Morning Docket: 01.29.20

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

* President Trump’s impeachment lawyers are getting paid from various sources. [Washington Post]

* A lawyer linked to Jared Kushner was removed from the jury pool in Michael Avenatti’s criminal case. The other potential jurors will need to find other excuses… [New York Post]

* The lawyer representing the alleged Monsey Hanukkah attacker may be disqualified from the case. I litigated against this attorney years ago! [Journal News]

* Prosecutors say a Dallas attorney sold assault rifles to his client, a career felon. This brings being a full-service lawyer to a new level. [Dallas Morning News]

* Cellino & Barnes have announced the names of their successor law firms. No news yet on what their new jingles will be. [New York Post]


Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Zimbabwe’s economy is run by master criminals who are fleecing the poor – The Zimbabwean

 The Zimbabwean economy looks to many like it’s being run by people who have no idea what they are doing. One would be forgiven for thinking it’s run by clowns who keep making economic blunder after blunder. But it is not, says the writer. (Photo: Tom Jenkins / Gallo Images)

Now, a recent ruling by the Zimbabwe Supreme Court, declaring that up until February 2019, the US dollar and Zimbabwe RTGS dollar were valued at 1:1, has provided another windfall for the rich. In a country in the throes of a deepening food crisis, it will also deepen the economic meltdown at the expense of human rights.

During the government of national unity, which ran from 2009-2013, Zimbabwe “dollarised” the economy. We found ourselves using what we called a “multi-currency” system and this meant you could use any currency, but the (almost) official currency was the US dollar (USD). We got our salaries in USD and prices were quoted in USD.

In 2013, ZANU-PF won the harmonised elections and by 2014, we started to experience cash shortages. At first, it seemed like we just had a shortage of coins, or at least that is the explanation we received from the government. They explained that because we had no solid contract with the countries whose currencies we were using, we were not receiving coins and thus we were battling a shortage of small change.

On 18 December 2014, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) introduced the 1, 5, 10 and 25cent coins. They called them bond coins and claimed they were on par with the USD in value, because apparently, the coins were backed by a $50-million loan given to our government by Afrexim bank. The full details of the agreement were never made public.

By March 2015, they had introduced the 50c coin. This had many Zimbabweans wondering, was this still about shortage of small change? Or was the government secretly introducing a Zimbabwean currency?

In 2016, Zimbabwe started experiencing major cash shortages. By then, the USD had completely vanished from circulation. Zimbabweans begged the government to join the rand union, or find a way to bring back the USD from wherever it had gone.

Their pleas fell on deaf ears.

On 28 November 2016, much to our shock and horror, the RBZ not only introduced the $1 coin, but also the $2 note. This time, they explained, these bond notes were backed by a $200-million loan facility, again from the infamous Afrexim bank. Surprisingly though, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), through their press officer Andrew Kanyengire, professed ignorance over the existence of such a loan.

Two months later, while we were still trying to make sense of the introduction of the $2 note, $5 bond notes to the value of $15-million dollars (according to the government), were being circulated. Government again claimed the value of these notes was backed by a loan facility with Afrexim bank and insisted the bond note was on par with the USD. Its value against the USD was, according to them, 1:1.

The USD comes in $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100 notes. If the issue was about availing change for these notes, all we ever needed was the first set of coins. If the bond currency was on par with the US dollar in value, why then would the government feel the need to introduce a $2 and $5 bond note when we already had the USD versions of those two notes?

Where had the USD gone for us to have to replace them with our own version of them?

The whole thing stank!

It became quite clear that the government had been trying all along to deceive the public into thinking all we had was a problem of loose change, yet clearly, the problem was more astronomical than that. The USD had disappeared from circulation.

It became apparent that the bond notes were introduced because somehow all the “hard currency” had been siphoned out of circulation and the government urgently needed to do damage control. Unfortunately, the introduction of the bond notes didn’t just fail to ease the cash shortages, it seemed to worsen them.

We spent 2017 and 2018 in bank queues and most of us never managed to withdraw any cash, bond, or USD. Withdrawal limits kept falling and at some point, the maximum withdrawal limit was just $50 (bond) per week. Now the USD had completely vanished. Those who had USD savings found themselves with no access to their hard currency. The government continued to insist that the value of the bond currency was the same as that of the USD.

