How I Study for Finals in Law School

Wow, can you believe we are done with classes and now in finals week? You should be extremely proud of yourself. For those of you who already completed your finals for the semester, YAY for You! You did it! For those of you who still have final exams to take, fear not, you will do well! You got this! To help, I have outlined below how I typically study for finals in law school. This is also the last blog for this semester! I’m so thankful for all the feedback I’ve been getting, the support, and the comments that fellow students have replied with. The whole purpose of my blogs is to inform, encourage, and support my fellow classmates. Hope this helps!

Finals Study Week:

Review Outlines in order of the first final exam that is approaching: 

- Go back to the very beginning and read through the outline from start to end;

- Take notes on a separate notepad while doing a read through since repetition is key;

- Highlight important points and anything you know will, without a doubt, be on the exam;

- Take breaks after every couple pages you review; and

- Make sure to note any concepts you still have a hard time understanding and seek help.

- I will typically take one full day just to review my outlines for classes.  

Make Flashcards in order of the first final exam that is approaching. The Flashcards entail:

- Major Topics of the class;

- Write the topic on the front;

- Write the definition and forgetful details about that topic on the back; and

- Study all the Flashcards once all them are done for that one particular class.

- I will typically have about 50 flashcards by the end, per class.  

Take Practice Exams in order of the first final exam that is approaching: 

- Posted on the MSLAW website are final exams for classes from past years;

- Try to do at least two (2) practice exams per class;

- Try to take them under timed conditions; and

- Take them as if you are taking the real final exam, meaning no notes. 

- Take advantage of them because it is great practice!

Week of Finals:

- Review your Flashcards --> Quiz yourself and set aside the flashcards you have memorized and                 focus on the ones you haven’t memorized fully.

- Review Outlines --> Actively read through your outlines and make sure you understand all the                 concepts you took notes on.

- Review your Practice Final Exams --> Go over your practice answers to the practice exams you did         and compare answers with your friends. 

- Watch Review Videos --> Watch videos to help you understand concepts you’re still not confident             about. Repetition is key, so reading your outline, studying your flashcards, and watching review                 videos will all be helpful. 

- Have Confidence --> You got this! You made it this far and you can finish successfully!

I’ve found this method to work for me and if you think this will be something that will work for you, please do it! Along with doing the above, in order to prepare for your finals, be sure to be kind to yourself and not be hard on yourself. Law school is hard. Law school finals are hard. Make time for yourself to take mini-breaks in between studying. Make time to enjoy yourself, because that will allow you to also enjoy the process. Hope a little insight into the way I study for finals has helped you! Wishing you a beautiful and blessed Holiday Season!

Is Consent Needed?

        Here we are in the second week of the last month of 2020! Just a couple more weeks and we will be done with this semester. Keep pushing through, you got this! This week I want to share with you an SJC case which ruled that blood alcohol content collected without the person’s consent is inadmissible at trial. Relax and happy reading!

On the evening of March 23, 2014, a Driver lost control of her vehicle on a highway and crashed into a guardrail. Her car came to rest with part of the car in the roadway. A short while after, the Defendant was driving down the same highway and crashed his vehicle into the Driver’s. At the moment, the Driver was outside of her vehicle standing on the side of the road, so due to a chain reaction, the Defendant’s act caused her car to strike her and also put her in the path of the Defendant’s car. The Driver sustained serious injuries when she was, “dragged underneath the Defendant’s vehicle for more than 20 feet.” 

The police arrived and noticed the Defendant had a wound on his forehead and appeared unsteady. The police observed the Defendant to have glossy and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a heavy smell of alcohol on his breath. When the police asked the Defendant what happened, the Defendant said that, “another car had come out of nowhere” and ran him over. The Defendant was transported to a hospital thereafter.

After the Defendant refused to consent to a blood draw, the police obtained a search warrant to obtain a blood sample based on suspected OUI. Defendant continuously objected to the blood draw, even after the presentation of a search warrant. Despite the Defendant’s objections, the police restrained the Defendant’s arms and legs and directed the nurses to draw his blood. The nurses drew two vials of the Defendant’s blood. It was found the Defendant’s blood alcohol content to be between a 0.16 and 0.26 at the time of the crash.

The Defendant moved to exclude the blood alcohol content evidence since it was taken in the absence of the Defendant’s consent as required by both G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(e) and G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(f)(1). 

G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(e) provides that when a test of a Defendant’s breath or blood is made by or at the direction of police, the test must be done with the defendant’s consent in order for the results to be admissible for prosecution of an OUI charge.

  G.L.c. 90, Section 24(1)(f)(1) provides that by driving on public roads, all drivers give consent to submit to a blood alcohol content test if arrested for an OUI. However, the statute goes on to state that if the defendant, “refuses to submit to such test or analysis… no such test or analysis must be made.” In such an event, the remedy would be to suspend the defendant’s license for at least six months.  

