can’t try to draina three on every question. You’ve gotto take your time. Be methodical.Again, work with what’s in front ofyou. Making a weak argument is nodoubt a bad thing. But pressing toredeem your earlier mistake is infinitelyworse. Heck, if you don’t makea big deal of it, the judges may noteven remember your early error.Don’t get distracted by lookingup.Courtrooms have fancy seals andintimidating friezes. AFC has cutegirls running around on a trackabove the court. (Well-built guys,too, from what I understand.) Bothcan completely sidetrack you andruin an otherwise stellar performance.Don’t let it happen to you.Officiating basketball might be themost rewarding, enjoyable experienceI’ve had here in Charlottesville.If you’re looking for an unorthodoxway to improve your appellate argumentskills—or just oral presentationability in general—I couldn’trecommend officiating more. Anyof the sports offered by UVA will offerthese benefits, from broomball toinner tube water polo. Give it a tryand you’ll see the benefits the nexttime you step to the podium. (Justremember that no matter how sarcastichis comments, you can’t ejectJustice Scalia.)image courtesy of theinsiders.comThe familiar refrain “Get off your knees, Valentine . . .” is appropriate herebecause Ted Valentine is the world’s worst basketball official. With a littlepractice, you hopefully won’t receive similar catcalls either on the court or inthe courtroom.In some ways, students at the nation’stop law schools are in a uniqueposition to appreciate our country’sAndy Howlett ’10Columnistcurrent economictroubles. Peoplespeak, sometimeserroneously, of a“trickle-down” effect of economics,but what we’re about to experience ismore of a trickle-up effect. A recentpost on the law blog of record, Abovethe Law, was titled “Time for 2Ls toPanic?” and suggested, among otherthings, that in light of the recent layoffof senior associates by many biglaw firms, 2L summer associatescould find themselves in a position ofnot receiving offers to work full time.I’m not sure about that yet. Eventhough there’s been some slow-downin certain departments at firms, othershave been booming as it seemslike there’s plenty of bankruptcy litigationto go around. But, legitimatefear or not, the suggestion (backedup with some empirical evidence)underscores an important point: thecountry is in for some economic trouble,and having a JD doesn’t makeyou immune.That said, if people headed forbig law are starting to worry, thenthat speaks volumes for the rest ofthe country. The truth is that theeconomic problems are going to hitThe Recession and Youeveryone hard, starting with thelower-class and lower-middle class.And because the current slowdownhas origins that are both broad andunique, there is good reason to thinkthat an economic recovery in the traditionalsense might not be immediatelypossible.Not to discount the mortgagebackedsecurity crisis and myriadother indicators as major factors inthe economic slowdown, becausethey are, but they’ve also been coveredextensively. There are two majorfactors that explain why this recessionis going to be different fromthose that preceded it, and why atraditional recovery might not bepossible, at least for a while.First, the war. Perhaps Iraq as acause for recession is marginalized,because wars often have a positiveeffect on the US economy. This one,however, is an exception. It hasn’treally stimulated domestic industryand it’s turning out to cost a lot morethan anyone imagined. World War IIcreated a massive increase of jobs forAmerica; the Iraq war has simply createdan overwhelming need for soldiersand support staff to constitutewhat may be a permanent occupationforce.The problem here is that the governmentis spending money withoutfueling any domestic growth. Americahas already spent $560 billion dollarson Iraq at the expense of domesticneeds, and, if economist JosephStiglitz’s assessment is to be trusted,is set to spend over two trillion moreon associated costs before the war isover. In the Nation, economists at thePolitical Economy Research Institute(PERI) summarize the situation bynoting that on balance “upward of1 million jobs were lost because theBush Administration chose the Iraqsinkhole over public investment.”There’s no easy way out of thisone. Even Clinton and Obama’s“withdrawal” plans are going to resultin a sizable US presence in Iraqfor sometime to come, to say nothingof the costs already