CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM OUTLINES

[link]

Law Journal Bluebooking

There are three main differences between the Bluebooking you did for Legal Writing and the Bluebooking you’re expected to do for a law journal article:

• formatting: Whereas for legal writing, you were forced to use one of the more annoying fonts in existence, for a law journal article, you get to use such cool things as italics and small caps. Also, your citations are in footnotes or endnotes, rather than in the text.
  
• sources: for Legal Writing, you've only cited to cases and, possibly, statutes. For your article, you'll be citing to secondary sources as well, such as law journals and news sources.
  
• short forms: how to cite something again after you’ve already cited it. And the last big thing is that you’ll be citing to sources other than cases.

Citing Cases

Full Citation: The first time you cite a case, you cite the case in full without italics (please note the irony):

¹ Crazy Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 353 (1963).

Short Form: After you’ve cited a case initially, the next time you cite to it, you will use its short form. Use only one party name and put it in italics and insert a cite to the specific page number ("at .") You do not put the year or the initial page number.

⁴ Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 342.

Use of Id. is only appropriate when the source you are citing to is contained in the previous endnote:

⁸ Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 342.
⁹ Id. at 343.

TIP: Insert citations as you're writing the article, but ONLY use the short form. You won’t really know what your initial cite will be after all the editing is done -- you may end up inserting an earlier cite to the case . Once you're done, all you have to do is just change the first time you cite the case to full cite and change short forms to Ids. where appropriate. With long articles, this will save alot of time.

Citing to Law Journals

Full Citation: The first time you cite to a journal, you include the following information with the following formatting:

Author’s Name, Title of the Article, Abbreviated Name of Journal , (Year).

Note: Look to T.14 in the Blubook, starting on page 317, for how to abbreviate the names of the different journals.

Short Form: Where id. is not appropriate, you use supra. The supra lets you refer to the footnote where you initially cited the journal article—see Rule 4.2 in the Bluebook (pg. 42):

Last Name, supra note , at .

Here’s an example:

¹¹ Jody Armour, Race Ipsa Loquitor, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 781, 783 (1994). [initial cite]

¹² Crazy Gideon, 372 U.S. at 343.

¹³ Armour, supra note 11, at 784. [short form]

¹⁴ Id. at 787-88.

TIP: As with cases, if you’re citing as you’re writing, cite to journals in the supra form. Write an “X” after “note” (e.g., Armour, supra note X, at 784) because until you’re done editing you won’t know where the initial cite will be. Once you’re done: go to the first footnote where you cited the article and provide the full citation. replace all the Xs with the footnote number where you just gave the full citation (it's all about Ctrl + H in Word)

Citing Other Sources

Look to the following places in the bluebook to see how to cite other sources:

• The Front Cover: this gives you a “quick reference” to how any source should be formatted for a journal and it also gives you the Bluebook rule that’s associated with that type of source.
  

• The Index: If there’s a type of source you can’t find, look in the index (e.g., Amicus Brief). It took me awhile before I realized the Bluebook actually has an index. However, I was very good at pretending like I knew it had an index all along.
  

• Rules for Different Sources:
• Legislative Materials: Rule 13 (pg. 91)
• Books & Nonperiodic Materials: Rule 15 (pg. 107).
• Newspapers: Rule 16.5 (pg. 120).
• Internet Sources: Rule 18.2 (pg. 132).

Short Form: normally, you would use supra with these sources as you would with journals. If there’s an institutional author (i.e., not a person), you use the name of the institution. If there’s no author, you would use the title of the work where you would normally put the author’s last name.

However, occasionally, you’ll come across a source that has a really long title or institutional author name. You can then use hereinafter to designate how you will refer to the source if you ever cite to it again (pg. 43 in BB). Your short form would then be a regular supra, but instead of the actual name or title, you would use the phrase you designated. For example:

¹⁵ Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, Sourcebook on Corporation Image and Corporate Advocacy Advertising, 1149, 1157 (1978) [hereinafter FTC Memorandum].

¹⁶ See Armour, supra note 8, at 790.

¹⁷ See FTC Memorandum, supra note 11, at 1155.

