Court of Petty Appeals: Joe v. Fore 187 U.Va. 17 (2017)

HADEN, J., announcing the opinion of the court, joined by GOLDMAN, C.J., and JANI, PICKUS, and THORNTON, JJ.

Today’s case involves a dispute between a teacher and a student over the teacher’s power to give a failing grade. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and direct the lower court to enter judgment in accordance with our opinion here.

All parties to this dispute agree to the relevant facts necessary for resolution of this case. The plaintiff, who we refer to as Dohn Joe for purposes of anonymity, is a 1L currently enrolled at the Law School. As a 1L, Joe is currently enrolled in the yearlong confusing legal adventure known as Legal Research and Writing (hereinafter LRW). Joe’s professor is one of the defendants, Professor Joe Fore, who, we have been told, does not do as many pull ups as Professor Doran.

Defendant Fore assigned a legal brief as the main assignment for LRW this semester. This brief, which amicus briefs have described as “torturous,” “hellish,” “kinda fun if you’re the kind of person who enjoyed journal tryouts,” and “pretty sucky,” was meant to be between fifteen and twenty-two pages, which is a whole lot.[1] Fore made these briefs due at 5:30 pm sharp on Thursday, March 16th. Seven copies of the brief had to be printed out and turned in at the specified time. Fore warned his students, including Joe, that failure to submit the briefs on time would result in a student automatically failing LRW for that semester.

On March 17th, plaintiff Joe was having a pretty shitty day. He had just taken the Accounting exam the day before and that hadn’t gone well. Joe had gotten little-to-no sleep because he was writing personal statements for journal tryouts. Joe and his girlfriend had gotten in a pretty big fight because he really didn’t want to go out for St. Patrick’s Day, but she was really into it and didn’t want to go alone. Worst of all, Joe was out of money in his printing account so he had to go to FedEx to get his briefs printed out. Plus, they charged him extra for the red cover on all of his briefs. Needless to say, Joe was not doing super well around 5:25 pm as he sprinted out of the FedEx store to get back to the Law School.

At 5:31 pm, defendant Fore closed the door of the small interview room where he was collecting the briefs. At 5:34 and ten seconds, Joe arrived but found the door locked. He was unable to submit his briefs. Defendant Fore told Joe via email that Joe would fail LRW and would need to take the class again 2L year. Joe then filed this lawsuit, seeking to enjoin Fore from failing him in LRW for being late to turn in his briefs. Joe also filed suit against defendant Jason Dugas, seeking to enjoin Dugas from entering a failing grade onto Joe’s transcript.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the court below. They argued that, even accepting the facts as true, the difficulties of the plaintiff were not sufficient to warrant an extension on submitting the brief. They argue that professors have plenary power to assign grades in classrooms, and students cannot petition these grades for extraneous reasons. Finally, defendant Dugas argues that grades cannot be left off of a transcript, as that would defeat the purpose of a transcript of one’s academic progress in Law School. A panel of three judges below, consisting of two Dillards and Professor Sarah Ware, granted the motion to dismiss as to both defendants. We affirm the motion to dismiss as to defendant Fore, but reverse the motion to dismiss as to defendant Dugas.

At the outset, following the Goluboff Suggestion, we note that we have jurisdiction as this is a case that rises out of, and uniquely out of, the Law School.

We first turn to the plaintiff’s contentions against defendant Fore. The lower court held that there are no circumstances that the plaintiff could allege such that the deadline (and the subsequent automatic failure of LRW) could be judicially ignored. We disagree with that contention. Certainly there are cases and circumstances in which a Petty Court, acting under its broad grant of equitable powers from this Court,[2] could find that a deadline is unreasonable or unfair, and grant the kind of relief that plaintiff here seeks. However, we are convinced that the plaintiff’s particular circumstances here cannot give rise to the relief he seeks against Fore.

Fore is correct that professors often enjoy plenary power in deciding the grades of their students. There are limitations of fairness and equity; typically these limitations take the form of the “curve,” which we have held elsewhere can be judicially altered. See Anonymous 3L v. Clerkship Rejection, 289 U.Va 1829 (2014). However, we have also held that in pass/fail classes, there are fewer limitations because there is no curve. We have even gone so far as to hold that “the presumption [in pass/fail classes] is that you’re gonna pass, so long as you’re sober 50% of the time.” Seminar on Ethical Values v. Ferzan & Hellman, et al., 382 U.Va 18 (2016). That presumption is only overcome by a clear warning from the professor.