incurred andcommitted to. Of course, as far as thebottom line is concerned, that’s infinitelypreferable to McCain’s centuryapproach.The second problem is oil. It wouldbe great if the high oil prices wereinexorably tied to the Iraq debacle,as some on the Left suggest, butthe problem is that they’re not. Unlikethe energy crisis that the Carteradministration faced, the primaryproblem here is a genuine shortagein the available supply of crude oil,not political constraints (althoughthat is, admittedly, a tertiary factor).Thus the recovery of that period—fueledby a stabilizing of the politicalsituation—is impossible now.The only way to escape the gasolineprices that have nowhere to go butup is for the government to decreasedemand by subsidizing—massivelyand quickly—the development andimplementation of alternative energysources.Anyway, back to the effect on currentlaw students. It’s true that highgas prices hurt the poor the most, becausethey have to spend the largestproportion of their income on fuel.Similarly, the crumbling domesticinfrastructure and the governmentneglect of healthcare, education, andpublic investment projects hurts theless fortunate the most, and they, incidentally,are the group least likelyto be helped by the proposed taxrebatechecks, which will ultimatelyend up being used to purchase importedproducts instead of propellingdomestic growth.But it adds up. It’s times like thiswhen the poor get poorer, everyonegets poorer. As we’ve already seen,decreased purchasing power of lowerand middle classes means America’slargest businesses make less money.And with less overall business beingconducted, there’s less of a needfor $500/hour legal advising. Whatmakes things different than beforeis that a rapid recovery doesn’t seemto be in the cards, and so there’s timefor this phenomenon to make a longterm,as opposed to temporary, effectin the structure of big law firms,where—again according to Abovethe Law—lawyers in many departmentsare having trouble meetingtheir billable hours requirement dueto want of work.And that’s where the layoffs comein. For now many firms are tryingto accommodate by switching theirlawyers over to busier departments(from real estate to litigation, for example),but that’s merely a stop-gapmeasure. The truth is, as a result ofa variety of circumstances, there’ssimply less money to go around, andpeople in big law are going to be feelingthe hit just like everyone else.The total effect is hard to predict.In the short term it seems like firms,in addition to layoffs/transfers, maybe hiring fewer new associates. In thelong term, it depends on how quicklyAmerica decides it wants to recoverfrom this recession. Obama has beenlambasted by many in the legal communityfor promising to end theBush tax cuts and the social-securitytax cut, which would lead to a sizablepay decrease among big-law associates.That could be tough for manynewly-minted lawyers to swallow,but it’d be more than worth it if themoney went toward curing the recessionthrough subsidizing state and localpublic interest projects (the mosteffective economic stimulus during arecession according to PERI) and alternativeenergy sources. It will costassociates some serious dough, but,ultimately, it may save them theirjobs.Email: ah8gu@virginia.edu

Friday, 21 March 2008VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY Reviews 7Eating at the Corner (Before the Late Night Trip to Little John’s or Christian’s)Brian Chan ’09ReviewerKara Allen ’10ReviewerWhile you were relaxing on thebeach in Cancun, the high winds ofVirginia knocked the power out in myarea. After five minutes of trying toread Property by flashlight, I decidedgoing to the movies with my motherwould probably be more fun. SinceTom had already reviewed Fool’s Gold,we decided on Penelope; even thoughI was reluctant to give James McAvoyanother chance after that downerAtonement.It’s fortunate I’m forgiving—McAvoy’sperformance was so good I almostwrote the entire review abouthim. Then I realized some of you willget dragged to this movie by your girlfriends,and probably want to knowthere’s more to this movie than someguy who is better looking than you.There’s no way around it though—James McAvoy was really, really, ridiculouslygood-looking. He had theunkempt “I-didn’t-shave-this-morning-because-I-was-up-all-night-doing-something-badass-like-playingin-a-band”look. The only good thingabout exam time is most guys aroundhere start