Nostalgia for Analytically Fluffier Times

This was written sometime last week. I didn't want to post an edited version of my email until my professor had seen it first. She was a visiting professor that taught me property my first year. And yes, she does remember me =P

-----

Hi professor,

I don't know if you remember me but I was in your first year property class at [insert law school]. I just wanted to write and thank you for helping me "think like a lawyer." Right now I am reading an assignment for professional responsibility and in particular, I am learning about the gradual decline in interest for "cause lawyering" among law students and the author's contention that "thinking like a lawyer" is a possible reason for that decline. As a matter of disclosure, learning to think like a lawyer (and by no means am I done) has not dampened my interest in government/public interest law. It remains an option to consider.

But reading this article made me think back to our property class and some of the "hot" cases we went over like Moore v. UC Regents or Kelo v. City of New London. I remember in particular when you called on me to discuss Loretto v. Teleprompter. You had asked if the per se rule was a good ruling. I gave some fluff answer about how I felt, that the owner shouldn't mind b/c it's only one cable line. But looking back, I can't help but feel kinda stupid. I'm not saying I can cover all the pros and cons of the per se rule now, but I would have given a much better response than what I gave last year. Overall, a lot of these "hot" cases brought out emotional responses that don't seem to satisfy all sides.

Although learning this skill, to remove one's own preferences and apply the facts to the rules dispassionately to come to a certain conclusion is somewhat distasteful, I am strangely complacent. Maybe its because I think a lot of the value judgments that a case brings up ought to be settled by the legislature, or that value judgments have no one right answer, or perhaps something else. But whatever it is, I thought you did your best to push this lousy student to think much more analytically.

I also firmly believe that the smaller, more intimate classroom setting was a big factor in directing me to be more focused in my reasoning. The students got to know each other and to bounce ideas off one another. No student could hide behind other students and you were able to focus your attention on one particular student at a time. Plus it was about as organized as 300+ years of property case law can be. Out of the three classes I had that first semester in that dreaded first year of law school, your class has had the most lasting impact. Although I am only a 2L, although I still have a lot more to add to my foundation of skills before I can say I am a lawyer, I'd like to think I am on the right path and that you helped me (as well as anyone could have) in placing me on that right path. Thanks.

Best wishes from [insert geographical location],

[my name]