Dear Student,
Welcome to The Law School Playbook! I’m Halle Hara, a professor of academic success and personal skills coach to law students and attorneys. I’m glad you’re here! Law students, particularly in their first year, look for truth in the cases that they read. Even second-year law students likely figure that the judge knows much more about a given topic than they do, so they read cases to see what they can learn.
But I want you to think about this: you’ll spend a great deal of time in practice arguing that a judge is wrong. Whether you are attempting to distinguish a binding decision or appealing a judge’s ruling, you are going say that the judge’s opinion is just that—an opinion—and that the judge got it wrong.
Evaluating a case as you read is an important lawyering skill. There are some cases where you won’t even have to think about it. Consider, for example, a 2003 Ohio Court of Appeals decision by Judge Mark Painter. The lawsuit was brought against the Cincinnati Reds and the City of Cincinnati based on alleged a failure to collect stadium rent. Judge Painter’s opinion begins with the following:
In keeping with the less than stellar history of stadium construction in Cincinnati is this lawsuit involving the Cincinnati Reds, Cincinnati, and Hamilton County. It has twisted and turned, parties have been thrown out and substituted, and none of the parties can agree on the rules of the game. The Reds, Cincinnati, Hamilton County, the taxpayer-plaintiff, and the trial court have become enmeshed in a series of procedural and legal double plays and errors. It is difficult to determine who, if anyone, is on first.
We resolve the case by calling the plaintiff out.
City of Cincinnati ex rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, 782 N.E.2d 1225, 1229–30 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). My guess is you have a feeling about that opinion. Perhaps you feel that the Judge’s light-hearted approach is inappropriate in a judicial opinion. If you’re a baseball fan, you might think it’s terrific. Either way, you might think, “If there were more decisions like this, I wouldn’t mind reading for class so much.”
Novice readers accept a judicial opinion as truth, but expert readers form opinions and make judgments as they read. Having opinions and making judgments is important because it promotes active, rather than passive, reading. The opinion you formulate doesn’t necessarily have to be about whether a judge’s decision is right or wrong, although that is a fine thing to consider. You might also evaluate the judge’s writing style or whether the judge was too cursory or belabored a particular point. You might consider whether the judge seemed predisposed to rule a certain way or whether the judge seemed to be stretching the law to reach the outcome.
Odds are that you have opinions about most things in your life. Think about how often you’ve used IMHO (or worse yet IMNSHO). Given the substantial investment you are making in law school, it is worth your effort to form and recognize your opinions as you read. Doing so will mean that you are more engaged, which will always work to your benefit.
If would you like to read this episode, get suggestions for further reading, or to request individual coaching with me, please visit my website at www.lawschoolplaybook.com.
As always, do your best, and I’ll be rooting for you!
References and Further Reading
Leah M. Christensen, The Psychology Behind Case Briefing: A Powerful Cognitive Schema, 29 Campbell L. Rev. 5, 25–26 (2006).
Leah M. Christensen, The Paradox of Legal Expertise: A Study of Experts and Novices Reading the Law, 2008 B.Y.U. Educ. & L.J. 53, 59 (2008).
Ruth Ann McKinney, Reading Like a Lawyer: Time-Saving Strategies for Reading Law Like an Expert 153–154 (2d ed. 2012).
Laurel Currie Oates, Beating the Odds: Reading Strategies of Law Students Admitted Through Alternative Admissions Programs, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 139, 160 (1997).
Michael Hunter Schwartz, Expert Learning for Law Students 85–87 (2d ed. 2008).