getting that look. Only it’sbecause they were studying Contracts,not doing anything badass.ThreeThree is a relative newcomer tothe Corner, taking over the spotformerly occupied by Jaberwocké.Before the tables are cleared and thebar fills with undergrads grinding tothe ’80s, it boasts a respectable restaurant.The atmosphere is casual,with top-40 songs playing and TVs inthe line of sight of each table. Servicewas friendly and unassuming.The menu is small, but each dishis a well-crafted example of upscalebar food. You’ll find appetizersdrawn from the usual bar staples:quesadillas, calamari, and the like.The entrees are routine continentalfare. You won’t find anything thatpushes the culinary envelope, butevery item on the menu is large, inexpensive,and well-prepared, savefor a few minor problems.For example, our appetizer wasa quesadilla filled with corn, blackbeans and cheese. The dish was perfectlycooked, with a crispy tortillaand cheese properly melted (a practicemany of the Mexican restaurantsin Charlottesville have yet to learn).It suffered, however, from being noticeablyunder-seasoned, a mistakethat muted the flavors of the variousingredients. The entrees werea pleasant surprise. Our skirt steakwas seared to a proper medium-rareand served atop a sizeable mound ofmashed potatoes. The day’s special,a filet of trout wrapped in bacon andserved atop cubed sweet potatoes,was beautifully presented, but justslightly overcooked.These problems, however, are justnitpicking. As a whole, everythingon Three’s menu was competentlyprepared. That, in addition to thereasonable price and sizable portions,make Three a solid choice for acasual dinner on The Corner. Grade:A-ZydeCoNew Orleans has one of our nation’smost distinct culinary traditions,a tradition ZydeCo attempts toPenelope: A Movie With Class (and James McAvoy, Too)Anyway, Christina Ricci does agreat job portraying the likeable Penelope,a girl cursed with a pig face.The curse can only be broken, the legendgoes, when Penelope is acceptedby one of her own. Her mother, playedby the always entertaining CatherineO’Hara, decides this means she musta find a rich guy to marry Penelope assoon as possible. It’s kind of like TheBachelorette, only when a contestantsees the girl for the first time, he runsscreaming and jumps out of a secondstory window. An encounter with onepotential suitor, Max (McAvoy), convincesPenelope it’s time to get out ofthe house. The rest of the movie followsthe results of her adventure.The best part of Penelope is probablythe dialogue. It’s clever andintelligent, but not in that GilmoreGirls rapid fire way that gives you aheadache. It’s natural, but still muchmore entertaining than any conversationyou might have at Biltmore. Themovie is also exceptional in that it hasclass. One of my favorite characters isa reporter (Peter Dinklage) trying toexpose Penelope. I think his name isLemon, but most of his scenes werewith McAvoy so I wasn’t really payingattention to minute details likedialogue. Anyway, he is a little person,and I kept waiting for that predictablereflect in its mix of Creole and barbecue.But just as Charlottesville is along way from New Orleans, ZydeCois a long way from being a great NewOrleans restaurant.Like the other Corner offerings,ZydeCo’s prices are fair, with entreesranging between ten to fifteendollars. The menu includes a numberof New Orleans staples: catfish,crawfish, and jambalaya, as well asa variety of barbecue offerings witha choice of four sauces. Each dishcomes with a choice of southernstylesides.Service was fast but somewhat impersonal.None of our entrees spentany time under a warming light; buton the other hand, our server rarelynoticed the empty bread bowl or waterglasses.The food itself did little justice toits Creole and barbecue traditions.The blackened catfish, while notovercooked, was almost tasteless.None of ZydeCo’s “own 12-spicemix” was apparent, and the filet wascompletely unseasoned. Similarly,joke about height. But the only crackever made about him is a pirate joke,which is politically correct since hewears an eye patch. The movie neverstoops to the ‘laughing at people becausethey fell down’ low that comediestoday seem unable to avoid.It’s a good premise—we’ve all feltlike Penelope at some point. Maybe wewent a little too far at the China KingBuffet, or maybe we had buck teethin prep school and the boys made funof us during swim team practice or inthe Natural