Reflection on First Day of Legal Writing Course

Legal Journal

Week of September 24

Coming into this course on a Monday Evening, I truly did not know what to expect. I did not know to whether I should prepare to read case files. Or if we would have to plan to take a vast amount of tests to test us on the information. All I knew was that I was hoping to go deep, deep into the law, how it affects our daily lives, and how I can apply it to the business landscape.

This week is critical to shaping my opinions as we move through the course.

Professor first presents this graphic that establishes our learning curve for the course:

I found this graphic to be quite interesting. This is typical for courses that are accelerated, but it is agreed through the course that we all wanted to strive to drive the green curve forward. Time will tell if we accomplish this goal.

We then discussed the introductory objectives and initial questions to start the conversation.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Government

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The question that stood out to me the most is "What legal issues most commonly arise in your work?" I would have to say that the most that I deal with my legal department is when I help to develop contracts and/or partnership agreements with clients and customers. All contracts have to abide by state law and have proper language in its terms and agreements. This is where the collaboration with my company's legal department comes in. I would have our legal counsel review our contracts to make sure the company is protected through the course of agreement.

This is about the extent of where my interaction lies in my current work.

I believe that this introductory session has really helped curve my expectations in a different direction, and has allowed me to think holistically about governmental regulations of business as he mentions several times in the lecture. Thus we move into Chapter 1. Chapter 1 begins by establishing law in these dimensions: Definition, classifications, and sources. I like the simple definition of saying that Law is made up of rules and the rules are laid down by the state and backed up by enforcement. This way of explaining law in its basic fashion is the best way to lay a strong foundation down for the discussion. I think the book does a good job in expanding the direction of the conversation based on that simple premise of what law is. Because from the true definition of law, the book was able to expand into Law and property and how it relates to corporate governance.

Chapter 3 was also critical because we discussed court systems. The thing that was most important to me was understanding the types of court systems and how these systems are organized. Not all courts are equal, but each play their own significant role within the judicial system. Professor Shedd broke down the court system in the state of Georgia and it really put things into perspective:

I came away from this session with an even greater appreciation for why we vote in not just the presidential elections, but in the state and local elections as well. It is crucial because our leaders at the ground level are the ones who affect law and the effectiveness of the execution of the court systems. Another important fact to note is that there are certain actions that the state courts take in order to stay in line with the rules of the Supreme Court. The most important action is Writs of Certiorari which is asking the US Supreme Court to review the State Supreme Court. Ultimately, I found it important to know the types of courts and how they are related to one another.

Week of October 1

On this particular week, I was actually out of town so I missed the class discussion for my section. Fortunately for me, I was able to make the Wednesday class which I found interesting. After reading the background material before class, I was highly intrigued with the case about IMA vs. Never-Leave-It Tobacco since it deals with a controversial issue of smoking. I anticipated that our jury selection process would be interesting to say the least.

Our class discussion was focused on the litigation process from suit to trial. The most glaring highlight of the in-class discussion was the topic of personal jurisdiction and who has jurisdiction over each party. How does Court get jurisdiction over the plaintiff? How does court get jurisdiction over the defendant? This topic was illustrated by the car accident example. We examined what would happen if a Chicago-based executive comes to Atlanta for a meeting and while in Atlanta has a car accident involving another driver who lives in Nevada. Where the lawsuit should be filed in order to obtain personal jurisdiction? My first thought was that everything should be filed in Georgia because that is the site where the accident happened. You never want to file in your own home state because you are seeking damages from the defendant and the courts have less personal jurisdiction. You can still file in Georgia, but I discovered that you can actually can and should file the suit in the defendant's home state, which in this case would be Nevada. The actual case venue is determined using the Georgia Venue Statute. If the defendant is non-resident, then venue is in the county where plaintiff resides or where the accident occurred. In this situation, I would ABSOLUTELY want my case to be heard in my home state to limit my law and travel expenses.

This leads us back to the case between IMA and Never-Leave-It tobacco. As we were going through the jury selection process, I noticed that the selection criteria was drastically different than the selections of my classmate. Depending on if I was the defendant or the plaintiff at the time, my thinking was to choose the best jury that would help me win the case, and not based on if who I was picking is morally right or wrong. I wanted non-smokers and healthy people as a plaintiff, and smokers, sailors, and blue-collar workers as the defendant to support my cause. I also think that as a plaintiff, I believe that non-smokers have more of a sense of empathy for those who have passed away from smoking. Those who are non-smokers are more likely to have stronger feelings to not smoke than those who do smoke. As a defendant, I thought those who believe in free will would further my cause, thus increasing my likelihood in winning the case. This exercise has great value because it makes you think about making valuable decisions while wearing multiple hats. I would be very interested in seeing a more controversial issue (such as murder or homicide) be used as a scenario for this exercise.

This week was also the first week in reading A Civil Action. In the first two chapters I read, I noticed a consistent pattern of hopelessness in the town of Woburn. While these children were suffering greatly from childhood leukemia, these families felt like they did not know where to turn. I definitely agreed they had to do something, especially when it is clear that the industrial activity of that time was affecting the health and well-being of this community. I think it is indeed a good move on the part of the Anderson's and the group of families to consult the services of Joe Mulligan and his firm. By consulting Reed & Mulligan, the families are able to pursue a suit against the companies who are responsible for contaminating the local wells. The two main companies are Beatrice foods and W.R. Grace Co. We are also introduced to Jan Schlichtmann, a well-dressed lawyer on Mulligan's firm who represents victims. We are taken into his world, and how he has a gift for arguing and influencing others to follow his viewpoints. I find Jan to be very ambitious, flashy, egotistical, and na?ve. He is all about the big bucks. As his character develops in this story, I think that we may see some crucial events happened that all start and end with Jan.

Week of October 8th

I continued my readings on a civil action, making progress up to chapter 7. We are introduced to more characters during this time. The first is Jerome Facher, who is the lawyer from the firm of Hale and Dorr. He represents Beatrice Foods. I found to be an experience lawyer who is very smart, but also old-school and very egotistical. If I am a defendant, I would definitely want him on my case because of his experience and demeanor. The second lawyer is William Cheeseman, who is the lawyer from the firm of Foley, Hoag, and Eliot. I found him to be a strong leader who is methodical in his approaches. He represents W.R Grace Co. Finally, we are introduced to Judge Walter Skinner who is assigned to the Woburn case. You can tell that Skinner was very intrigued by this case given that he was aware of the case from the news before it became his. As we learn about Judge Skinner, I found him to be power-hungry, and biased since he knew Jan beforehand.

Something that was interesting was when Cheeseman files the Rule 11 motion, you can see that Skinner is excited and makes Schlichtmann take the stand.