Archive for category LSAT in LIfe

Paid Volunteers?

Let Them Eat Cake?

Oh oxymoron, how I love thee.  Your beauty lies in your simplicity and the possibility for cheekyness in your ranks is infinite:  legal brief, controlled chaos, common phenomenon, civil war, minor miracle, and of course my favorite, Microsoft Works, are all fine examples of the turns a phrase’s meaning can take when one simple word is added (Logical Reasoning, anyone?).

The need for you to pay close attention to words is not going to wane anytime soon. Why?

Because word interpretation is a central element in the comprehension and practice of law. In law school and in your law career, you will most likely be faced with situations where it will literally be your job to change the meaning (or perceived meaning) of a word or phrase. How a word or phrase is interpreted is often the deciding factor in the direction a case takes.  Take for example the lawsuit against Arianna Huffington, Founder, President, and Editor-in-Chief of HuffingtonPost.com. Ms. Huffington is currently being sued by Huffington Post “volunteer” bloggers who are arguing that they deserve to share some of the profits and value that they have created from their contributions to the site.

This case is not without precedent.  Back in the nineties two volunteer chat room monitors – from the then super popular AOL – sued AOL for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act after successfully arguing that AOL exploited their contributions to the product.  AOL ended up settling out of court for $15 million.

So while the intended outcome of this lawsuit is to prevent exploitative behaviors on the part of business owners, the effect it will have on the perceived meaning of words will certainly be a part of its legal fall out. Will the word “volunteer” no longer mean “to do for free” in the context of the law? These are the kind of questions that you – the future lawyers of America – will be helping to resolve someday soon.

, , ,

No Comments

Jury Duty and the LSAT Part 2

Let’s continue our personal injury saga that we began last week. After yet another break of a few days, we came back to hear opening statements – more or less what you see in the movies – followed by a few days of witnesses. The first witness was not officially called the King of Slips, Trips and Falls, but in essence he was. This man had more credentials about slips and trips than you, and I’m sure of this, can imagine exist. He has written the code for various policies on construction, he has taught classes, he’s been on TV (specifically his receipt of a national award was televised on 52 stations – that was really too much information!), and he’s board certified by everyone, and he’s run said boards. The jury was thoroughly over-impressed to the point of annoyance.

Similarly, we heard from a very certified doctor who told us in no uncertain terms that the plaintiff broke his nose and that it really, really hurt. What amazed me is how much these guys get paid. $7,500 to appear in court for less than an hour! These specialists show up in court cases all the time and make a huge bundle of money. That’s when I started calculating. If the plaintiff has these two expert witnesses – about $15,000 – the lawyers must be hoping to win a huge payment. Thankfully, the plaintiff doesn’t pay a dime to the lawyer unless they win the case. If they do, the lawyers take a huge chunk of the settlement. Wow – they were hoping to win hundreds of thousands of dollars. And this was for a broken nose and a twisted pinky.

It turns out, we learned from meeting the plaintiff, that he went back to work two days later, then flew across the world to get married. Now, he is able to do everything he was able to do previously – basketball, painting rooms, etc. So, what were we actually going to be paying for?

Regardless, let’s get into the heart of the case – the law of expectations and the riser! Mr. Slips, Trips and Falls had actually developed this ground-breaking (slipping?) theory that accidents occur when what exists in our physical environment is different than what we expect. That makes sense. What didn’t make perfect sense was how that was applied here.

The subway station – it’s the 6 train station on 103rd and Lex for all the NY readers – has a riser before the entrance. It’s a large concrete step that rises above the street. Once you’re on that step, you walk down into the stairwell. Simple enough. The problem is that the street is a hill, so one part of the riser rises a mere 4 inches above the street while the downhill part of the riser towers a whopping 9 inches above the street. Adding insult to injury is that the NYC Subway policy is to have steps be 6-7 inches high. The plaintiff tripped, his lawyer argued, because after he raised one foot a mere 6 or so inches, he expected to raise the other foot the same amount. But, since the rise on the downhill side must rise up further, it turns out that he had to raise it 8 or so inches. The law of expectation was negatively triggered, baddaboom, he trips, baddabing breaks his nose and his pinky. Ouch. Bad day.

We heard this discussed quite a bit. This was relatively interesting. What was not interesting was having the lawyers read depositions to us. Depositions are sworn testimony taken of witnesses before the trial. Lawyers often will try to capitalize on differences between what is said in depositions and during the case. In our trial, the lawyers could not manage to get some witnesses come to court, so the best they could do was read the deposition. Fair enough. But, what made it excruciating is that the reading must be done as if the lawyer’s soul was just replaced with a toaster. There’s no expression or voice modulation whatsoever. The words should speak for themselves. But hearing an expressionless reading  makes you realize how much expression expresses!