Wonders store when wewere just trying to look at the kaleidoscopein peace. The lesson we takeaway from this premise, however, is alittle unclear. The movie resolves theissue of being unattractive in a waythat is meant to be inspiring, but isultimately a bit troubling. In the end,you’re left unsure of what exactly themoral of the story is.In fact, the clearest message ofPenelope is that wealthy people areshallower than the rest of us—or as acharacter in the movie more succinctlyput it: rich people stink. I’m not surewhether American director Mark Palanskyhates England or is just reallypatriotic. Whatever the reason, nearlyall the likeable, warm characters areAmerican.This is most evident with McAvoy’scharacter: though the movie takesplace in England, McAvoy discardshis Scottish accent for an Americanone. (You probably thought Englandand Scotland were totally differentcountries, but according to Wikipediathe Queen of England runs both,so they’re pretty much the same.)Moreover, Penelope’s English ‘blueblood’suitors are the only people inthe film besides her mother who freakthe shrimp po’ boy was bland andserved with unripe lettuce and tomato.The pulled pork with ZydeCo’shouse barbecue sauce tasted of littlemore than tomatoes and vinegar.Natives of New Orleans oftenclaim you can’t find good Creole cuisineanywhere else. The same can besaid of the various styles of barbecue.ZydeCo does little to disprove thesenotions. Grade: CMichael’s Bistro and Tap HouseMichael’s, the second-story bar onUniversity Ave. is best known for itsextensive selection of Belgian-styleand Lambic beers. The beer selectionis so good that I suspect the chefsfrequently sample for themselves.That’s fairly plausible, given howpoor the food was.Michael’s menu design bears themark of an amateur chef who is tryingtoo hard. Half the menu reflectsAmerican-style cuisine, while theother half is a mix of the most stereotypicalentrees from several ethnicstyles. Curry and teriyaki are interspersedwith salads and Americanstyledishes. The result is a scatteredkitchen where no cooking style isproperly practiced.Whereas the menu design wasmediocre, its execution was deplorable.Our calamari appetizer wasflavorless. The bison burger wasordered medium but came out twolevels beyond well done. The spinachsalad featured an overly acidicraspberry vinaigrette, and wastopped with rubbery and flavorlessshrimp. While most of our entreeswere bland and unseasoned, thechicken teriyaki was the opposite. Itwas overly-salted to the point whereit was inedible, and served on a bedof powdered mashed potatoes.The service, at least, was excellent.Our server was both quick andresponsive. She was able to answerquestions about the menu, and alsoshowed an impressive knowledge ofthe massive beer list.In short, Michael’s is a good bar,and a fun place to try some newbeers; just make sure you eat athome before you go. Grade: Dimage courtesy of iwatchstuff.comThe most embarassing thing about Christina Ricci’s character: the scarf.out about Penelope’s face. The moviedoesn’t need to go so far out of its wayto tell us rich kids are the devil—anyonewho had buck teeth and went to aprep school already knows that.Overall Ranking: If this movie werea journal review tryout, I’d put it onthe Journal of International Law. It’s ahigh quality film, but the mixed messageskeep it from being the kind ofgreat that is worthy of Law Review.Title SummaryProCon GradeTelevisionJohn Adams, HBOMiniseries, Sundays at9pmBased on David McCullough’s biographyand produced by Tom Hanks, thisseven-part miniseries traces the life ofJohn Adams from early 1770s Boston tohis death on the 50th anniversary of thesigning of the Declaration. Parts 1 and2 premiered this past Sunday, but are inheavy re-run rotation on HBO.HBO spares no expense whenit comes to its own productions,and this is no exception. WithPaul Giamatti, Laura Linney,and Tom Wilkinson, the casthas three Oscar-nominees. Also,Tom Hanks continues his forayinto American history as producer.Such a talented team workingfrom McCullough’s book shouldmake this an entertaining andmaybe even educational project.HBO must be careful, however,to ensure both substanceand style, which, unfortunately,it did not do with anotherbig-budget historicalproject, Rome. Also, Giamattihasn’t done much of notesince his role as the unsavoryand wimpy Miles in Sideways,and such characteristics aren’tquite right for a presidentialleading