In this case, it is undisputed that Fore gave such a warning to his students, including the plaintiff, that a student would not pass if a brief were submitted late. We find that as a matter of law, Fore did not act outside of his duly granted powers as a professor in setting a deadline, advertising that deadline, and using an automatic failure as the punishment for failure to meet the deadline.

As noted above, we also find that the plaintiff’s specific circumstances do not warrant an exception. Circumstances that might give rise to such an exception include, but are not limited to, a death or serious illness in the family, some sort of unforeseen accident, or the Thursday Keg suddenly returning to its rightful day.[3]

Plaintiff argues that without this Court granting relief, he will be forced to redo LRW and that will be too humiliating to bear. We agree that it may be humiliating, but hopefully it will be easier the second time around. Plus, the 1Ls will just think you’re a Dillard. We must affirm the judgment of the lower court as to defendant Fore.

While we cannot enjoin Fore to help the plaintiff, we think that we can (and should) enjoin Dugas to help the plaintiff. We do not agree with Dugas’ argument that the point of a transcript is to record grades. Rather, we see the transcript as the fundamental tool in helping students get jobs. We recognized that transcripts serve this vital role in Davis Polk v. Donovan, 2 U.Va 1892 (2016) (“Transcripts and softball batting averages are the key statistics that employers examine.”).

We agree with our partially dissenting colleague that in almost all cases, finalized grades should not be removed from the transcript, as that might cause a flurry of litigation from these gunnery 1Ls. However, today, we recognize an exception: failing grades in LRW shall be henceforth stricken from all UVa Law transcripts. Defendant Dugas is hereby enjoined from placing such a grade on any student’s transcript. Fore may fail Joe, and Fore may make him take LRW again, but no evidence of this shall appear on a permanent record.

We therefore reverse the motion to dismiss as granted against defendant Dugas and remand this case with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff against defendant Dugas. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.

ANGELOTTI, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I would affirm the entirety of the lower court’s decision. I cannot join the Court in its conclusion that grades can be left off of a transcript. That would defeat the entire point of a transcript. Trust me, I’d love to get rid of some of my grades, but we can’t do that because without grades, there’d be no Law Review, and without Law Review, I wouldn’t know who to avoid at parties.


[1] As a Court rule, we don’t accept briefs longer than four pages. Who has time to read that much?

[2] Yeah, we learned something from LRW. #disgorgeBrunoKrait.

[3] But see the Regulatory Office of Student Affairs’ recent promulgated rule: “No fun shall be had on Thursdays ever.”

Hot Bench: Allie Hemmings

1. Have you ever had a nickname? What?

My mom and grandma call me Xanuca, which is the diminutive form of my name in Portuguese.  I love hummingbirds, so some of my friends in college called me “Hemmingbird.”

2. How old are you in dog years?

111 years old.

3.  Where did you grow up?

I am originally from Johannesburg, South Africa.  We moved to the U.S. when I was two, and I mostly grew up in Houston, TX.

4.  What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?

After college I lived next to this food cart that served the most incredible ramen.  My favorite was the tonkotsu ramen.  It came with chashu pork, a perfectly cooked egg, bamboo shoots, and nori, and I would always get mushrooms and spinach added in.  It was my comfort food to get through the cold, dark, and rainy winters in Portland, OR.

5.  If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be?

I would want to meet Cheryl Strayed. Her writing is so beautiful, and she always has such a kind and emphatic perspective on all the challenges life has to offer. I read all of her “Dear Sugar” columns last year, and I was just floored by them.

6.  What’s your favorite book?

I’m going to cheat on this one and refuse to pick one favorite. My favorite classics are Persuasion by Jane Austen, Jane Eyre, and The Great Gatsby. My favorite modern books are The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, and White Teeth by Zadie Smith.

