Everyone's Favorite Time. (Posted by Gabe)

Through the paralegal course and 3 1/2 years of law school, I've taken a lot of finals. In fact, I just had another round about two weeks ago, so I'm fresh off the stress! As you all approach that time again, I thought I'd share with you some finals lessons I've learned over the years. I hope they are a blessing.

The most valuable lesson I have learned is devote my studies, and the accompanying tests, to the Lord. I don't just mean "pray about" your final exams--that is part of it, but I'm sure you're already doing that. I mean really truly, on a core level, remind yourself of why you are taking this paralegal course. I trust that you will come to the conclusion that you are taking this course to bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ. Coming to that realization can be very freeing! Prepare not for your final exam, but to bring glory to God through it.

Second, focus your study time. It is so easy to study scattershot, picking up bits and pieces, but that is not effective in legal courses. A couple weeks out from the exam, identify your trouble spots and really brush up on them, but just days before the course I would encourage you to do a broad review to remind yourselves how all of the rules fit together. It is amazing how many confusing portions of an exam can fall right together when you have the "big picture" of the subject.

Third, have key definitions locked in. It is possible to fudge definitions on an exam, but knowing your key definitions, and being able to repeat them at a moment's notice under the pressure of an exam, will be huge for you. Take the time to really get to know your definitions and elements--almost all of which will be found in your syllabus itself.

Finally, when the exam is done, forget about it. I don't mean forget the stuff you learned--just don't re-hash it to yourself. If you think you've done well, cross your fingers; if you think it has gone badly, dedicate it to God, but either way, move on. Don't waste time and emotional energy doing a "post mortem," especially if you have more exams coming up.

I won't give this next bit out as advice--lest I be accused of failing to follow my own advice--but getting enough sleep before an exam can really make the difference. If you run out of energy two-thirds of the way through the exam, all of your study won't help you, so sometimes it is better to sleep than cram!

May God bless your test-taking!

Conlaw Final. (Posted by Gabe)

Well, it's that time again! Here's a question from among your ranks:

I am currently studying for the constitutional law final exam and am a little overwhelmed with the amount of information in the course. Do you have any suggestions of what my main focus should be (is a broad knowledge sufficient, or do I need to know all of the cases and amendments?) or how I should study for the test?

I would preface my answer by saying that I don't have any idea what is going to be on your final, or even what format your exam is (essays vs. short answer vs. multiple choice, etc). If any of you know, leave a comment and I'll try to restructure my answer accordingly.

That being said, there are certainly some things that can really help you out.

1. You need to have a knowledge of all of the basic doctrines, and how they are applied. For instance, you need to know the due process analysis, the equal protection analysis, the basics of free speech, freedom of religion (both clauses!), etc. You will also need to be familiar with the governmental structure that the Constitution establishes--the three branches of government, the powers of the states, etc.

2. It is always very helpful to know where Constitutional rules are within the document itself. For instance, knowing that the powers of Congress are in Article 1, Section 8, and freedom to keep and bear arms is in the Second Amendment, and the separation of church and state isn't in there at all, will probably be useful.

3. There are some cases that you really should know. Marbury vs. Madison is the first on that comes to mind, and there are a few others that you should be able to cite by name if you are tested on the rules that they promulgated. Other than that, I would not recommend that you take a ton of time to learn case names. You would be better served learning the rules, tests, and Constitutional provisions.

I hope that helps out! I'm working on some general finals advice; check back soon for that.

Site Update. (Posted by Gabe)

Hi Friends--

In this world of syndication, I finally discovered how to enable our blog Atom feed. If you use a feed reader, subscribe using the link now in the sidebar!

E-mail me if you have questions about subscribing. With finals approaching, now would be a good time to make sure you get the posts!

Also, e-mail me if you would like your blog added to the blogroll. I would love for this site to be a center for paralegal students and graduates--let's use the blogroll to do that! E-mail me your blog URL and we will start the cyber networking.

Thinking Like a Legal Professional. (Posted by Gabe)

Thanks to your recent Equal Protection Writing Assignment, each of you paralegal students has had the chance to think through a specific fact pattern and weigh all of the considerations that went in to answering it. Here's a question I received on that issue:

For this paper-- my initial thought is that any rdinance may not designate separate areas within the establishment for race (suspect class), but for homosexuals? Since that's not specifically in the chart, does that make them a non-suspect class applying rational basis test, or perhaps it's a fundamental right issue (to be able to attend business establishments without being segregated?). The person in the paper is claiming that their rights are on the level of a suspect class, which I don't think it is, so I guess that is where most of the discussion will take place....I'm just not sure about how we're supposed to think through these things--biblically vs. equal protection chart.

That is a great question, and one that you should be learning to answer as you progress through this course. In law school they call it "thinking like a lawyer," but it is no less important as a paralegal. Paralegals often have the first chance to interact with a client and guide the thinking of the attorney, and the paralegal's ability to think through the fact situations and come to a conclusion is vital to success in the profession.

No legal fact scenario occurs in a vacuum. By this, I mean that the legal professional can almost never simply look at the law and come to a conclusion to do his or her job right. It is important to recognize that often you must start with extra-legal reasoning, which in the case of a Christian, starts with God's Word. There should be absolutely no shame in doing that, although obviously there is a balancing act--the client is paying for legal advice, not counseling, and as professionals we have the responsibility to provide legal representation.

Because it is a balancing act, there is no "right" answer. Every fact scenario is different, and every client has different personal needs and goals from the legal confrontation. If you reasoned through this fact pattern on a purely Constitutional basis, you were not wrong. But if you took the time to reason through the "worldview" behind the contentions, you have begun the process of thinking like a legal professional.

You may disagree with the contention that homosexuality should be protected by the Equal Protection Clause, but obviously the authors of the letter in this fact pattern disagree. Simply telling them that they were wrong won't change anyone's mind, and won't influence a court. Why, then, does the Constitution agree with your worldview? Why should a court follow your line of legal reasoning, instead of theirs? And what can you provide to persuade those with a different worldview than yours?

While I have no desire to give you an "answer" to the fact pattern--and would not be helping you if I did!--I hope that this helps as you prepare yourselves to be effective paralegals.

Prosecutors Beware! (Posted by Gabe)

If you follow national or sports news, you probably saw that today all charges were dropped against three Duke lacrosse players. But it was more than that! The attorney general of North Carolina almost literally shredded the district attorney for his actions in pursuing the case without evidence.

If you want to see what the AG had to say--and what you never, ever want to hear if you work for a prosecutor!--you can do so here.

This story, though, leads to a lot of different questions. Leave some comments with your thoughts!

1. Do you think that the district attorney should be disbarred for what he did?

2. Do you think it is right that the accuser who changed her story will probably get away scot free?

3. What do you think of the Attorney General's proposal? "Therefore, I propose a law that the North Carolina Supreme Court have the authority to remove a case from a prosecutor in limited circumstances. This would give the courts a new tool to deal with a prosecutor who needs to step away from a case where justice demands."

Thai Justice (?) (Posted by Gabe)

As an avid sports fan, I subscribe to the ESPN RSS feed, and this came through just now. Since you are studying Criminal Law and Procedure, I thought it was appropos to send on.

Siriporn beats Miyano, boosts parole chances

Maybe it is a stupid question, but should winning a boxing match have anything to do with whether or not parole is granted? Your thoughts welcome.