man.B+SportsUVA Baseball v. BostonCollege; Friday-Sunday, March 21-March 23ACC conference play started for the‘Hoos on March 8 against N.C. State,and they are 2-4 overall in the conferenceafter dropping two out of threeversus Duke last weekend. Student admissionto games is free with your ID.The student section is in the general admissionarea of Davenport Field, whichis located across from U-Hall.One of Virginia’s strongspring teams, the ‘Hoos startedthe season 11-2 and arecurrently ranked 16th in thecountry. But, after some earlyACC season hiccups, hopefullythey will be able to regain theirstride against the unrankedEagles. Also, you can stop nextdoor on Saturday to see themen’s lacrosse team take on perennialpower Johns Hopkins.Ping! That is the sound ofa metal bat hitting a 90 mphfastball. It lacks the charm ofthe “crack” of a wooden bat,and is one of the reasons Idon’t follow college baseballuntil the College World Series.What it lacks in style, however,the metal bat can make up forin increased offense.A

8 The Back PageVIRGINIA LAW WEEKLYFriday, 21 March 2008“So hey, how about that EliotSpitzer?” I said to my friend as we satdown to dinner last week. She justNatalie Blazer ’08ColumnistIf This Place Were Any Shadier, It Wouldshrugged. “At leastthe girl was highclass,”she said,taking a swig of herHeineken.At least, indeed.Is that really all we can ask of ournation’s leaders these days? That ifthey cheat on their wives, it betternot be with just any old call girl? Isuppose when one of our principalpresidential candidates has been involvedin a scandal featuring a, ah,slightly lower-class broad, our boySpitzer gets off easy. Ahem. So here’sthe question: is it the public figureswho make us think it’s okay to act acertain way, or rather, are we moreforgiving of them because we, too,are less-than-model citizens? Apparentlyit doesn’t matter who youare—politician, law student, celebrity—thesedays, everyone seems tobe carrying a moral compass pointingto nowhere in particular.And speaking of celebrities, it maybe time for me to stop reading gossipmagazines, because every time I seeanyone from law school off-grounds,there is a running commentary inmy head exactly like the one fromthe “VIP Scene” page in US Weekly.As much as I have willed it to stop,I fear that I am stuck with it for life.Of course, I am not so deluded as tothink that law students are celebrities(ha, I mean, that would just be silly,right?), but seriously, here’s a sampleof actual things that I have said to myselfas I have made my way aroundCharlottesville: Ryan Melogy, 2L,stocking up on produce at the HarrisTeeter on Barracks Road. SarahWhitlock, 3L, walking her dog Rosawith fiancé John Kabealo, alumnus,on Arlington Boulevard. CareyMignerey, 2L, purchasing CheeseburgerBig Bites TM for two unidentifiedyounger females at the 7-11 onIvy Road. Usually these people don’teven see me—I simply think the linesto myself as I walk or drive by extraslowly,wondering if I am spelling thenames correctly in my head.Now, before you judge me for thisadmittedly bizarre behavior, mightI remind you that a) this law schoolcommunity is a tiny place, b) I ama 3L and want to make sure I knowwho everybody is before I leave, andc) I am bored.So, so far in this column I have notonly come across as super-creepy,but I have also violated my numberonerule of column-writing, whichis to never use anyone’s real names.I have that rule because it is waymore fun for people to simply guesswho I’m writing about, and then toconfront me about it, using “facts”and “actual events” to back up their“knowledge.” But I broke that rule inthe paragraph above simply becausethose activities are so innocuous (actuallythe jury’s still out on the thirdone) that I don’t think people wouldmind seeing their names in print(plus, the bold-faced type meansthat those people will now feel, bydefinition, “very important”).And anyway, at least I’m not takingpaparazzi-style photos of thesesightings and selling them to the LawWeekly. This is mostly because a) despitewhat you might have gleanedfrom my alarming number of Facebookalbums, I do not actually carrya camera on my person 24 hours aday, b) the Law Weekly is distributedfor free, and c) absolutely nobodycares. Come on—when this place iscrawling with people making out inthe middle of bars and crowded parties,I doubt anybody would care tosee a blurry photo of certain male3Ls exiting the Ultra Tan tanning