7.  Cats or Dogs?

I grew up with a yellow lab, so I am definitely a dog person.  I have to make an exception for my roommate’s cat, Chloe. She has the highest sass-to-size ratio of any animal I have known.

8.  If you were a superhero what would your superpower be?

I would want an incredibly banal power that would make life easier – like never hitting a red light or always getting up the first time your alarm rings in the morning.

9.  Are you a good dancer?

I am a terrible dancer, but I really enjoy it. What I lack in skill I make up for with enthusiasm.

10.  What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Soft-boiled eggs with toast.

11.  What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?)

I have been winter camping in -20 degree weather in the Artic Circle.
I have run a marathon. *
I really enjoy darkroom photography.

*Lie: extremely unlikely. 

12.  If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

I have always wanted to renovate an old house; it would be a really fun challenge. I like refinishing furniture – all the cleaning, sanding, and painting is really soothing.

13.  Do you sing in the shower?

Not usually – I am quite fond of my roommates and respect their eardrums.

14.  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?

My birthday was at the very beginning of 1L year, and a few of my section mates chipped in to get me a beautiful copy of Jane Eyre that I had been admiring at a bookshop on the Downtown Mall. It was so kind and unexpected and made me feel so welcome at UVA.

15.  Do you believe the library should install a water feature?

Perhaps? Another Keurig machine would be even better though.

16.  If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be?

I wouldn’t want to know anything about my future.  What will happen will happen, and knowing about it in advance won’t change that. 

17.  Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?

*NSYNC for sure.

18.  What’s the longest you’ve gone without sleep?

About 36 hours – any more than that and I get too loopy to function.

19.  What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?

Wine tasting, hiking, and going to see movies at the Violet Crown. The seats in that theater are insanely comfortable and their chocolate mousse is to die for. Also you can get chocolate mousse there.

20.  If you could make one law that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

Be nice to your waiters! Say thank you and tip them well.

Lunch with Professor Kitch

Lia Keane '18
Features Editor

Having been a member of our faculty since 1982, Professor Edmund Kitch has become a friendly fixture within the UVa Law community over the last three-and-a-half decades. Always quick to greet students in the hallways with a smile, Prof. Kitch helps to promote the collegial atmosphere that the law school prides itself on, and that is one of the reasons why the Law Weekly staff was excited to speak with Prof. Kitch when he joined us for lunch before spring break. 

Photo courtesy

Photo courtesy

Prof. Kitch received his B.A. from Yale University and completed his law degree at the University of Chicago. While in law school, Prof. Kitch developed an interest in law and economics, which he attributes in large part to the mentorship he received from Ronald Coase and Aaron Director, two highly celebrated professors at Chicago who played a key role in developing the university’s School of Economics. After graduating from law school, Prof. Kitch initially began teaching at Chicago, though he subsequently took at position at the Indiana University School of Law to be eligible for a draft deferment. Prof. Kitch returned to Chicago’s law school in 1965, and he remained there until coming to UVa seventeen years later. When asked what factors have kept him at UVa Law for such a substantial portion of his career, Prof. Kitch replied that the support he’s received from his colleagues and the law school’s alumni has made our school a wonderful place to work. Notably, Prof. Kitch has also taken several visiting professor positions over the years, which he described as providing excellent professional and academic opportunities. In particular, Prof. Kitch stated that he appreciated seeing the differences between law school programs across the country and having the opportunity to bring successful elements back to UVa.   

Prof. Kitch primarily teaches courses that fall within the corporate umbrella, such as Corporations and Securities Regulation, though he indicated his personal interest in antitrust and intellectual property law as well. This semester, Prof. Kitch is also co-teaching the Monetary Constitution Seminar with Professor Julia Mahoney. The course examines the evolution of our country’s financial industry and offers students the opportunity to delve into the historical context of many modern issues, such as the national debt and taxation. Prof. Kitch expressed enthusiasm for the current student-to-faculty ratio, and said that he has enjoyed teaching smaller classes and interacting more closely with students. 

