A long time ago, I lost that youthful enthusiasm for law school. I think maybe it was September of 1L. But hard work is doing something you don't want to do . . . and keeping on doing it even after it becomes an anti-thrill. In a sense, law school is just that: learning what it means to keep on keeping on.
But I regained a shadow of that former enthusiasm yesterday after Negotiable Instruments. All through 1L, you study cases and learn doctrines that are so abstract and basic that you think either (a) they don't really happen in real life and so are utterly useless or (b) you will never have any grasp on the law as it really is--vast and complex. After a few weeks, 2L has changed those thoughts for me. I'm reading the UCC* and it starts talking about consequential damages, and that means something to me. Or I'm reading the BOC** for Bizzorg*** and LAPP starts bubbling to the surface and I realize that corporate directors are liable only for actual damages and not punitive damages because (1) the rule of implied exclusion and (2) the director relationship is kinda contract-y, and contracts only lead to actual damages, not punitive. Then, the cherry on top of this pedagogical sundae, I have an intelligent discussion by the coffee machine about whether a Marylander can use promissory estoppel to recover damages when we beat him up after promising not to beat him up.****
So I guess the point of this post is twofold. First, if there are any 1Ls who read this, rest assured that it does get better and things will cohere--just not for a long time. Second, to my fellow 2Ls: we're making progress and I can actually start seeing lawyers in each of us. Shame on us.
*If we call the TUPA "toopa," the TRPA "trippa," and the TUUNAA "tuna," then why don't we call the UCC "uck"?
**Most people pronounce this "beeyoSEE," but I propose we change it to "bach."
***Resistance is futile, yo.
****The answer is "Why not just sue for assault and battery and get the punitives p/e blocks?"