Best Week Ever #9: Oooh, that’s what they meant by IRAC!

Spring break is over! Oh wherever did it go?

I spent my spring break working. And to answer your question – yes, someone deigned to hire the most notoriously clumsy law student on earth. I think it’s because I carry napkins around and apologize profusely whenever the tumbler from hell spews coffee everywhere…1

My job is in the suburbs, so I spent a lot of time screaming singing and dancing to my playlist while driving. 2

Between the internship, school work, and the random-for-fun cases,3 I read over 100 cases this week. Yes, I am  officially blind. Urkle, watch out!

I had an epiphany while reading case after case: there was some structure here, some reoccurring pattern… I thought for a second and almost shouted from my cubicle, “OH MY GOD THIS IS WHAT THEY MEANT BY IRAC!”

The court states the problem (issue), the applicable law (rule), applies the rule to the facts of the case (application), and then …yes, comes to a conclusion. Oh my god. Where was I during legal writing? I knew what the acronym stood for, but I didn’t truly understand how to apply it until this week. 4

And the beauty of IRAC is that it makes legal writing SO flipping easy and clean. It’s brilliant. Opinions are so much harder to read when the court doesn’t follow the “roadmap then IRAC” format.

I might be the last law student to get on the IRAC train, but hey, at least I got there eventually.5

Other thrills of my week included my room smelling like a swamp, finishing a non-legal book, going to the hot-ghetto-mess that is Popeye’s Chicken, and that No634 now has its own facebook page. I wonder how long it will take me to get to 10 fans!6


1 Apparently my ‘professional’ subscribers think this is hilarious because they aren’t furiously scrubbing coffee stains off of a pink H&M shirt…
2Yeah, I’m that guy…and people always wonder why I lose my voice after I drive…
3 Yes, I read cases for fun. Criminal, mental commitment, divorce, and parental termination cases are more bizarre than anything Grisham or Nancy Grace can throw at you. My favorite cases are from Iowa. Not because anything particularly interesting happens in Iowa, but because they use a large font, and double space.
4 I’m not an idiot, I swear. The excerpts of cases in our case books aren’t long enough to see a good example of the structure.
5 I over-thought it. In law school things aren’t as complicated as they first seem. It’s just the simple things in aggregate that look impressive… sort of like a lego castle.
6 That’s the threshold number for me to stop feeling silly for creating the page.

Incompetence

Professor P didn’t think highly of the lawyers in today’s case.1

Professor P: “This is a classic example of a badly drafted document. When you use a form, make sure you are the master of the form. Do not use words that you don’t understand.”

Professor P: “So what did the lawyer do in this case?”
Jill: “Well, he didn’t know how to draft the will so he called up a lawyer buddy of his, and that’s where the ambiguous language came from…”
Professor P: “Thereby proving that two bad lawyers are not better than one bad lawyer!”


1 Camp v. Camp, 220 Va. 595 (Va. 1979) The lawyer confused tenancy in common with a joint tenancy. (An explanation is here).

The specific clause in the contract is “as tenants in common with the right of survivorship.” The problem is that tenants in common have no right of survivorship.

The hungry junkie…

I misread my reading assignment1 for Crimlaw, but stumbled upon the best case ever.2

The defendant was sentenced to 60 years to life on seven counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated battery, two counts of kidnapping, and four counts of aggravated burglary. Gasp, I know.

The fact section (after the jump) is strange. The gist: a crackhead goes on a crime spree. What is bizarre about the opinion is that after describing how the defendant robs and terrorizes someone, the court then mentions that the defendant ate his victim’s food.

For example:

At gunpoint, Crawford took Monhollon to the back door of the other half of his duplex and instructed him to say his phone was not working.

Monhollon’s neighbor, Bernice Looka, let him in and Crawford followed him. In the bedroom, Crawford went through Looka’s jewelry and dresser drawers. Then Crawford told Looka to take off her clothes and he handcuffed her to the faucet in the bathroom. He made Monhollon wait while he ate Looka’s ice cream and cookies.

The junkie ate at two houses.

I don’t know what is more bizarre: that the crackhead ate the victim’s food, or that the court mentions it in the opinion. The fact section is after the jump:
Continue reading “The hungry junkie…” »