Had the bond note actually been a real currency and on par with the USD, and also accessible to the public, people would have been able to use bond notes in other countries by exchanging them for foreign currency, or used their visa cards and master cards outside the country. Unfortunately, no other country was accepting the bond note and by 2017, no country was accepting Zimbabwean bank cards unless pre-loaded with foreign currency. The currency was not recognised as legal tender anywhere else, but in Zimbabwe.

Yet through all this, the government continued to insist the bond and USD were 1:1.

Because there was no cash, USD or bond, people had no choice, but to resort to using “plastic money” and mobile money transfers to pay for goods and services. The first choice being ecocash, a mobile money company run by Strive Masiyiwa’s Econet. Ecocash allows one to transfer, or receive money using their mobile phone and also allows one to make payments for almost all goods, and services using their phones. Ecocash charges a commission on every transaction.

The second option was bank cards. One could swipe for goods and services, but only in major outlets as few informal and/or small businesses offered that service.

As the crisis worsened, more people, including street vendors, acquired swipe machines. This proved unsustainable to most, probably because of the bank charges, so most informal traders chose to use ecocash. Thanks to the cash crisis, both ecocash and the banks are making a killing from digital money transfers without having to lift a finger. Do you think they want the situation to change?

As it became more and more evident to all that the bond note was not on par with the USD, the black market came up with a street value of the bond note against the USD. Miraculously, cash reappeared, not in the banks where it should have been, but in the streets. (The current rate is USD$1: ZWD$25.)

Black market forex dealers are popularly known as “money changers”; somehow they have had in their possession since then, an unending supply of the local and foreign currencies that disappeared from the banking system. They brazenly display and trade thick wads of USD, rands and brand new bond notes sometimes still sealed in their Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe packaging. Who is supplying them?

The money changers offer two main services. They sell bond notes to people who need cash as some retailers do not accept card, or ecocash payments. Cash (bond notes) is sold in the streets at a 30% premium. For example, if one wants $100 bond cash, they must transfer $130 to the money changer via ecocash, or bank. The rates fluctuate daily.

Money changers also buy and sell forex. By 2018, $100 USD cost $300 Bonds. What this meant was that one who earned $300 bond, in USD terms, actually earned only $100 USD. Today, USD$100 gives you $2,200bond/RTGS.

These black market traders operate in broad daylight and one identifies them by the thick wads of cash they wave to attract customers. Government officials, who most suspect to be the source of the cash in the black market, turn a blind eye.

Instead of going out of their way to solve the cash crisis, our government chose to jump on the gravy train. In November 2018, the government introduced a 2% tax on all bank transfers. This is a human rights violation. I say so because seeing as there is no cash in the banks, Zimbabweans have no option, but to use digital money. It is a gross crime against the people because consumers have no choice, but to trade digitally.

How does the government, whose role is to protect consumers, decide to join capitalists in the exploitation of citizens?

I will illustrate this with an example of what happens to someone who earns $100.

The punishment starts the moment your salary hits the bank and the bank takes a monthly service fee of about $5. To transfer the remaining $95 to a service provider one is charged the following:

  1.   2% by the government;
  2.   A fee by the bank to move the money from the bank to ecocash; and
  3.   A fee by ecocash to send money from your ecocash account to the receiver’s.

This happens with every single transaction one makes. The government is in cahoots with our banks and with Econet to fleece already impoverished Zimbabweans of the little money they get if they’re lucky. Because of how much these stakeholders are making in their personal and institutional capacities, they are unlikely to solve the cash crisis.

In 2019, the government renamed the bond note “RTGS dollar” and announced that it was no longer on par with the USD. They announced what they called an interbank rate, which is currently pegged at USD$1: RTGS$17. They then banned all use of foreign currency marking the end of dollarisation. Again, the people were the biggest losers.

Because for the longest time, the government had insisted that the USD was 1:1 with the local currency, salaries, which had been pegged at USD during the government of national unity remained unchanged. This meant that if one was earning USD$500 in 2010, after the introduction of the bond note, they automatically started earning $500 bond. $500 bond was in real terms in 2018, worth USD$150. The introduction of the bond note eroded salaries by at least 65%, but the government insisted the value of the bond note was 1:1.

The introduction of the RTGS dollar and interbank rate was even more catastrophic. Because most salaries were not adjusted to the new rates, a salary of $500RTGS is now worth $29, according to the government’s interbank rate of 1:17.

The government will tell you they have doubled civil servants salaries, but what they did was adjust civil service earnings from an average of $500USD in 2018 to RTGS$1000, which is worth USD$58 according to the interbank rate. This not only daylight robbery, it’s a human rights violation of criminal proportions.