salonon Millmont Road (and . . . we’reofficially back to the no-name policy.But for the record, it is sensible to geta pre-Spring Break base).Public make-outs aside (andplease, can we put those aside, forgood?) it’s what’s going on that nobodyknows about that makes thisschool shadier than a sugar maple.Or should I say, it’s what’s going onthat people think nobody knowsabout. After all, a wise woman onceBe a ForestJ. Jeffries: So, the reasonthat you all may be attracted tosaid, “Wedding rings come off, youknow.” An even wiser one said “EV-ERYONE AT THIS SCHOOL IS SOSHADY.”Now, to all you 1Ls out there, Ihave heard you judge what goeson in the 3L class, and that is okay.There is still time for you to thinkthat you will be different. Just as youcurrently believe that, in our criminaljustice system, everyone is innocentuntil proven guilty, you alsoprobably think that people aroundyou are generally doing the “rightthing.” Well, just as your beliefsabout justice in America will comecrashing down as you take moreand more upper-level criminal procedurecourses, you will also learnthat, when you are a 3L, you are infact guilty until proven innocent. Bythe time you get to where we are,JOHN M. OLINLAW AND ECONOMICS SCHOLARSHIPSApplications are now being accepted by theJohn M. Olin Program in Law and Economics forthe 2008-2009 Olin Scholarships. The scholarshipsare awarded to law students with superior academiccredentials and a demonstrated ability and interestin the study of law and economics. Olin Scholarswill be required to enroll in a law & economicsseminar course in the spring of 2009.graphic by Michael Seeligson ’09everyone is assuming the worst ofeveryone else. Eventually you willlearn that, while the Honor Codewill protect your Property book inScott Commons, it will not followyou (much less your boyfriend/girlfriend)home from the Corner.Indeed, I would advise you 1Ls togo ahead and milk that “no, we justhad a platonic sleepover” excusewhile you still can. Because if two3Ls have a platonic sleepover in theforest, and nobody’s around to see it,it simply didn’t happen (if someonewas around to see it, well, your forestsounds shadier than most). So enjoythese last few days of blissful ignorance,when you can widen yourlittle eyes as far as they will go andask, with genuine disbelief, “Wait,s/he did what? With who? But isn’tthat—”At this point, a sage 3L will nodgravely and say, “First of all, it’s ‘withwhom.’ And second of all, yes. Whats/he did was wrong. But you haveto remember that a) the law schoolcommunity is a tiny place, b) we are3Ls and want to make sure we . . .know who everybody is before weleave, and c) we are bored.”Email: nrb5x@virginia.edufaculty quotesthe Cadillac of legal practicesis—wait, that might date me alittle bit. I meant the Lexus oflegal practice.J. Kraus: It’s not like God firesa gun and people stop whaling.J. Mahoney: The court doesn’tlike to value sexual services.They’re not in the business ofdetermining whether [the wife]is a one-diamond or two-diamondgirl.M. Klarman: Jews and Democratswere more likely to voteDemocrat in the 1940s . . . DidI say Jews and Democrats? It’sJews and Catholics. Democratsare always more likely to voteDemocratic.G. Yin: I do have a bit of a cluehow the tax code works.S. Smith: I hope you’re feelinglike senators. Not in friskiness.Keep your hands to yourself forthe purpose of this exercise.J. Kraus: Let me bring incourse of dealing, usage of trade,and a dancing bear.R. Schragger: When you’reblinded by love, you’re not goingto negotiate very well.G. Mitchell: You call ME tothe stand, an unimpeachablewitness!Class: [hearty laughter]G. Mitchell: That was not supposedto prompt hearty laughter.J. Kraus: Don’t let me bullyyou! Put your spine back in!B. Cushman: One of thesecases is In re Estate of Vanderhoofen,which I teach primarilybecause it is fun to say.T. Jacobi: Do you agree withme?Student: I guess, if you say so.L. BeVier: In class, we havebeen discussing the differencebetween First Amendment coverageand protection. But theSupreme Court’s requirementof pasties and a g-string when itcomes to nude dancing provideslittle coverage and no protection.Interested first and second year students shouldsubmit a resume with all post-secondary transcripts(including law grades), one letter of recommendationand a personal statement describing their interestin the economic analysis of law to Joyce Holt (WB358) by Monday, April 14.