Note: if you only cite to the source once throughout the , there is no need to use hereinafter.

Using Signals

Remember that the point of a law journal article is not to regurgitate what other people think (though obviously, a portion of your paper will summarize the state of the law to some extent), but rather to put together your own argument about an issue which is supported by what other people think. In turn, most of the sentences that you write are propositions and they need to be backed up by sources. You would use signals to indicate how a source supports a particular proposition (BB 1.2 on pg. 22):

• [no signal]: The only time you should not have a signal is if you’re quoting directly from a source or if you basically just paraphrased what the source explicitly says.
  

• See: use see whenever the source supports what you say but doesn’t necessarily state it directly.
  

• See, e.g.,: use this to indicate that the source you cited to is just one of many which would support your proposition.
  

• See generally: use this when the source would provide background info about your proposition.
  

• You can also use signals indicating contradiction if appropriate (e.g. But, Contra).

Lessons from Monday Night Mooting
by Colin MacMillan ('07)

After mooting a few of you tonight, I have a few additional thoughts for you and it seems like you weren’t given much direction on the flow of the proceedings.

THE FLOW

Stating Your Appearance
If the Judges ask you to state your appearance, simply stand up where you are (no need to go to the podium) and say something like:

“Good evening your honors, my name is Jesse Fu, counsel for the Petitioner Marie Dosman.”

“Good evening your honors, my name is Reggie Bush, counsel for the Respondent Maneely Enterprises.”

The Arguments
After this the Petitioner should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges and begin by saying:

o “Good evening your honors, Jesse Fu for the Petitioner Marie Dosman.”

o “At this time I would like to reserve one minute for rebuttal” [Wait for your request to be granted by the judges, and then begin your argument.]

o “This evening I will argue that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer…” [or whatever]

After the Petitioner has left the podium, the Respondent should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges, then begin your argument by stating:

o “Good evening your honors, Reggie Bush for the Respondent, Maneely Enterprises. The issue in this case is …”

Ending Your Argument
When you see the zero card held up, and before you run back to your seat, you need to gracefully end your argument. Think of it as a conversation with the judges. Most people don’t just end a conversation by walking away, and there are a few things you should say so that you at least look like you know what you are doing. Here’s my advice for what to do when your time expires when:

You are speaking – Finish your thought, don’t just stop speaking mid sentence or even mid thought. You may need to abbreviate your point, and limit yourself to a sentence or two, but make sure that it is a coherent statement. Then go into the Short Conclusion below.

If you are answering a question – Finish answering the judge’s question and say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired…[see Short Conclusion below]."

If a judge is asking a question – When the judge has finished asking the question, say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired, I will answer your question and briefly conclude.” Don’t bother asking permission, because it creates an awkward situation because they will always grant your request. Feel free to answer the question fully, and even turn it in to an argument point if it’s a logical transition, but don’t get too far away from the original question.

If there is silence – Say, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired, [see Short Conclusion below]."

SHORT CONCLUSION: You should have a one to two sentence conclusion memorized that should be used after you acknowledge that your time has expired. It should go something like this for the Petitioner, “Your Honors, I see our time has expired. The Petitioner urges this court to overrule the action of the trial court and find that Ms. Dosman was closely related to Mr. Cosack either under a theory of exceptional circumstances, or in the alternative by logically finding that step children are close family relatives. Thank you, Your Honors.”

Rebuttal
When the Respondent is done arguing, the Petitioner should approach the podium and wait to be acknowledged by the judges. Some people like to start their rebuttal with something like, “By way of rebuttal, the Petitioner would like to …” I personally don’t like that language. You are obviously the Petitioner and you are obviously on rebuttal. Since it is only a minute long, I liked to just start by saying “Your Honors…[and then jumping right into my attack of the other side, clarifying a point or two (max), or summarizing my theory of the case]. I would memorize or adlib the rebuttal and always end by making direct eye contact with the judges and saying, “Thank you, your Honors.”

On rare occasions, you may get asked a question on rebuttal. Just go with it and if there is time try to get back to your original point. If not see the section above on Ending your Argument.