Victims of these criminal monetary policies can no longer afford basic human rights of food, health, education and clean water among other necessities.

The Zimbabwean economy looks to many like it’s being run by people who have no idea what they are doing. One would be forgiven for thinking it’s run by clowns who keep making economic blunder after blunder.

But it is not.

Our economy is run by top-grade criminals. Geniuses who have mastered the art of looting and disguising it as ignorance. The biggest beneficiaries of Zimbabwe’s economic woes is Zimbabwe’s ruling elite. It is they who siphoned USD out of the banking system and replaced them with worthless bond notes. It is they who have access to the scarce bond note and are selling it in the streets at a 30% premium. It is our ruling elite that continues to have access to the little forex we earn from exports.

In 2019, Neville Mutsvangwa, son of the Minister of Information, Monica Mutsvangwa and Chris Mutsvangwa was caught with USD$200,000, which he was apparently illegally trading in the black market, but nothing was done to him. Where did he get that kind of money?

In December 2019, the fight between Vice President Chiwenga and his wife exposed how the political elite has access to forex through the CBZ bank. Clearly, the majority of people are facing cash shortages caused and exploited by the ruling elite.

Chief Justice comes to the rescue – of the elite

On 21 January 2020, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, Luke Malaba, ruled that all debts incurred before February 2019 were 1:1 with the USD. Who stands to benefit from such a ruling?

In 2014, when ZANU-PF stalwart and former security minister, Didymus Mutasa was kicked out of ZANU-PF, they went after him by exposing that he owed $69,000 to the electricity authority, ZETDC. It is clear that as a government official, he had not been paying for electricity.

In September 2018, Sydney Sekeramayi, a ZANU-PF politburo member and former minister of state security, was sent to the high court over a USD$327,481 debt owed to the electricity company. If he did not clear the bill, he can now go and pay RTGS$327,481m equivalent to USD$1,488. He was not the only one named.

Tendai Savanhu, former ZANU-PF MP for Mbare owed USD $19,116.20. ZANU-PF MP for Buhera South, Joseph Chinotimba owed USD $43,716. Ambrose Mutinhiri owed USD$54,000. Robert and Grace Mugabe owed USD$345,000 in December 2011, who knows what the figure is now?

According to The Telegraph, on 19 March 2012, Emmerson Mnangagwa then the defence minister, Sekeramayi, Mutasa and Webster Shamu then information minister, owed a combined 650,000 British pounds in bills. Saviour Kasukuwere, then youth minister, owed £70,000 and Morgan Tsvangirai £4,000. One can only wonder how much they now owe.

More ZANU-PF leaders have been exposed as owing ZETDC over the years including Oppah Muchinguri, the current minister of defence, who was reported in 2015 by the Zimbabwe Independent as having last paid her electricity bill for her highlands home in 2012. Christopher Mutsvangwa, Chris Mushowe and many others have been implicated too.

If we assume that all ZANU-PF leaders do not pay their municipal and power bills, it means combined, they owe our parastatals millions of USD. If any of them owed USD$500,000, it means they can pay it back as RTGS$500,000 today, worth a paltry USD$29,000.

The judgment has managed to reduce any debts they have by over 90%!

Zimbabwe currently owes millions of dollars to Mozambique and South Africa for electricity. How much of that bill belongs to ZANU-PF leaders? Because of this judgment that has slashed their debts, it is ordinary Zimbabweans who will for years be tasked with paying those foreign debts.

Government, as an institution, is another major beneficiary of this ruling. Government, known for not paying bills, owes hundreds of millions of USD to parastatals for telephone services, power, water etc. Their debt has just been slashed. It is said that the domestic debt bill stands at USD$9-billion, according to finance minister, Mthuli Ncube in 2018. This judgment, at the expense of the companies government owes, has reduced that debt to just over USD$400-million.

The biggest loser in all of this is the people. The institutions owed money by government officials and the state will suffer huge losses from this and are unlikely to ever be able to provide services efficiently. We shall continue to face water and electricity shortages. Companies will close, jobs will be lost and prices will increase.

Pensioners who were owed their payouts in USD will now be given their pensions in RTGS at 1:1. Insurance we paid for in USD will be paid out in the worthless RTGS.

Zimbabwe is in the hands of ruthless parasites who will suck the nation dry if not stopped. MC

Thandekile Moyo is a writer and human rights defender from Zimbabwe. For the past four years, she has been using print, digital and social media (Twitter: @mamoxn) to expose human rights abuses, bad governance and corruption. Moyo holds an Honours degree in Geography and Environmental Studies from the Midlands State University in Zimbabwe.