The state argued that the Defendant’s blood draw was lawful because the police acted pursuant to a valid search warrant. However, the SJC concluded that the plain language of the statutes at issue requires the Defendant’s consent to the blood draw. Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote the following for the majority, “Both subsections require consent for OUI blood draws, and neither makes an exception for, or even mentions, warrants.”

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Volume 49, No. 47.

Do You Agree with the SJC’s Decision?

Mental Health & Lawyers

        Wishing you a beautiful Thanksgiving week ahead! Hope you stay warm, safe, and healthy this Thanksgiving holiday. I also wish those who have exams this week all the best! You know you can do well on your exam, you’re a smart law student! Keep going! That being said, I want to focus this week’s blog post on mental health. The topic of mental health has been in the shadows for a while and all that is doing to us as a society is weakening us, causing us to be helpless for those who need help, and sometimes even brushing it off as if there is no such thing as mental health.

I’m no expert on mental health, so I did some research. “Mental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make choices.” (MentalHealth.gov). It is a common misconception that mental illness has to do with just brain tumors, and other medical brain conditions, however, mental health is beyond that. It includes, “depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and other disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior.” (Mayo Clinic). 

        Mental health issues in the legal profession are overlooked and undermined. It’s common for lawyers to put others before themselves and try to fix others’ problems when they themselves are struggling. It’s so easy for lawyers to overwork and take very little care of themselves. It’s our nature. We’re in a demanding profession and with that comes its struggles. It is crucial for law students and lawyers to recognize that struggle and come to support each other. One may not even know that a fellow law student or lawyer is struggling with their mental health. We’re so good at putting ourselves aside and conveying ourselves in a good manner just for the sake of our clients, our families, our friends, our community. We need to learn to put ourselves first, give our mental health priority, and be aware of those around us who may be struggling with their mental health. 

Using Mayo Clinic as a reference, some signs and symptoms of mental illness include:

1. Inability to cope with daily problems or stress;

2. Major changes in eating habits;

3. Extreme mood changes of highs and lows;

4. Significant tiredness, low energy, or problems sleeping; and

5. Excessive anger, hostility or violence.

        When we suffer from such symptoms, it is important to pause and evaluate ourselves. It’s important to seek help when you feel like you are not yourself. Times can be stressful around exam season or when you have trial coming up, and especially during such a pandemic. But there are resources out there that can help. In Massachusetts, we are very fortunate to have an organization whose mission is to support lawyers and law students. In most cases, their services are free of charge. Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) stated mission is, “to promote well-being and resilience in the legal community, improve lives, nurture competence, and elevate the standing of the legal profession…to fulfill this mission, LCL provides free and confidential mental health resources, addiction recovery support, and practice management services.” LCL has visited MSLAW in the past to support students and talk about their services. Anyone who feels they need some additional support during these stressful times should reach out to them. You can learn all about their services through their website at https://www.lclma.org.   

        Whether it be speaking to a friend about it, going to a therapist, doing activities that help you relax, or surrounding yourself with people that will support you and help you grow, you should do what you have to in order to take care of yourself. 

Give yourself priority. You deserve to be happy.

The Banana Peel that Led to a Rotator Cuff Surgery

        I know you must be stressed and overwhelmed with it being exam season combined with being in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. I want to remind you that everything will be okay; you will be okay; you will do well on your exams; you will graduate; and you will be well on your way to becoming a successful attorney. Only positive thoughts! I came across a very interesting case, one involving a banana peel! I thought you would be interested too, so give it a read!

In this case, the Plaintiff is a 53-year-old iron worker who was working at a construction site. On one particular occasion, the worker left his work area to get some supplies. On his way to get the supplies, he passed by an elevator that was in the, “up position with someone working on it”. The worker’s attention was drawn towards the mechanic working on the elevator. However, in the meantime, the worker slipped and fell on a banana peel. The Plaintiff suffered a shoulder injury which required a rotator cuff surgery and eventually, a full shoulder replacement. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff’s doctors said that the worker was permanently disabled from iron work.

The Plaintiff’s attorney filed an action against the prime contractor of the premises, claiming that the prime contractor had a duty to maintain the jobsite in a reasonably safe condition and free from all foreseeable hazard. The attorney further claimed that the prime contractor breached his duty by: 

(1) failing to properly maintain the jobsite;

(2) failing to perform proper work and site inspections; 

(3) failing to provide trash receptacles on the jobsite;

(4) allowing workers on the site to throw trash on the ground;

(5) failing to remedy any dangers on the jobsite; 

(6) failing to ensure safe means of ingress and egress to designated work areas; and 

(7) by failing to ensure that work was completed on the jobsite in a reasonably safe manner. 

