Ah, my eyes!
After actually reading my blog, I realized the template I chose initially (black background/white type) was really unkind to the eyes. It looked sleek and urban, but if you can't read it, what's the point?
A labor economist spoke to my Poverty Law class today. The economist was funny and made the material as enjoyable as possible. Poverty Law is a fantastic class, but one of the drawbacks is having to learn and work with 'statistics' and 'economic theories'.
Law students in general fear math. My first-year Torts professor often said, "you came to law school to avoid math...your counterparts who like math went to med or engineering school." He once asked us to quantify the 'preponderance of the evidence' burden of proof in relation to the 'clear and convincing' burden of proof. He lost me at quantify.
At any rate, in class today I started having flashbacks to 12th grade economics (the last exposure I really had to the subject unless you count living on a student's budget as 'economics'). I vaguely recall things like the Invisible Hand, supply and demand, and even something about free lunches.
In Trusts and Estates ("TnE" to law nerds) tonight we discussed the Rule against Perpetuities ("RAP" to law nerds). The idea behind the RAP, basically, is that the living, not the dead, should control property. At least that's what I got out of the lecture. There's nothing more uplifting than talking about preventing corpses from controlling your property. How does that happen? Is that damned Invisible Hand somehow involved? I'll spare the non-law readers the nasty details, but here's some indication of how beastly the RAP is:
"Of the California law on perpetuities ... it has been said that few, if any, areas of the law have been fraught with more confusion or concealed more traps for the unwary draftsman, [and] that members of the bar, probate courts, and title insurance companies make errors in these matters;...
In view of the state of the law relating to perpetuities ... it would not be proper to hold that defendant [an attorney] failed to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly exercise.
Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P. 2d 685 (Cal. 1961).
The good news we glean from the above passage? The lawyer's not tapped for malpractice because the lawyer was only of ordinary skill and the RAP is considered beyond the skill and capacity of the ordinary lawyer. Anybody else see a little problem there?
A labor economist spoke to my Poverty Law class today. The economist was funny and made the material as enjoyable as possible. Poverty Law is a fantastic class, but one of the drawbacks is having to learn and work with 'statistics' and 'economic theories'.
Law students in general fear math. My first-year Torts professor often said, "you came to law school to avoid math...your counterparts who like math went to med or engineering school." He once asked us to quantify the 'preponderance of the evidence' burden of proof in relation to the 'clear and convincing' burden of proof. He lost me at quantify.
At any rate, in class today I started having flashbacks to 12th grade economics (the last exposure I really had to the subject unless you count living on a student's budget as 'economics'). I vaguely recall things like the Invisible Hand, supply and demand, and even something about free lunches.
In Trusts and Estates ("TnE" to law nerds) tonight we discussed the Rule against Perpetuities ("RAP" to law nerds). The idea behind the RAP, basically, is that the living, not the dead, should control property. At least that's what I got out of the lecture. There's nothing more uplifting than talking about preventing corpses from controlling your property. How does that happen? Is that damned Invisible Hand somehow involved? I'll spare the non-law readers the nasty details, but here's some indication of how beastly the RAP is:
"Of the California law on perpetuities ... it has been said that few, if any, areas of the law have been fraught with more confusion or concealed more traps for the unwary draftsman, [and] that members of the bar, probate courts, and title insurance companies make errors in these matters;...
In view of the state of the law relating to perpetuities ... it would not be proper to hold that defendant [an attorney] failed to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly exercise.
Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P. 2d 685 (Cal. 1961).
The good news we glean from the above passage? The lawyer's not tapped for malpractice because the lawyer was only of ordinary skill and the RAP is considered beyond the skill and capacity of the ordinary lawyer. Anybody else see a little problem there?
posted by Me at 20:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home