The Punk Rock Law School Lesson

In the tort law classic Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, where was Palsgraf trying to travel that day? It is, in fact, in the first sentence of Cardozo’s legendary opinion.

Hint: The title alludes to the fact that this location is the subject of a punk standard.

See the answer on the next page.

Former $115K A Month Qatari Lobbyist Is SHOCKED, SHOCKED At Hunter Biden’s Sweetheart Deal

Oh and look who Pam Bondi knows! Drain the swamp indeed. (Photo Tweeted by Parnas’s attorney)

The Trump defense team has made some inspired casting choices. They trotted out Ken Starr, a guy whose own ethics advisor resigned in 1998 saying he’d “violated [his] obligations under the independent counsel statute and [had] unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment” to tut-tut at Democrats for using impeachment “too frequently.”

They hired Milhouse van Houten to wield his considerable charisma (cough) to emphasize the importance of executive privilege, something Donald Trump’s counsel alluded to but never once actually invoked in his blanket order that no member of the executive branch should cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.

And they invited former Florida Attorney General and sometime Fox News host Pam Bondi to give an impassioned speech about Donald Trump’s abiding antipathy for corruption (don’t laugh!), which made it absolutely necessary for him to establish a back channel to Ukraine through his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and a couple of low-rent, Soviet-born sycophants, and also to secretly withhold congressionally allocated defense funds until the Ukrainian president announced an investigation of his chief electoral rival Joe Biden.

In what Jeffrey Toobin described as a “parade of lies,” Bondi painted an entirely false picture of Joe Biden corruptly forcing out an honest Ukrainian prosecutor to protect his son Hunter Biden’s business interests, rather than delivering an anti-corruption ultimatum that was the consensus demand of the IMF, the EU, the entire Obama executive branch, and congressional Republicans.

And while her description of Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business as sleazy is certainly accurate, she may not be the ideal person to deliver this message. Bondi personally solicited a $25,000 campaign donation from Donald Trump in 2013, as her office was investigating Trump University for fraud. Days after receiving the donation, she dropped the case. Moreover, her campaign appears to have been somewhat less than scrupulous in scrutinizing its donors. The campaign happily deposited a check from Trump’s charitable foundation, clearly an excluded donor. Later, that foundation was shut down for making illegal donations, one of which went to Bondi’s campaign.

Bondi’s description of Hunter Biden’s $50,000 per month payout to sit on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company as something wildly out of the ordinary in DC beggars belief. Before joining the White House legal team, Bondi herself was getting paid $115,000 every month to “provide consulting and advocacy services regarding matters involving anti-human trafficking” to the government of Qatar. Because when you’re in the presidential orbit, sometimes people just throw money at you!

A lecture on nepotism from a White House which allows Jared and Ivanka Kushner access to every foreign leader on the planet, not to mention paying Rudy Giuliani’s large adult son $95,000 in taxpayer money to act as a “liaison to the sports community,” was always going to be … a stretch. But sending Pam Bondi out to deliver it was an act of contortion worthy of Cirque de Soleil.

Fact check: 4 things Trump’s attorney left out of her arguments about Biden and Burisma [CNN]


Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Judge Edith Jones Wants To Know If We Can Legislate Based On Her Outdated Stereotypes

Several years ago, Judge Edith Jones faced an ethics complaint after she went to a University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society event and, according to affidavits submitted by multiple witnesses, said “racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime,” and that the crimes they commit are more likely violent and more “heinous” than members of other ethnic groups. However, there was no recording of the event and Judge Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing saying that she “did not say such things because I have never believed them and have never said them.

Just keep that complaint top of mind in light of a recent oral argument where Judge Jones offered a little hypothetical.

In Brackeen et al. v. Bernhardt, 18-11479, the Fifth Circuit heard argument en banc in a dispute over the scope of the Indian Child Welfare Act. How far can the United States federal government, acting pursuant to its obligations to Native nations, infringe upon states. It’s an interesting question wrapped up in overlapping sovereignties. In a case like this, it’s entirely fair to ask what powers a state holds over a Native American acting outside federally recognized “Indian Country.”