ADVICE

Formality
Adding a degree of formality to your language, tone and mannerisms will go a long way in conveying a sense of confidence and presence in the court room. The graders seemed interested in this.

Cases

Since you are graded this year, be sure to distinguish or analogize between the facts of the main cases (Moon, Thing, Rodriguez, Eldon etc). Your Fellow and most likely Prof will want to see some command of those cases and the ability to base some of your legal arguments on them.

Petitioners – Talk about the trajectory of the case law, and don’t be afraid to make strong public policy arguments that favor your side. Also, pepper your arguments with favorable facts from the case.

Respondents – The existing case law is in your favor. Don’t be afraid to use it and argue that based on same your client was entitled to the Demurrer as a matter of law.

Hand Motions

Just grab the podium with both hands and don’t let go until you are done…this will solve that problem.

Rebuttal

We were asked if the Petitioner is required to do one. The official answer is no, but the graders seem to be looking for it, so do it.

Responding to Questions

Every time you answer a question, begin by saying, “Your Honor…” It may sound redundant to you, but it will go along way with the judges.

Ending Early

We were asked if there was ever a time that you should end early. Again the official answer is that it is up to you, and again the graders would mostly likely wonder why you couldn’t find more to talk about, so keep talking.

Silence

We heard a lot of silence tonight. If the judges stop answering questions, you should immediately have something in mind to talk about. That’s were the development of the Roadmap can be helpful part of your preparation. Or, better yet, develop a few talking points, as outlined in my original post, in order to keep the conversation flowing and give yourself the chance to speak intelligently on something you’ve prepared.

Don’t worry about this too much, since there will be a whopping total of 5 judges at your rounds next week. In all likelihood you probably didn’t spend that much time preparing for the practice round, and you will know how to do this much better by next week.

Keep Arguing

Stay composed and keep talking about the case. Even if the judges are going after you or have you cornered, don’t worry about it, argue back or move on. Remember it’s not all about the merits of the case, and you will be given significant style points for transitioning gracefully out of a tight spot.

Try to get mooted once or twice before next week and you’ll start to feel more comfortable with the process and your arguments.

Roadmap: A few people have asked about the infamous Roadmap. Click here for a sample. See my original post for my thoughts on its use.

Good luck!

THE ART OF MOOT
by Colin MacMillan ('07)

As usual, Mr. Bleweiss did an excellent job describing the 1L Moot Court ("MC") rounds, so I will mainly give you my perspective as a participant. Keep in mind that I have no idea how you are being graded for your writing class and these are just my thoughts at succeeding in MC. I think the only change that has been made since he wrote the original blog entry is that in your qualifying rounds (the second time you argue) there will be five judges (3 from MC, 1 Writing Fellow, and your writing Prof.).

RANKING THE HONORS PROGRAMS

By now you have probably caught on to the fact that the ranking process for the honors programs is much like the mysterious black box of the 1L curve. You will never find out how you were scored for MC or the write on. There is some strategy as to how you rank the programs, since you will be invited to participate in the program that you ranked the highest and that you qualify for, assuming it is not already full. Keep in mind that if your preferences change (i.e. during the write on), you do have a short period of time to email Kyle Jones with an updated list.

THE PRESTIGE FACTOR: Since conventional wisdom says that Law Review is the most prestigious program, the question for many 1Ls is whether MC is more prestigious than the other two journals. My take is that it is probably a wash, but you might get more mileage out of MC if you make at least one cut.

I personally ranked MC first, but I did the write on as insurance. I thought MC would be more interesting and practical. Blue booking and cite checking did not sound appealing to me, but props to everyone who just finished their notes.

MOOT COURT ADVICE

MC is what it is…a game. It is not decided on the merits of the case, but rather the subjective criteria of the judges – whoever they happen to be. My advice is to view it as a game, and play along.

STYLE: If the instructions you are given are anything like the ones we received, you will quickly be turned into a Moot Court robot – try to avoid that. You will be most effective playing the game with your own style. To get to USC you must have been doing something right, so just keep that up.

• I found that a very informal/conversational style worked best for me. I viewed oral arguments as a time to chat with the judges about the case and fill them in on my perspective.
  