Despite his long tenure as a professor, Prof. Kitch said that he still finds the process of learning “puzzling.” When pressed to elaborate, Prof. Kitch noted that students learn a great deal between the start of 1L and their graduation day, though he wonders what it is that specifically allows them to leave UVa with a sense of preparedness for the future. Prof. Kitch believes that receiving adequate legal training may take all three years of the current degree program, though he noted that it is up to students to make the most of their schedules by taking relevant practical classes. In terms of the advice that Prof. Kitch has for students, he urges continually refining your career goals and strategies. In doing this, Prof. Kitch recommends critically assessing who your clients will be, what value you can bring to your job, and identifying methods of conveying your special attributes to your colleagues. For students planning on working for a firm, Prof. Kitch highlighted the importance of developing a strong bond with a partner or set of partners who can help to develop your practical skills and general knowledge while you are still in the early stages of your career. More generally, Prof. Kitch also encourages students to become comfortable with various research tools, including those that aren’t automatic or “easy” in order to avoid becoming dependent on flawed systems or making easily avoided errors. 

Outside of teaching, Prof. Kitch enjoys attending the opera in New York with his wife. His favorite show, Lucia di Lammermoor, will run at the Metropolitan Opera throughout the spring. In addition to spending evenings at the opera, Prof. Kitch goes to Tanglewood Music Festival each year. Tanglewood, which is held in Massachusetts, consists of a series of concerts featuring symphonic, chamber, and choral music, along with contemporary jazz and pop artists. Prof. Kitch also enjoys spending time with family; his two daughters live in Los Angeles and Camden, Maine, respectively, and his son currently resides in Greenwich Village.


Lunch with Professor Harmon

Kimberly Hopkin '19
Columns Editor

If you haven’t had the pleasure of meeting and learning from Professor Rachel Harmon, then you’re missing an essential perspective. After an extremely diverse academic career at MIT and the London School of Economics, Prof. Harmon changed course and pursued a law degree because she values concrete legal questions and has an innate ability to solve them. After graduating Yale Law School, Prof. Harmon practiced law as a federal prosecutor, helping victims find justice when other authority figures wouldn’t listen to their complaints. It wasn’t a relaxed job; she mostly prosecuted official misconduct of police officers. Sometimes her cases involved excessive force and sexual misconduct. But sitting at lunch with Law Students, she focused the discussion on how she was grateful for the opportunity to empower victims who otherwise felt marginalized. 

Photo courtesy

Photo courtesy

After being a determined and effective prosecutor, it was difficult for us to understand why she would leave that life for academia. To the average student, academia seems less exciting than tackling real-life, gritty cases straight out of “Law & Order” episodes. However, Prof. Harmon described how the transition flowed naturally. Her prosecution job required substantial amounts of travel in order to fully investigate her cases. While she loved the work, it was taxing. When some other employment options reached out to her, she took a step back and decided to consider all her options. Her mind traveled back to an experience she had at trial where she wanted to make an argument in her closing statements comparing two policies. It seemed like an obvious argument for her, but she couldn’t find a law review or journal article that met that idea head on. So, she knew that she had to write about it. 

Prof. Harmon’s transition into academia in 2006 had other benefits as well. She enjoys the ability to influence students she truly believes will take over the world. Prof. Harmon treasures the professor-student relationships here at UVa Law because the law school atmosphere is vastly different from her law school experience. Prof. Harmon and her fellow colleagues vest themselves in the success of bright students who are oriented toward practice. Teaching UVa students energizes her passion for the law. And, considering she practiced Muay Thai and is constantly training for triathlons, you can tell she has a lot of energy.

When asked about her ultimate goal for the students in her classes, she paused and thought deeply. You could tell it was important to her that she communicate her idea precisely and that we fully grasp her response and internalize it. She thinks the ultimate purpose behind our time at law school is developing an ability to look at immense legal issues and then analyze situations and fact patterns deeply. Too many students try to skate by in their classes through skimming cases and pulling quotes that suit their immediate purpose. Prof. Harmon explained that is not what a lawyer should be. For incoming 1Ls, she always encourages them to slow down and avoid panicking during the first part of the year. She has confidence that they will master the basic ability to think like a lawyer by Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, the next two and a half years are so detail oriented that students sometimes forget how deeply they can, and should, analyze a topic. Having a student return to that habit is her ultimate goal. 