On the other hand, Judge Jones asked this (around the 1:22:10 mark):

Because suppose Congress decided that because there’s this understanding — and this is purely hypothetical, not, not, not pejorative — that suppose Congress decided that, uh, Native Americans were particularly subject to alcohol abuse and that when they were off the reservation they got into an excessive number of DUI cases and they were treated excessively harshly.  Could Congress enact a law that established a new sentencing regime for, uh, uh, (quote) Indians defined similar to this who get into DUIs?

At 70, you wouldn’t think Judge Jones needs a free life lesson, but whenever a statement is prefaced with “this is purely hypothetical… not pejorative” the next thing you’re about to say is absolutely pejorative. To recap, Judge Jones is making critical decisions based on some Lone Ranger serials she once heard about “fire water.”

Cool.

Yeah, it’s hard to imagine why people thought she might have made statements in the past about the genetic predispositions of minority groups.


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Louise Linton Confirms That Her Husband Is Kind Of An A-Hole

Law School Professor Slapped Over Unauthorized Practice Of Law, Improper Referral Fee

Frank McClellan, professor emeritus at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, has been ordered to pay a $156,436 judgment.

Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Thomas McCloskey issued the order after finding that McClellan accepted a referral fee in a medical malpractice case which contravened New Jersey ethics rules, which only allow payment of referral fees by a certified trial attorney. Additionally, the judge found that McClellan’s actions in the case amounted to the unauthorized practice of law, which trebled the damages.

Cindy Johnson, the plaintiff in the underlying case, sought advice from McClellan about the med mal case and was referred to Aaron Freiwald, a Philadelphia lawyer who was practicing pro hac vice in New Jersey. McClellan received the $52,145 referral fee when there was a $500,000 settlement in the Johnson case. However, Johnson later found out certain parties weren’t included in her case, so she brought a malpractice suit against McClellan, Freiwald and others.

And, as reported by Law.com, this led to the benchslap:

“Clearly, as established by the motion record, Mr. McClellan was interloping in the underlying medical malpractice matter and, as a consequence, was improperly compensated by Freiwald for doing so—without disclosure of the arrangement to the Plaintiff and her written consent to the same—to the detriment and loss to the Plaintiff’s Estate,” McCloskey said when he entered the judgment against McClellan.

William Gold, Johnson’s attorney in the malpractice case, is less than impressed with McClellan’s ability to navigate the NJ Legal system:

McClellan “doesn’t understand the laws of New Jersey with respect to a medical malpractice case, doesn’t understand he’s practicing law in New Jersey and doesn’t understand he was illegally, criminally practicing law in New Jersey, and doesn’t understand he doesn’t have the right to a fee,” Gold said.

So far, McClellan has resisted the attempts to collect on the judgment, and as a result Johnson’s lawyer has filed a motion to find McClellan in contempt of court. But McClellan’s attorney say they are appealing the judgment.


headshotKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Martin Shkreli, his former company thwarted generic competition against toxoplasmosis drug, FTC says – MedCity News

“Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli and the company he once led were sued Monday over allegations that they deliberately sought to prevent generic competition to a drug whose list price skyrocketed and that became a poster child for high drug prices.

The Federal Trade Commission said Monday that it and New York’s state attorney general had filed charges against Vyera Pharmaceuticals – which operated under the name Turing Pharmaceuticals until 2017 – concerning the toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim (pyrimethamine). Shkreli and Turing became notorious in 2015 when the company increased the list price of Daraprim from less than $20 to more than $700 per tablet, despite the fact that it had been on the market for several decades. The drug is considered a standard of care for toxoplasmosis, a potentially fatal protozoan brain infection that affects patients with HIV/AIDS, cancers and who are receiving organ transplants.

The charges filed Monday allege that, anticipating that the price increase would invite generic competition, formed distribution agreements that would prevent generic drugmakers from obtaining the samples they would need to develop them, while also preventing them from obtaining ingredients. The deals, signed with distributors, also prevented them from selling sales data, which generic drugmakers use to determine the viability of developing a drug.

In a statement, Vyera said the allegations were “without merit” and not supported by the facts and that it would defend itself in court.

“Daraprim is a lifesaving drug for vulnerable patients,” said FTC Bureau of Competition Deputy Director Gail Levine, in a statement. “Vyera kept the price of Daraprim astronomically high by illegally boxing out the competition.”

Shkreli was convicted of fraud and conspiracy in August 2017 after bilking investors out of $10 million and sentenced in 2018 to seven years in prison in connection with another one of his companies, Retrophin. But that didn’t stop him from trying to stay in the pharmaceutical business. In March of last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that he had been using a contraband cell phone to run a new drug company, Phoenixus, out of prison, in violation of prison regulations. Forbes reported that Shkreli had been placed in solitary confinement following the Wall Street Journal report.

Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images

The Real Bad Habits Of Law Students

There are lots of lists out there about the bad habits that law students adopt while in law school. Those blogs get posted, and immediately there is someone out there tweeting “I did that bad habit and I got an A!” It’s really fun when you get that tweet about your advice for statistics students, because correlation/causation is still a thing.

Today, I offer my observation as to what law student habits I wish I could change. I think about this in terms of not only observing students in the classroom, but my own behavior as a law student.  But mostly, I think of law school as a process that can change you, and not always for the better.

  1. “Reading” cases doesn’t really mean you know what the case is about.  Sometimes reading a case once isn’t enough. And yes, there is advice against “rereading cases” because it can be a time-management issue.  Cases should be actively read (at least once). There’s a story to be gleaned from the case. A rule of law perhaps, perhaps policy, perhaps historical perspective. But that case links to a larger universe of cases. It is a piece, and your professor thought it an important enough piece to assign. That means that reading requires a bit more care in how you read.
    I understand that can be difficult, especially if you have a professor who assigns a hundred pages of reading at a time. But you’re here in law school to learn. That’s the point of this endeavor, isn’t it?
  2. Someone else’s outline doesn’t give you the answers. Having someone’s outline doesn’t mean you know the material in the outline. Yes, it might help you answer some of your professor’s questions in class, but that doesn’t mean you’ve got a grasp of the subject. Reading someone’s outline is like reading a “how to” book about swinging a golf club. You’ll never hit a ball like Tiger Woods reading a “how to golf” book. Yes, you still might get an “A,” if that is all that matters to you. But it might be quite accidental. Once again, if your goal is to learn, you’ve basically just shortchanged yourself.
  3. Mistakenly sacrificing things in life in order to study often means you are sacrificing things that can make studying (and life) easier. I remember spending some late evenings cramming, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, falling asleep at my desk. What I didn’t understand is that I was creating my own little stress chamber. By depriving myself of sleep, sunlight, food, time with friends, and peace of mind, I was creating conditions that would make it more difficult to study. “I’ll never understand this!” I would say as my heart was racing from my fifth double espresso of the night. I was right: I wasn’t priming myself to allow information to enter my head. I was doing what others were doing, and what I thought was expected of me. But I wasn’t learning.
  4. Habits you start in law school stay with you after law school if you aren’t careful. Procrastination is the one that comes most often to mind. Putting off until the last minute can often be the recipe for disaster, as some who have had printer issues can attest to. But procrastination isn’t the only one. Avoidance is another. Often, students avoid some opportunities for fear of failure or rejection. Many times, that which we carry into law school in terms of emotional baggage gets carried out with us, because we have not taken time to care for our own mental health. That is a terrible way to start a stressful career.
  5. You can lose yourself in law school. Often, students seek to fit in to what their perception is of the law school community. That can be an anxiety-laden, cut-throat, and competitive world. The intense pressure can change us. We can become things that we loathe. We can turn from being compassionate, generous, and human into petty, selfish, and amoral tools.  That transition comes at the cost of your soul. As you become lawyers, it is all too easy to sacrifice your morals for the sake of the firm’s profits.
  6. Mistakes (even on exams) are as important for learning as studying. I’m not saying we should all go out and make a bunch of deliberate mistakes. I’m suggesting that mistakes we make teach us valuable lessons, if we let them. As I’ve written before, making mistakes makes “you human. They make you grow. They make you learn. And, they make you humble.”
    Query: An “A” student and a “C” student on an exam: Which one mastered the subject matter? Trick question, as I didn’t tell you how long ago the exam was. Both have the opportunity to improve and learn. When law professors say “you are not your grades,” this is what we mean. A grade is a measure of how you did one day. Learning from mistakes can actually make you a better lawyer. And an “A” exam is never perfect.
  7. If you don’t have a strong center, law school can crush you against the rocks. I didn’t realize in law school how much law school can change you. All of the anxiety, stress, pressure, peer pressure, competition, one-upmanship, expectations, and grades are a constant stream of pressure that can play hell with your ego, if you let it. It is hard to stay centered with the tornado of all of that unease is around you. But you’ll be better off if you have yourself centered.

You might notice that the list starts out with seemingly small things, and builds. My point is that everything can turn out to be a big thing over time. So it is good to be deliberate in how you learn, how you study, and how you live in law school.


LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.