THEORY: I found it helpful to develop a theory/theme for the case I was arguing in order to set the tone for the judges. If you can, try to tell a story through your opening and subsequent arguments, such that at the end of your round the Judges will be able to summarize your position back to you in a sentence or two.

THE GAME: The game is to try to tell your story of the case while thoughtfully but strategically answering the judges’ questions. Keep in mind that questions from MC judges (especially in the 1L rounds) are probably not the result of thoughtful preparation, but rather an attempt to trip you up, a question just for the sake of asking a question, or possibly a means of clarifying a point that is unclear in the case.

• Cases - You know this case better than most of us judging you for MC. I will be judging some of you in less than five days and I have yet to receive any information on the case. How much prep do you think your 2L judges will be doing over the weekend? That said, you will have 2 judges in the qualifying round (your writing Prof. and Fellow) who will know the cases better than you, so it will be a bit different from the practice round and you will need to have a solid command of the leading cases.

TO SUCCEED AT THE GAME:

• Confidence – Even if you don’t know what you’re talking about, pretend that you do, or quickly get to something you do know about. The ability to project confidence will go a long way even if you don’t feel like you have (or can recall) the most ingenious arguments.

• Composure – Don’t let yourself get flustered. Try to keep a consistent composure throughout. Most MC cases will have compelling arguments on both sides. Play along with the judges’ questions. Don’t be afraid to concede small points in order to deflect tough questions, but don’t give away the store.

• Strength of Argument – This is listed last because I think it can often take a subordinated role in MC evaluation. Since the cases are written with equality of arguments in mind, scores often come down to the delivery and not the content. That said, creative arguments can often score you easy points and save you from some tough questions. But be careful that your arguments are not too complicated or attenuated such that the judges get confused and take you off topic. Try to keep them fact specific – just using the facts in creative new ways.

THE ROADMAP: You will hear from most people that you should make a MC roadmap, and I think you should as well, but mostly for the process of organizing and articulating your thoughts. Chances are that you won’t use it much, if at all, during oral arguments, but constantly revising my roadmap was my main preparation for oral arguments.

• Use Notes & Annotations – I would caution you against writing out the roadmap word for word, and rather just list your key points and key phrases to trigger your memory so that you engage in a conversation with the judges and not a lecture

• Introduction – Some people say to memorize it. Some say you don’t need to. I memorized a couple of quick sentences in order to make a good first impression on the judges, but you don’t have to.

TALKING POINTS: I found it helpful to develop 3 – 4 interesting thoughts about the case that the judges probably won’t pick up on. At times these were only tangentially related, but they were designed to direct attention away from a particularly difficult line of questioning from the Judges or to make me appear articulate and knowledgeable about the case while running out the clock on stuff I felt comfortable talking about.

REBUTTAL: This will be different every time. Don’t be afraid to point out weaknesses or contradictions in your opponent’s argument. If the judges cornered the other side into making concessions that are quite favorable to your position, don’t hesitate to highlight them in your rebuttal.

I never had a scripted rebuttal – I just made notes while the other side was arguing and tried to pick up on the direction that the judges were headed or any opportunities presented by my opponents’ arguments. If you are at a loss for what to say, put yourself in the shoes of the judges – after the case is argued, they would have to go back and make an actual decision. With this in mind, unless it directly related to a concession made by my opponent, I found the most success in keeping my rebuttals broad since at that point the judges would be in the mindset of summing up the case.

NEXT YEAR...

If you are selected for MC, you will have a busy fall, but you do get 3 units out of it. You are basically on your own to research and write an appellate brief (it’s back!), which for us was conveniently due during OCI. You do have a MC Board member as your editor, but like your writing profs, they don’t want to give any particular person an advantage. Our record was very well written and contained most of the information we needed for the brief, so there wasn’t too much outside research necessary. The brief will also count as your upper division writing requirement.

ARGUMENTS: There are two practice rounds. The first round is “On Brief,” where you argue the side of the case that you wrote your brief on. The second round is “Off Brief,” where you argue the other side. There are two preliminary rounds that are structured the same way, which take place a week or two after the practice rounds. All 40 participants are required to argue in the practice and preliminary rounds. The judges are usually local attorneys and alums, so the questions are usually predictable and very factually based.