For the 3Ls preparing to enter the legal career field, she doesn’t doubt that they will accomplish great things. But, she wants to remind them that, in their legal careers, ethical questions don’t approach you as stark, black-and-white choices. Being truly ethical requires constantly monitoring your interests or choices and aligning those with your responsibilities. Sometimes you won’t be able to realize how important a decision was until hindsight. As the world changes with technological advances and globalization, Prof. Harmon feels that the face of law practice will necessarily change, too. These new challenges may make people feel like their careers are fundamentally different than those that came before; however, the importance of ethical practice is a constant. 

Speaking of changes, when we asked Prof. Harmon about the future of police reform, she responded positively. Although she does have doubts that the same national momentum will continue under the new Administration, she predicts that the momentum will shift to more local initiatives. It might not be centered on constitutional questions, but she does not think the passion we see now will fade away. Prof. Harmon noted that pushes for reform usually occur when crime rates are low, and we need to wait to see whether that number changes in the near future. 

As the lunch came to a close, her last piece of advice was encouraging us to inhabit our own spaces and use our strengths to our advantage. We may not all be intimidating people who can enter a room and pound on a table, but she has learned that those qualities weren’t necessary for her to be successful. Even though other people may insist there’s only one method or route to success, she has seen first-hand that this simply isn’t true. 


Hot Bench: Chris Byer


1. Have you ever had a nickname? What? “Big Chris,” “Big Krit,” “Moose,” “K-Pop King 9000.”

2. How old are you in dog years? 167.88 years old (taking into account that I’m writing this on Sunday, February 19). 

3.  Where did you grow up? I spent most of my childhood in the lovely State of Denial. 

4. What’s the best meal you’ve ever had? I once had an elk steak at a restaurant in Breckenridge, CO called “Ember.” I still dream about it sometimes. 10/10 would recommend. 

5.  If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be? Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

6.  What’s your favorite book? It changes depending on which book I read that day. Currently, it’s “Green Eggs and Ham.”

7.  Cats or Dogs? I feel like most people who know me are expecting me to say “cats,” but I’m very much an animal person. So, similar to that lie parents tell their children, I love them both equally. 

8.  If you were a superhero what would your superpower be? I’d have pockets that would fill with whatever I need. Need cash? Check my pocket. Grappling hook? Check my pocket. Bigger pockets? Check. My. Pockets. 

9.  Are you a good dancer? I won a dance off at Bilt a couple weeks ago, “Step Up 2: The Streets” style… so probably not, but what I lack in skills, I make up for in enthusiasm.

10.  What did you have for breakfast this morning? Eight hundred milligrams of ibuprofen, two tablespoons of Pepto-Bismol, and a large iced coffee (light ice, no cream). 

11.  What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?) I have a tattoo, I once saved a kid from a shark, and one time I ran 42 miles after training for only four weeks. Lie: it wasn’t actually a shark, but have you ever brushed up against seaweed in the ocean? Equally terrifying. 

12.  If you could live anywhere, where would it be? In Beyoncé’s heart. 

13.  Do you sing in the shower? As a general rule, I always sing when I’m naked. So yes, in the shower, at playgrounds, occasionally in SL 294… 

14.  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received? For my birthday last year, I received a kitten calendar starring staged pictures of my cat. 

15.  Do you believe the library should install a water feature? A water feature in a room containing thousands of books? That sounds like a fantastic idea. 

16.  If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be? Who my first wife will be! And why we’d get divorced. 

17. Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC? I can sing every word to the Backstreet Boys “Y2k” album. It’s like a talent, if talents were completely useless. 

18.  What’s the longest you’ve gone without sleep? I once went an entire period of crim without sleep. I know, it was only 60 minutes, but it felt like an eternity. 

19.  What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville? I like long walks on the beach, volunteering at the local animal shelter, and generally being a good role model for children. Just kidding. I enjoy staring out the library window trying to remember what fresh air smells like.

20.  If you could make one law that everyone had to follow, what would it be? I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once said, “Use your blinkers.” 

Court of Petty Appeals: Ingles, et al. v. Parkers of Arlington Blvd. and City of Charlottesville 251 U.Va 900 (2017)

HADEN, J., announcing the opinion of the Court, joined by GOLDMAN, C.J., and THORNTON, PICKUS, and JANI, J.J.