        Defense argued that it, “did not and should not have had notice of the banana peel on the ground and that the Plaintiff should have been aware of where he was walking.” Eventually, the Plaintiff accepted a settlement totaling 1.6 million.

(Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Volume 49, No. 44)

What Are Your Thoughts on This Case? 

No-Contest Clauses in Wills and Trusts

        Wishing you a beautiful start to a new, fresh week in November! Keep going, the semester is coming to an end sooner than you think! To keep you informed about current cases and what has been decided, this week I have a case regarding a will that has a no-contest clause in it. I found it to be very interesting to read because we actually learned all about no-contest clauses in my Wills and Trusts class not too long ago. Everyone, whether you are the Testator of a will or the beneficiary, should be aware of what the no-contest clause necessitates. Happy reading!

Capobianco v. Dischino, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (2020), is a recent Appeals Court case where the court upheld the enforceability of no-contest clauses in Massachusetts wills and trusts. In this case, a trust beneficiary filed a complaint seeking to remove the trustees, appoint himself as the sole trustee, stop the trustee from depleting trust assets, and request a trust accounting. The trust actually contained a no-contest clause which provides, “If any person attempts to contest or oppose the validity of this agreement, or any of its provisions, commences, continues, or prosecutes any legal proceedings to set this agreement aside, whether directly or indirectly, then that person will forfeit his or her share, cease to have any right or interest in the trust property, and will, for purposes of this agreement, be deemed to have predeceased the settlors.” 

In the states where no-contest clauses are permissible, courts have the ability to forfeit the challenger’s interest in the trust. “A court will often enforce a no-contest clause when a beneficiary challenges the validity of the instrument itself or its substantive provisions. In contrast, courts often decline to enforce a no-contest clause when a beneficiary is seeking an interpretation of the will or trust”. 

In the present case of Capobianco, the beneficiary was unhappy with the way the trustees were handling their duties, exactly why he filed suit. The beneficiary had the option to bring an action for breach of fiduciary duty and seek to remove the trustees, but instead, the beneficiary decided to, “file suit asking the Probate Court to disregard multiple terms of the trust, name him as the sole trustee, appoint him as the sole manager of two LLCs controlled by the trust, and prevent the current trustees from administering the trust while the litigation was pending”. 

The trustees brought a declaratory judgement to enforce the no-contest clause and the court granted such judgement even though the trustees did not have standing because they had no personal interests in the matter while serving as trustees. The court found that the beneficiary triggered the no-contest clause with his lawsuit, “because he sought to disregard the provisions of the trust governing the process for how trustees are appointed and the identity of the successor trustees”. 

The court stated that they will, “construe no-contest clauses narrowly because the law generally disfavors forfeitures. However, in this case, the trust instrument specifically prohibited a beneficiary from serving as the sole trustee of the trust”.

MA Lawyers Weekly Volume 49, No. 43. 

 Do You Think the No-Contest Clause is Fair?

Lawsuit that Arises from an International Ballet Dance Competition

    Wow, first week of November! Just one more month away from the semester’s end. Keep up the hard work! This week, I want to bring to your attention a case involving two insurance companies who were relieved from liability in a tort lawsuit. Happy Reading!

The Defendant is the owner of an international ballet academy. The Defendant worked as an instructor at a Dance Studio which provided ballet lessons. The Plaintiff was a student taking ballet lessons at the Dance Studio. On one occasion, the Defendant convinced the Plaintiff to compete in the World Ballet Competition in Romania in March 2014. This was an event that was co-founded by the Defendant and the Defendant even served as a judge of the Competition.

On the flight to Romania, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant groped her under her clothes and once in Romania, repeatedly raped her in her room and put a drug in her drinks. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant, “took advantage of her vulnerable position traveling in a foreign country where she did not speak the language”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant in Superior court alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence. The Defendant denied these allegations and in return, filed a counterclaim alleging defamation, tortious interference, and abuse of process. 

The Defendant thereafter brought action against National Casualty (his employer’s insurance company) and Safety Insurance, Co. (his homeowner’s insurance) seeking a, “declaration that they had a duty to defend and indemnify”. National Casualty Insurance argued that it had no duty to defend the Defendant because, “the alleged misconduct fell outside the scope” of the Defendant’s employment duties. Specifically, the World Ballet Competition in Romania was beyond the interest of the Dance Studio the Defendant was an instructor at, and therefore, had no obligation to defend the Defendant for any claims brought against him related in this case. The National Casualty further stated that, “those alleged accidents self-evidently served only the [Defendant’s] interests and therefore, he cannot claim status as an insured party on that basis”. 