SECOND SEMESTER: After the two preliminary rounds, the field is cut to 16 participants for the Quarterfinal Round, 8 for the Semifinal Round, and 4 for the Final Round. The oral arguments (as opposed to the briefs) increase in weight for advancement purposes. I think the arguments are weighted 67% to get to the quarterfinal round, 75% to get to the semifinal round, 90% to get to the final round. The MC champion is selected solely based on oral arguments in the final round.

IN SUM

Try to get mooted a couple of times – the MC Board or participants are always willing to help, just let us know. 10 minutes will fly by, and you’ll only get to half of what you’ve prepared. Stay calm and focus on the strengths of your case. Remember it’s all moot!

Colin MacMillan was a Finalist in the Hale Moot Court Honors Competition this year. Feel free to contact Colin with any questions at cmacmillan@sbcglobal.net

SBA PRESIDENT

Candidate: Terry Steen ('07)

PRESIDENTIAL GOALS:

--Open the lines of communication between SBA and the Student Body

• You deserve to know how YOUR money is being spent
• Keep you apprised of SBA activities through regular meetings and postings while providing a forum for you to share your ideas
• Provide opportunities for you to voice your concerns and actively pursue desired outcomes

--Proactively address issues with administration that affect current and future USC Law students

--Develop programming for the school as a whole

• Coordinate a variety of on- and off-campus social events
• Encourage more interaction between alumni and students so we can take better advantage of the famed Trojan network

--Continue efforts with GPSS

• Advocating for more of our student fees being returned to the law school

LEADERSHIP ROLES:

--GPSS Senator

• Finance Committee – I’ve helped secure GPSS funding for every law school org that requested it
• Judiciary Committee – pushed to have ALL grad students pay fees so we can get more of OUR $ back at the law school

--MESALA Co-Social Chair

• Organized several events open to all and raised funds so they would be free

--APALSA Mentor & Section C 2L Representative

OTHER INVOLVEMENT:
I have consistently been involved even when I haven’t had a title. I believe in fostering a sense of community at USC Law and toward that end, I have 1) always tried to support all of the student organizations by attending their events (often volunteering) and participating in their fundraisers, 2) shared outlines and prior exam answers with my classmates as they are made available to me, and shared my own outlines whenever asked, 3) addressed concerns with the administration, which has ranged from schedule conflicts (mentor lunch scheduled when ½ the 1L class was in Con Law) to sanitation issues (more janitorial services during finals studying).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Candidate: Yem Mai ('07)

First off, I would like to thank everyone for allowing me to serve the last two years on the SBA. It has been a pleasure.

For those of you who are interested in my qualifications (otherwise skip this §):

• 2005-2006 SBA Vice-President
• 2005-2006 APALSA President
• 2005-2006 GPSS Senator
• 2004-2005 SBA 1L Representative (A-D)

I have also been President of Sigma Pi and an Order of Omega President.

WHY I WANT TO RUN:
I serve the student body because I am dedicated to it. During my 1st year, I organized a sweatshirt fundraiser that raised enough money for the 1Ls to have the 1L End-of-the-Pear party at the swanky Pearl and doubled the funds available to the 2L Class of 2007 for its End-of-the-Year Party. Also for this party, Pearl required a $3500 bar tab guarantee. The school refused to do this, so I personally guaranteed it because I wanted the 1L year to end with a bang. Imagine what I will do as SBA President.

MORE THINGS I HAVE DONE:
Organized the Students’ Activities Fair -- Organized the Pre-PILF Auction Mixer -- Organized Community Week with the different student organizations and came up with the Dunk Tank idea -- Assisted in securing funding for KLAP from GPSS -- Obtained funding for the 3L Class Dinner from GPSS -- Assisted in obtaining funding for JLSA’s Conference from GPSS -- Organized the SBA Softball Tournament -- Organized the APALSA Bone Marrow Donor Drive -- Organized the APALSA/BLSA/LA RAZA/MESALA/PAD Homecoming Tailgate -- Organized the APALSA/BLSA/LA RAZA Back to School Beach Party

WHAT I WILL DO:

• Bar Reviews from the South Bay to Silverlake – not just the Westside & West Hollywood
• A Kegger @ the Law School Every Other Week
• More Transparency from the SBA
• Know Where Your Money is Going
• Giving Back More Money to the Student Organizations
• Cheaper Law Prom Tickets
• More Inter-Student Organization Events
• I am currently working with JLSA, Christian Legal Society, and J. Reuben Clark Law Society to put together a Community Day community service event.