Today we consider a case relating to a permanent issue around the Law School: parking. We affirm in part and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The facts of this case are not in serious dispute. The area in question is Arlington Boulevard between Massie Road and Millmont Street (hereinafter “Arlington”). The lead plaintiff, Sarah Ingles, is a resident in the relevant area of Arlington.

Plaintiff Ingles alleges, and defendants do not dispute, that there is a variety of street parking available in the Arlington area. All of this street parking is parallel parking. In addition, there is designated resident parking inside or around each of the various living areas and apartments in the Arlington area. This parking is for residents only; the street parking is free for use by anyone, including residents. At all times while she has lived on Arlington, Ingles has also owned a car.

Plaintiff’s main complaint relates to the street parking. Plaintiff alleges that people who use the street parking do so improperly. These parkers leave at least half of a car length between the cars, resulting in fewer parking spaces available for people to use. Plaintiff alleges that this behavior is intolerable, and she prayed for both injunctive relief and money damages against those relevant parkers on Arlington. In addition, she has sued the City of Charlottesville and its officers in charge of parking enforcement, alleging that they have failed in their duty to properly monitor the parking situation on Arlington. 

After plaintiff filed this lawsuit, she was joined by several other residents on Arlington, who share her same complaint. Most notably, the entity known as MindsEye also joined the suit, claiming he or she needed money damages for “some side projects,” which honestly concerns us. In the lower court, injunctive relief against all defendants was entered. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to money damages from the parking defendants; however, the court allowed an interlocutory appeal before a trial on damages, in part to certify the following question to this Court: “Should monetary damages be allowed in this case?”

At the outset, we note our jurisdiction. Dean Goluboff has asked that we start including this section in our cases to affirm this Court’s plenary power over the Law School after the contentious power struggle of Court of Petty Appeals ex rel. Ferzan v. Doran, 819 U.Va 187 (2017) (“Give it up, dude; no one pronounces it that way.”). We have jurisdiction over this case because the plaintiffs are law students at UVa Law, and because the area in question is adjacent to the school.

I. We turn first to the plaintiffs’ claims against the Improper Parkers on Arlington (hereinafter “IPAs”). The named defendants whom plaintiffs were able to identify contest only the awarding of money damages; they do not challenge the lower court’s decision to enter injunctive relief against them. This concession is a wise one. It would be most unfortunate for a party to claim that this Court lacks the power to enforce a rule through our equitable powers. Indeed, as the Court below found (and as we are also convinced), these IPAs have been parking very badly. They have taken up more than their fair share of spots, and they must be enjoined from this behavior in the future. 

Defendants instead attack the lower court’s awarding of money damages to plaintiffs for a successful claim of the tort of irritation. As Justice Jani pointed out in Unner v. SSLP, the tort of irritation requires a showing that irritating conduct has occurred, and that such conduct falls outside of the normal scope of irritation. 696 U. Va 924 (2017). Defendants have nominally challenged both prongs of the tort, but during oral argument, they appeared to abandoned the first prong after we made it “really fucking clear that we don’t like people who take up extra parking spaces.” They instead argue that the parking does not fall outside of the normal scope of irritation.

To support this contention, they claim that plaintiffs, as residents of Arlington, have their own designated resident parking spots, where they can keep their cars. Therefore, the bad parking on the street, while mildly annoying, cannot be overly irritating to them. This contention, however, does not take into account the complexities of the plaintiffs’ position.

First, plaintiffs (wisely) did not sue under a theory of conversion. That is, they have not claimed that they have a property right to the street parking that has been violated by the defendants. Instead, they made several factual claims in the court below. They asserted that their guests are harmed by IPAs. They argue that apartments with more residents than resident parking spaces are harmed by IPAs. They argue that bad parking requires Uber drivers, OrderUp vans, and mail trucks to double park, affecting traffic flow. We are convinced that all of these factual allegations together make a sufficient factual basis for the lower court’s finding that the conduct of the IPAs falls outside of the normal scope of irritation.

