Future Generation of Lawyers

(just no lawyer jokes, please)

I finished grading the last law exam today (one day ahead of the deadline  ).
Most of the first year students in my Torts class did respectable work. Some were quite outstanding. In my Family Law class, on the other hand, I had a handful of the worst exams that I’d ever seen (in my uninterrupted 10 years, i.e. 20 semesters, of teaching this class). The question was extremely straightforward: a long fact pattern detailing the life of a woman who had one too many marriages (even by Bush's standards), a few too many affairs, and a bunch of marital and nonmarital children. The point was to secure a financially stable future for her and for her children, and to keep the children together.
Here are some literal quotes from exam-takers (fyi, Barbie is the client, Bill is her latest husband of 3 years; a few of the comments are from the same student; square brackets are my own notes):

- “Bill may claim rights to 14 year old (from a previous marriage) as well, even though not the biological father, depending on his relationship with the 14 year old” [a regular Michael Jackson kind of guy!]
- “Courts seem to prefer some sort of joint custody so she’ll have to put up with it”
- “Courts look at domicile and where they have been living because they are concerned with state interest”
- “In Wisconsin, one needs to show declaration of intent before someone to get married.”
- “She could argue that it is not in the best interest of the child for Mona to visit and the trial court could grant her this presumption, however court may override it if they determine their own best interest.”
- “By looking at the specifics of his infidelities and comparing them to effects that they had on Barbie it may be possible to show that, for example Bill had so many affairs that he was reckless and outrageous in regards to Barbie because he put her at a risk of catching an STD and as a result of said behavior Barbie suffered emotional distress” [wait, is this an errant exam from the Torts class?]
- “States want to respect the Full Faith and Credit clause because it promotes comity between the states and discourages forum shopping so that people try to get what they want.”
- [maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate the absurdity of this one:] “Under the Uniform Family Support Act, a state has no jurisdiction to modify child support orders issued by another state that has lost its continuing exclusive jurisdiction.” [so once a state loses jurisdiction, man, it’s gone!]
- “And Barbie is still young, 36. She’s got the world ahead of her. And I am still young so I’m sure I’ll have plenty of legal bills for Barbie in her future.”

Hey, this law stuff isn't that tough! Can't wait to hang that shingle!