Law School is my life. You’ll find me at bar reviews, law prom, and all the big student organization events like the PILF Auction.

Lastly, I’m a friendly guy and accessible (I check my e-mail constantly) -- easy to say hi to and easy to get in touch with. Please feel free to contact me at ymai@usc.edu if you have any further questions.

SBA VICE PRESIDENT

Candidate: Bobby Roshan ('08)

WHY?

The S.B.A. Vice President needs to be on the Graduate and Professional Schools Senate (GPSS). As GPSS Senator, I am already familiar with the ins and outs of the GPSS, and will make for a very effective go-between the law school and the GPSS at large. How?

JUST A FEW IDEAS:

• I will create greater alumni networking opportunities, such as an alumni mixer and more alumni mentoring lunches. It’s time we took greater advantage of the Trojan family.

• I will do everything in my power to bring better food and drinks to our cafeteria. Anyone who’s been in the business school cafeteria knows what the law school cafeteria needs to be like.

• I will organize more brownbag lunches with professors. Shouldn’t we be able to get to know all our professors, not just the ones from our first semester of our first year?

• I will organize more intra-school and inter-graduate school sporting competitions. Nothing like a healthy body to compliment our healthy minds.

----------------------------------------------

Candidate: Marc Berman ('08)

ADVOCATE

• As a 1L Rep I worked with the administration to get benches in the downstairs bathrooms to make changing easier for OCI and other interviews.
• I procured $2,200 for APALSA and the KLAP trip at a recent GPSS meeting.
• I introduced the idea of professors emailing students the first homework assignments of the semester so we don’t have to come to school over our summer and winter breaks just to write them down.

INNOVATIVE

• I am currently working with the administration and the PILF groups of UCLA and USC to create an annual USC vs. UCLA law school basketball game to raise thousands of dollars for the PILF organizations of both schools.

ACCESSIBLE

• Have a question about a social event or student group? Not sure when that meeting is? There’s a good chance I don’t know either, but I promise to find out and get back to you quickly. I will be accessible via either e-mail or phone.

FRIENDLY

• Having a rough week? Want me to make an ass of myself in class…again? If that’s what it will take to put a smile on your face, consider it done. We’re all in this mess together, and I promise to take seriously my responsibility to make life as easy for you as possible so that you can focus on school…and having fun.

ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVE

Candidate: Elizabeth Kimmelman ('07)

Hi! My name is Elizabeth Kimmelman and I am running to be your SBA Admissions Committee Representative. I would like to be your admissions committee rep for three reasons. First, I feel that USC Law is the best place to go to law school and want to make sure that the next class of students contributes to our warm and friendly environment. Second, I have enthusiasm for and experience in the admissions process. Third, I would be a great member of the SBA.

Coming to law school from Philadelphia and not having any family or friends in Los Angeles, the law school really became my home away from home. One of the main reasons that I decided to come to USC is that when I visited I was struck by how friendly and happy the students were. I really think that the student body is what makes USC such a special place and I hope to help admit students who will contribute to our fun (for law school) and comfortable environment. I also hope to work towards convincing these students to attend USC once admitted.

Furthermore, I have a lot of experience in the admissions process, both as an undergrad at Penn and at USC. At Penn, I gave tours for three years, was a tour guide coordinator, and spent a summer working in the Admissions office where I led information sessions and talked on the phone to nervous applicants and their parents. At USC I gave tours last year and will do it again this year and attended lunches with admitted students. I really love the admissions process and feel that I would be very happy working in admissions one day.

Finally, I am an enthusiastic, dedicated, reliable and organized person and I think I would be a great addition to the SBA. I have already worked with the SBA this year in my position as JLSA President and PAD VP of Academics and have a good idea of how the organization operates. I know that along with my own duties I will support other members of the SBA with their projects.