Perhaps more fundamentally, defendants’ appeal misunderstands the basic premise of this suit. Defendants seem to believe that plaintiffs are only allowed to bring this suit because they are residents of Arlington. They believe that this resident status gives these plaintiffs, and only these plaintiffs, standing to bring this suit. This idea is fundamentally false. ALL PEOPLE who attempt to street park on Arlington but are unable to do so because of IPAs may bring a suit in our lower courts for money damages and injunctive relief. Defendants argue this ruling is unfair, but life is unfair. Learn to park.

Defendants’ final contention is that money damages are unavailable because the harm here is incalculable. We have more faith in our lower courts than the defendants do. “Just because something is hard to calculate, doesn’t make it incalculable.” Accounting and Corporate Finance v. Haden’s Exam, 7 U.Va 918 (2015). We therefore remand to the lower court for an estimation of damages each plaintiff is due. As with all cases in our Petty Jurisdiction, punitive damages are available. Davies v. Wednesday Keg, 12 U.Va 781 (2015) (“It doesn’t get much more petty than being punitive.”).

II. The City of Charlottesville has also appealed the injunction entered against it in the lower court. That injunction provides that the City of Charlottesville, through its officers, must enforce this Court’s decision by ticketing IPAs regularly. The defendants claim that this injunction is invalid because municipal governments cannot be enjoined into following the law, and even if they could be, the injunction is too vague because it only specifies “regular” ticketing as opposed to specific frequencies.

Defendants cite Ex parte Young, a U.S. Supreme Court case, for the proposition that private citizens cannot enjoin state actors. However, we note that case is inapplicable for two reasons: (1) Ex parte Young only applies to federal and state courts, and we are an entirely different Petty court; and (2) we are not bound by Supreme Court decisions, and we never have been. See all of the terrible choices that the Supreme Court has made over the years. 

We see no problem with forcing officers to enforce the law. In fact, one might say that an officer’s whole job is to enforce the law. Theoretically, defendants are correct that we shouldn’t have to force people to do their jobs at all. But clearly, the situation on Arlington has gotten out of hand.

We also see no problem with the word “regularly” as used in the injunction. “Regular” has enough of a commonplace meaning that we feel that defendants will have little to no trouble acting within the reasonable bounds of the injunction. Should a citizen feel that the defendants are not adequately adhering to the injunction, that citizen may file an action in our lower courts to enforce the injunction or have the defendants held in contempt.

There may indeed come a time where this injunction is no longer necessary. We speak of a time where a person is free to park on Arlington because other people have not selfishly parked to prohibit maximum parkage. However, we do not live in such a time. Therefore, until we live in such a utopia, we must grant the plaintiffs their relief.

Judgment affirmed; case remanded to the lower court for a determination of damages. 


ANGELOTTI, J., dissenting 

I do not like parallel parking. I did not learn how to do it, I do not like to do it, and I will not force people to be better at it. If people can’t find parking, they should just Uber. Or park at the Law School. It’s free.

1 Or, if the IPA is a repeat offender, the IPA may be held in contempt of this Court's order today.

A Guide to Charlottesville

Law Weekly Editorial Staff

Charlottesville is known for having the most restaurants per capita in the country. As the recent winner of the “best place to eat in Charlottesville” debate written in this paper, I feel eminently qualified to introduce you to the basics of the Charlottesville food scene.


North Grounds / North Grounds Adjacent:

Let’s start with the basics: you’ve got an hour between class, and you can’t handle another Scoco Chicken Caesar wrap. Here are your basic options near the Law School. You’ve got Zzaam, a Korean rice bowl place a little bit past Barracks, which is honestly delicious and very underpriced. There’s also Cookout right next to Zzaam, in case you want to see how terrible you can make your body feel for just $2.80. Plus, they have milkshakes, so that’s good.

In Barracks itself, you have some classic brands. There’s a Chipotle, but it is always SUPER busy with undergrads who call it “Potle.” The real pros always order ahead online, or go to the other Chipotle a little further away in Pantops. There is also a Ruby Tuesday, at which I have seen a total of two people eating during my three years in Charlottesville. Very unclear how they are staying in business. There’s a pizza place called Brixx, which has a decent lunch deal with a half pizza and half salad for ten bucks. Not amazing pizza but not too bad. Sedona is also near the Law School, but the real reason to go to Sedona is for its happy hour (3 to 6 everyday, mark your calendars). The food is fine for lining your stomach after a couple of martinis, but otherwise isn’t really worth stopping by.