Another interesting and somewhat excruciating part of the case was the huge number of objections that were made. It seemed like the lawyers were objecting to each other once every two minutes. I think they were flirting with each other towards the end. They were listening to each other so intently. It reminded me of the way that you need to read LSAT arguments. The tiniest word shift must be noticed.

After a couple of days of this verbal circus the jury finally retired to deliberate. For two days, every time we were asked to leave the courtroom for a short break – as the lawyers argued about something that the kids shouldn’t hear about – we were instructed to NOT discuss that case. Finally we got to tear it up. And within 15 minutes we agreed that the NYC subway was not liable. The law of expectation didn’t make sense – shouldn’t you expect to raise your foot to the same level as the other one, not the same number of inches? And, more importantly, we’re New Yorkers, and we don’t like the idea of people pulling this sort of B.S. in our city. Be careful and look down as you walk on the subway stairs.

The court clerk came in to hear our verdict and prep the foreman on how to make the announcement and told us she was betting that we’d return our verdict in under 10 minutes. She and the judge thought the case was a complete joke, and were quietly e-mailing each other about that during the case. She also told us that cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx, where the juries tend to be less-educated, more often find for the plaintiff in these personal injury cases. I said, “yeah, I don’t want my tax dollars going to this guy,” and apparently I was not alone in this sentiment. While I may not have been alone, I still had to wait. The lawyers had left for lunch and so we were forced to wait yet another hour.

I left very proud to be part of this country’s legal system, but a bit miffed that it was simply as a pawn in a personal injury trial. These trials take a up a huge percentage of our court system’s time (along with drug cases, no doubt). The lawyers seemed to enjoy themselves at least. After the trial ended, I ran into them in the elevator and they were sauced. While we were deliberating, they were drinking together. It was somehow disturbing – like finding out that your divorced parents are actually dating again – but also very reassuring to know that even they didn’t take all of this too seriously.

No Comments

Jury Duty and the LSAT

Yeah, jury duty!

It happens to the best of us, and even to me:  I was called for jury duty last week and I had already used my get-out-of-jury-duty-for-free passes. So, off I went to the New York County Courthouse to wait out my two days of not being called to a case (I’ve done this before). But it turns out I was actually selected! While almost everyone there complained, it was actually a fascinating experience, and, among other things, it reinforced for me why the LSAT is so predictive of one’s performance in law school: it actually tests many of the skills that lawyers use (though, it became clear, not all of them).

It all began with Voir Dire – and if you’re a true LSAT geek, you are thinking of that one RC passage about Voir Dire and exposure to the media. Voir Dire is a fancy way of saying jury selection. The lawyers asked us questions and flicked us off the jury depending on our answers, biases, etc. We were quickly informed that this would be a personal injury case. That immediately made me think of those commercials – like Saul in Breaking Bad. Or this commercial. We were asked whether we worked for the subway — ah, someone got hit by a subway?! – and whether we knew some guy. And have we been in a personal injury case before? Oh, your mother was? What part of her body was injured? Oh, her nose…

It started to become apparent – some guy broke his nose on the subway. Ouch.

The plaintiff’s lawyer was making his way down the line of jurors, and he finally got to me, juror #10.  Did I feel I could rule fairly? Sure! Did I think I could come up with a decision that both the plaintiff and defendant would be happy with? Now think about that question for a second…No, I told him, I couldn’t – it’s a court case, not a mediation! I figured at that point I’d be dinged – I was poking fun at the plaintiff’s lawyer, and I told him I teach the LSAT. Shouldn’t that make him wary of me? Perhaps – as is true – I’d be thinking all the time about how the case relates to the LSAT.

Then it was time, as it often was, for a break. When we returned the lawyer asked me whether I had any new thoughts now that I had had a break and time to consider. I told him that I felt our society was too litigious – there are simply too many lawsuits. He agreed (probably he delights in the fact) and asked if you find that my client was harmed and you calculate a sum that he deserves and it turns out to be exorbitant, would you be OK making that decision – to decide that my client should receive that amount? Well, that’s a strange question! If the amount is exorbitant, why would I be OK with it? But, as I told him, if his client deserved a certain amount, I would give him that much.

I tried to tell the lawyer – “I hate the fact that people sue for minor injuries all the time – I think it’s a crime against society that you can sue for spilling hot coffee on your lap and I won’t award your client diddly-squat unless he clearly was hit by a subway driven by a drunken conductor” – but he didn’t seem to hear me. After another long break – actually it was a long period of us all waiting for the lawyers to return from who-knows-where – I found out that I had been selected.