Please vote for me as your SBA Admissions Committee Representative! I would be honored to serve the student body in this position!

---------------------------------------------

Candidate: Aanand Mehtani ('07)
2Ls- check your mail boxes before you vote.

1Ls- vote for me even though I didnt bribe you.

I didnt really want to win because I payed more than my opponent for candy, so what I did for the 2Ls is write them a personal note. I dont know many of you, so all I could have said to you in my personal note is read what I have to say.

Here is what I have to say - -

A couple people have told me that If I expect to have a fighting chance in this election, I have to show that I can be serious. I am not really sure what that means. Should I copy and paste my resume?

I am a second year juris doctor candidate at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Currently, I am about two hundred thousand dollars in debt, and I a pray everyday that after I graduate I can reconcile paying off that debt, so I can support my family, and at the same time do something which doesnt give me nightmares. I can be serious. We can all be serious. If you cant be serious, get the hell out of this law school and forget about this profession. Make room for someone who deserves to be here.

Some people that apply to law school next year will break the upper 160s on their LSATs and have 3.7s or above. Those people are going to get in unless they write something completely inappropriate in their personal statements. Others will have really low scores, and will have to have cured cancer or something close to it to have a chance. There is nothing I can do about either of these situations, and there is nothing I want to do about them.

What I want to do -- what I want you to vote for me to do is to read the applications of the people in the middle again and again and again until I can remember every theme, every emotion, every plea, every contention, every indication of intellectual curiousity, compassion, and promise. I want you to vote for me because after I do that, I want to take these thoughts I have gathered about these people and share them with others on the admissions committee who are generations older than us. I want them to hear what our generation has to say about these applicatants.

But this is all general bullshit in a sense, so what else would I look for?

Well-

1. Diversity
What does this mean? Does diversity mean that we have different shades of skin? Different ways that our bodies pee, experience erotic pleasure, and contribute to procreation? Different sexual orientations? Maybe different national origins? Hell, maybe different international origins? We're raised to believe in The Bible, or the Koran, or maybe the Bhagavad Gita, or maybe all of the above, or none of the above?
Yes. It means all of these things.
But thats not all it means.
Diversity entails celebrated difference.
I celebrate difference in opinion, difference in ideology, difference in aspirations, difference in experiences, difference in lifestyle.
All these differences are what make this country, this state, this city, and this school what it is.

2. Intellectual Curiousity.
If an applicant can demonstrate that he or she has a real interest in learning the law, be it a practical or purely academic interest, that applicant gets in over someone with similar scores who cannot demonstrate this.

3. Passion
A friend of mine has a quote on her profile - more or less it goes something like this--

"The Ancient Greeks didnt write obituaries. When a man died, they asked only one question- did this man have passion?!?"

I will be looking for passion in personal statements. I want the statements to reach out, grab me by the chest, and suck me into the stories they represent through the passion inherent in those stories. Perhaps much of this passion will have roots in youthful idealogy, but I firmly believe that it is that youthful idealogy that separates us from the rocks and the trees.

Please consider giving me your support for admissions chair. Much love and respect to anyone who is running against me, but I dont give a flying blank about my resume in an SBA context, I dont care about the popularity contest. I want to do this because USC has changed my life, and I feel like whoever does this has to take it very seriously, and do his or her job very passionately. I am ready to do that.

Aanand

3L VICE PRESIDENT

Candidate: Reed Glyer ('07)

I would like to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy for the position of 3L Vice-President. I believe I am qualified for this position and would like your support because:

• I have had several leadership responsibilities in the past
• I know the 3L class well enough to represent your interests both as a class and as unique individuals
• I have good relations with everybody running for leadership positions, so I will be able to work smoothly and efficiently with the other officers and the administration
• I will have a lot of free time next year to help the president plan graduation and social events

I would like to thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to a riveting campaign with catchy slogans and intense debate on the issues.

ACADEMIC CHAIR

Candidate: Marc F. Bauer ('07)

"I Make it Happen."

