Week Eight, Part 7 - Study Group

At 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, I stop by the main office of the Kresge Law Library and chat with Ken Kinslow, the evening supervisor. He’s the friendliest guy on campus and can talk with knowledge on any subject from Russian literature to Cajun cuisine. Sometimes I call him “Comrade,” as we both taught English in China.

Ken hands me the key to a second-floor study room. Yesterday I reserved it for this evening. Even though the law library is open 24 hours a day, the front desk and study rooms lock at 10:00 p.m. Ken tells me to bring the key back by 9:30.

Upstairs I meet with two other 1L’s, Todd Wesseler from Bowling Green and Anthony Wisniewski from “The Catholic University of America” in D.C. As undergrads, they both studied political science, by far the most popular major at Notre Dame Law School.

Our little band is not a study group per se with weekly meetings and regular note-sharing. Rather, it’s more like an ad hoc committee with one goal: to hammer out a Contracts outline for tomorrow's mock mid-term.

Anthony’s notes are minimalist, mine the exact opposite, and Todd’s somewhere in between. We start with the first case, White v. Benkowski, a lawsuit involving neighbors who shared water from the same well.

Complaint. Discovery. Consideration. Affidavit. Compensatory damages. Summary judgment. Prayer for relief. All the legalese that seemed so foreign on Week One now rings more familiar.

The biggest problem we have is deciding what’s important enough to include in our outline. In class, Professor Kaveny told us that perhaps the plaintiff’s lawyer in White misstated the cause of action. It could have been a tort claim instead of breach of contract. I believe this point is key. On the test, we should look for facts that raise the issue of a potential tort. Anthony and Todd think it’s irrelevant. They argue that the significance of the case is the difference between compensatory and punitive damages.

I want to include Kaveny’s pithy sayings, like “Being a good lawyer is noticing the elephant in the middle of living room!” Teachers love to hear students echo their wisdom, I argue.

Once again, Anthony and Todd vote me down. They think an outline should be spare, limited to the legal doctrines of greatest significance.

“But this exam is open note,” I say. “It’s not like we have to memorize anything!”

As the evening wears on, Anthony gets louder and more East Coast Rude. Good thing our study room is soundproof. It’s annoying because Anthony’s notes are terrible and his memory worse. Todd, on the other hand, is so meek that I can’t even picture him as an attorney.

By 9:30 we have two-thirds of an outline. We call it a night and make no plans to meet again. Our personalities and study styles don't mesh.

Downstairs I ring the bell at the front desk. Ken’s around the corner reading a classical Chinese novel. I give the key back and he asks how the session went.

“Well... made me wish I were still teaching freshman comp.” I sign my name in a blue notebook to verify we’ve cleaned out the study room and locked the door.

“Oh, I think you’re doing the right thing, gettin’ a law degree. With English, if you don’t get on that three-year tenure track right off, you’re left to wander. And after a while you get tired of all the drifting, although sometimes one does wonder if it could’ve been different.”

I laugh and ask Ken about his degree.

Ken says he has a Ph.D. in English.

“Wow! That’s impressive.”

“Nah. It’s not worth shit.”

I laugh, not sure whether or not he's kidding.

Nevertheless, instead of going home, I trudge back up to the third floor atrium and find an open carrel. There’s no backtracking to the world of English. Even though it’s late, I'm not leaving until my Contracts outline is done.

* * *