Once that attempt failed, the Defendant resorted to his homeowner’s insurance, Safety Insurance, Co.; however, the Defendant’s homeowner’s policy states an exception which prevents coverage of “business pursuits”. The court found that, “it is uncontested that any injuries suffered by [the Defendant’s] alleged acts occurred out of the country on a work-related trip…under these circumstances, regardless of whether [the Defendant’s] alleged actions were motivated by personal or business reasons, any resulting injuries arose out of or in connection with [the Defendant’s] business pursuits, and thus are excluded”. Therefore, both the National Casualty and Safety Insurance, Co. were relieved from liability. 

Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly Volume 49, No. 42   

Do You Believe the Right Decision was Made by the Court? 

Home Entry & Probable Cause to Motions for Summary Judgement

          Here we are, embarking on our last week of October 2020! Can you believe we are almost to the end of this semester? You have made it this far, just a few weeks less than two months, and you’ll be down another semester of law school! This week, I have an interesting case for you to read! It’s a civil case about a home entry that took place and an argument over whether the home entry went against the Plaintiff’s constitutional right. Happy Reading!

        This case arises out of a couple of Motions for Summary Judgement that were filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s claim that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his apartment without a warrant and conducting a search. Briefly, a detective (detective 1), employed by the Worcester Police Department, had been investigating the Plaintiff for 15 months and conducted about 12 controlled purchases of cocaine from him through a reliable confidential informant (CI). 

        Thereafter, on August 28, 2014, another detective (detective 2) working for the Worcester Police Department saw a tall, thin man entering the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The police officer testified that in the vehicle, he could see the men engage in conversation, “while fixated on something between them” and observed them, “reaching towards each other”. Based on the detective’s training and experience, “his impression was that he just witnessed a hand-to hand street level drug transaction”. Upon seeing this, the detective informed other police officers of this transaction. A short while after, the tall man exited the vehicle and walked away. 

    The detective went out and approached the tall man to which the tall man, “made a quick throwing gesture behind his back with his right hand”. The detective, upon retrieving the item, saw it was a, “small off-white colored chunk in a small knotted plastic bag, which he believed to be crack cocaine. The detective frisked the tall, thin man and according to the man, he said he purchased a rock of cocaine for $40 with some friends earlier in the day and had intended to smoke it. The man also admitted that when he saw the detective coming towards him, he took it out of his pocket and threw it away.

        Thereafter, detective 2 stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was at an intersection by then, and ordered the Plaintiff to put his car in park and to get out. Officers removed Plaintiff from his car and ordered him to the ground. Plaintiff refused and the officers started searching him. The officers found $40 in his hand, $122.00 in his wallet, and two cell phones. Plaintiff was placed under arrest for distribution of a class B substance. The police provided the Plaintiff his Miranda warnings which the Plaintiff later denied he was ever read. The police said Plaintiff answered affirmatively in response to the warnings and asked Plaintiff where he lived. Plaintiff gave the police his address. Thereafter, the police did a pat down of Plaintiff to which no drugs were detected. The Plaintiff said that the police stripped him down and made him bend over and then cough. The police then took the Plaintiff’s house keys.

        Upon arrival at the Plaintiff’s house, the police did a “protective sweep” of the place to make sure there was no one inside who could destroy the evidence. The police said no drawers were open, furniture wasn’t moved, and mattresses were not lifted. However, Plaintiff claims that his apartment was a mess and drawers were open. The police stated they were in the apartment for only a few minutes and secured the apartment while awaiting a search warrant. Ultimately, however, they did not obtain a search warrant because prior to searching the Plaintiff’s apartment, they saw the Plaintiff’s son leaving in his car and believed that any potential evidence would have been taken with him or destroyed. Plaintiff alleges the police were in his apartment for about 25 minutes, not just a few minutes. The police officers applied to the district court for the issuance of a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff for the distribution of cocaine. The Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that he was arrested without probable cause, that his residence was illegally searched, and that he was subjected to an unlawful body cavity search. 

            With regards to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, the judge ruled, “Although it is a close call, on this record, I find that there is a genuine issue of material fact both as to whether the Defendants had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime could be found inside the apartment and as to whether the entry to the Plaintiff’s apartment was necessary to prevent the imminent loss of such evidence…” Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement was denied. With regards to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, the judge ruled that, “Even if a jury were to find that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed such that a warrantless entry into the Plaintiff’s apartment was not violative of the Fourth Amendment, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the search exceeded the scope of what would have been proper under the circumstances”. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement on this claim was also denied. 

Johnson v. City of Worcester, et al., Civil Action Number 17-40103-TSH

Lawyers Weekly Volume 49, No. 38.  

For Those of you who missed Blog Contributor, Eddie Street's Post last week, Check it out here!
https://mslawcommunityblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/1l-legal-writing-courses-dos-and-donts.html

What are Your Thoughts on This Case? Who Do You Think Should Prevail?