FACULTY SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE

--------------------------------------

Candidate: Regan Forester ('08)

Hi everybody! Just wanted to let you know I feel I am uniquely qualified to represent our law school as the faculty selection representative because of my background and my goals. I spent my last 2 years in an involved leadership position -one which put me in charge of 125 women and a quarter-million dollar budget. As executive vice president of a sorority, I was responsible for the hiring and firing of not only appointed positions within the house, but also of the eight salaried members of the house staff. My skills as an interviewer were critical in picking the best candidate for each spot, and I honed those skills by carefully refining the criteria for each individual position. I plan to do the same for law faculty candidates by looking at open positions, then refining questions for each candidate (while still concentrating on their commitment to us and the university). I want to hear your concerns and comments so I can pass them along to the candidates, letting you know their responses to your questions. As for my goals, I want to practice labor law. I plan to spend a lot of my time and energy developing skills in the business of hirings and firings - this interest and commitment can only serve to make me more effective as faculty rep.

I know many of the election choices you make will be difficult, but I hope one of your choices will be for me!

Best,
Regan Forester

--------------------------------------

Candidate: An-Yen Hu (‘07)

I would like to represent you on the Faculty Selection Committee. Having a student on the Committee is vitally important to insure that student interests are considered when hiring their professors. A representative should be in touch with and receptive of the sentiments of the student body. I can accomplish these goals because for the first two years at law school, I have not only developed and maintained relationships with students through class, but I have extended my student interactions through my involvement with PILF (Vice-President and 1L Representative), APALSA, and the 2L Mentor Program. The relationships I have cultivated with fellow students and student organizations will allow me to better represent their preferences in the Faculty Selection Committee.

However, more importantly, the Faculty Selection Committee Representative cannot be afraid to speak up to other professors and administrators on the committee to fight for the concerns of the students. This can be a very daunting challenge for any student, however, working as the PILF Vice-President this year, I have had ample practice at interacting with professors and administrators. I have learned the delicate balance between being firm yet respectful to administrators and professors in order to get my point across while maintaining a friendly relationship.

If I am elected as the Faculty Selection Committee Representative, I will look for professors that will fit in well in the USC community. I will advocate for professors who not only excel in their research, but who are engaging teachers that students will want to go to class and listen to. I will have no problem going to the weekly 8:00 am faculty selection meetings as evidenced by my attendance at 8:00 classes three days a week this semester.

I have been involved with the law school during my time here, and would very much like to continue to do so in my third year as your SBA Faculty Committee Representative. I know I will be able to represent your interests effectively in the very important process of finding qualified professors to join our community.

Thank you for your support.

With the upcoming USC Law SBA Executive Board elections, the Law School Blog has invited the candidates to put up statements about their candidacy.

SBA TREASURER

Candidate: Larisa Mortazavi ('07)

POSITIONS I HAVE HELD & ACTIVITIES I HAVE BEEN A PART OF:

SBA Communications Chair
My position included acting as the liaison between the student organizations and the student body through weekly (often more frequent) emails. I also helped plan and run various SBA events, including the Student Activities Fair, Community Week, and Bagels during Finals for the 1L’s. I’ve also participated in weekly meetings and budgeting meetings.

MESALA President
I helped plan and run the Outlining Workshop for 1L’s, the Finals Preparation Panel for 1L’s, the Bar Review pre-party, finals dinner in the library, and hookah night. I have also assisted in providing our 1L’s with outlines and advice/guidance throughout the year.

WLA Speaker Co-chair
I helped plan the speaker panels, and been a WLA Mentor to a number of our 1L members.

2L Advisor
Along with the other advisors, I’ve just had fun getting to know Section C and hanging out with them.

WHAT I THINK SBA NEEDS TO DO:

There should be more communication between SBA and the students. There could be more accountability for what SBA members are doing, and this could be done through more frequent general meetings and more disclosure. Students should know how their money is being spent.

As SBA Treasurer, I would take everything I learned from a year of working with (and running) student organizations, and apply it to properly allocating funds to student organizations and advising SBA on the best way to spend our funds.

Having served on SBA, I have seen what the current treasurer does, and I’m well prepared to take over.