What was interesting to me was that the lawyers were already trying their cases during Voir Dire. They were trying to make us like them (clearly the plaintiff’s lawyer wasn’t doing a great job). Also, they were already starting to argue with each other. When the plaintiff’s lawyer asked me if I’d be OK awarding money to his client, the defendant’s lawyer chimed in – “if the evidence suggests that it is warranted.” These lawyers were listening like hawks to each and every word the other said – similar to the way we have to read questions on the LSAT. This was something that became increasingly apparent as the case continued.

One last note about the beginning of this experience (and by the way, the case is already done – I wouldn’t blog about an ongoing trial). Right from the beginning, every single possible juror took the process seriously – from the goose-bump raising oath to the questions about our biases and injuries. Even though people didn’t necessarily want to be selected, they seemed to answer honestly. It made me proud to be part of this society.

No Comments

Exercise and the LSAT

Go Little Blue Man, Go!

Summer is here and it’s time to get off your butt and start studying for the October LSAT. But, it’s also time to get off your butt in general. It’s now fact (until proven otherwise) that exercise improves brain function! I first read about this in The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge – a mind-blowing book. When he discussed the exercise-brain link, Doidge was a bit more focused on preventing Alzheimer’s disease. But, now I’ve read in Science Daily that it’s also true for the pre-geriatric crowd.

Charles Hillman, the brainiac behind the study, says that “regardless,” he said, “the importance is the same. Physical activity is related to better cognitive health and effective functioning across the lifespan.”

Another study, as reported in Entrepreneur explained:

1. As you exercise, your muscles contract.
2. This releases chemicals, including a protein called IGF-1.
3. IGF-1 travels to the brain and stimulates the release of several chemicals, including brain derived neurotropic factor (BDNF).
4. Regular exercise increases levels of BDNF.
5. BDNF stimulates neurons (brain cells) to branch and connect in new ways.
6. New junctions between neurons are the basis of learning.

(Why exactly is Entrepreneur reporting on this? I guess the same reason I am…)

Boom! And this is at the heart of getting truly better at the LSAT. Since most of us were not born holding a golden gavel (i.e. thinking like a lawyer), going beyond the usual LSAT score increases means switching from the B.S.-production-write-a-10-page-paper-about-what-YOU-think mindset that we develop in high school & college to the legalistic mindset that is needed to be, well, legalistic. A few new neural pathways could definitely help!

So, the daily 12-hour LSAT study marathon may not be such a great idea this summer- instead, do a 6 hour LSAT marathon, then an actual marathon, and then another 6 hour marathon. Well…maybe just a half-marathon. Actually, you probably should limit your study sessions to a few hours – the brain needs a break, and a jog.

No Comments

The LSAT and Weight Loss

How Can This Not Work?

I was reading an Atlantic Monthly article, “Beating Obesity” by Marc Ambinder. Even in the overly air-conditioned doctor’s waiting room, I couldn’t help but raise an LSAT eyebrow at one claim:

“[A] Stigma [against overweight people] might be more bearable…if diet and exercise, the most prescribed solutions to obesity, worked. But they don’t. Qualification, if you eat less and exercise more, you’ll lose weight. But the chances that you’ll stick with that regimen are slim, and the chances that you’ll regain the weight, and then some, are quite high.”

First of all, how frustrating! Diet and exercise don’t work? Perhaps that’s good because going to the gym and dieting both suck. But then, this requires a bit of thought: Ambinder states that eating less and exercising more DOES work! So, there’s a bit of a disconnect here. It must be that Ambinder’s point is that diet and exercise would work, if people did them. Really, he should have written: “Prescribing diet and exercise doesn’t tend to work.”

If you’re knee-deep in inferences questions, you should already be suspicious of those numbers. The chances are “slim” and “quite high.” What’s “slim” mean – especially in an article about obesity? And “quite high”? Experienced LSAT jockeys know that this sort of language doesn’t give us a lot to work with. On the LSAT, some, a lot, etc. mean nothing more than at least one. Let’s help out the author a bit and amend his writing (and make up some facts): “The chances are less than 10% that you’ll stick with a diet and the chances are 70% that you’ll actually regain the weight and perhaps then some.” Now can we say that prescribing diet and exercise doesn’t work? No! What’s the definition of “working”? But, let’s give Ambinder a break – he’s writing an article, not a legal brief. (And it’s a rather interesting article).

That said, when you get to one of his main points – that bariatric surgery is a great way to cure obesity – it makes sense that he would want to show that dieting and sweating to the oldies does not work. It’s no surprise that Ambinder was able to go from 235 lb to 150 by having that surgery done (what happened to eating Subway fresh?).

Aspring lawyers – this is the sort of critical reading you’re going to need to do! But, be warned, according to the article, sitting at desks is contributing to obesity. Meet your clients in the gym?

1 Comment