There’s a fair amount of fast food around North Grounds. There’s Arby’s, McDonald’s, Subway, and Taco Bell. But the crown jewel of North Grounds is Wings Over Charlottesville. Cheap, delicious wings, open until 3am, and they deliver. Do yourself a favor and order the parmesan garlic fries. 

The Corner

If you’re ever on the Corner during the day, I definitely recommend going to Trinity. While Trinity at night is a hotbed for physical violence and poorly-made drinks, during the day it has pretty decent pub food and a fine beer selection. Apparently Bilt has okay food but you can judge for yourself whether that’s a good idea or not. There’s also Pigeon Hole if you are interested in brunch that is overpriced.

For all of those other times you’re on the Corner (read: only at night), the move is dumplings at Marco and Luca. Be forewarned that the line in the store is really confusing, and if you cut in front of a drunk undergrad, you will be yelled at and possibly lectured by a sophomore Philosophy major about morality. But trust me, the dumplings are worth it. 

For the two Thursdays a semester that Bar Review isn’t at Bilt, Boylan has okay food sometimes. People also talk about the White Spot, but I am not really sure why.


The Downtown Mall:

Here’s where the focal point of your dining experiences in Charlottesville should be fixed. There are tons of great places on the Downtown Mall, so I encourage you to try all of them. I’ll just point out a few of my favorites.

Whiskey Jar is a great place to get some classic Southern food with a fancier twist. Delicious corn bread, fried chicken, mashed potatoes, collard greens, etc. They have a great meal where you can just pick a bunch of sides all together as your meal. Definitely worth it. Their drinks are okay, but not worth the price, especially given the number of better bars on the Downtown Mall.

Jack Brown’s is a great spot to get a fairly cheap burger and fries; if you’re a JMU alum, then you already know how great Jack Brown’s is. It is pretty busy and seating is a little limited, but the food and the price are definitely worth the wait. Compare with Citizen Burger, which, in my opinion, is exactly the opposite. The burgers at CB are pretty bland, and they are wayyy too expensive for how meh they are. 

Miller’s has pretty good food and some good beer on tap; its major bonus is that NO ONE is ever there (if you don’t mind a pretty thick smell of cigarette smoke). There’s also Now and Zen, a great sushi place just a block off the Mall. It’s a little pricey but the sushi is really good, probably the best tasting sushi in Charlottesville. 



Pretty much anywhere in the Belmont area is delicious and really expensive. Wait for your parents, sugar parents, or firm to take you out to these places. Mas, The Local, Tavola, etc. All great places. But you can skip the new BBQ place next to the Local. It’s pretty average food, a little on the dry side, and not worth the money. Another Belmont notable is Lampo Pizza. Open late, this pizza joint is pretty good, putting some new twists on classic pizzas. 

A little ways up on Route 29, there is Love Sushi King (LSK). At LSK, you pay $17 (maybe $14 for lunch), and you get UNLIMITED items off their menu. That’s right. Unlimited. Their sushi, their sashimi, their hibachi, their appetizers: all unlimited, all for just $17. You can literally gorge yourself on the hedonism. Is it the absolute best tasting sushi in the world? No, probably not, but it’s pretty decent for what it is, and I again repeat, UNLIMITED. I highly recommend the crab Rangoon; my personal record at one sitting is eight orders.

I’m sure I’ve left great restaurants off this list, but they’re playing that music from the Oscars to make award winners stop talking, so I’ve got to bounce. Catch you at Wings Over!



At some point in law school, you’re going to need a drink or ten. The two main areas you’ll want to hit up are the Downtown Mall (pros: no undergrads, more upscale; cons: wayyyyy more expensive and further away) and the Corner (just reverse the pros and cons from above). Notable stops on the Downtown Mall are Commonwealth’s Skybar (overlooking the mall area), Whiskey Jar (be sure to try some of their Southern-inspired items on their menu), and Alley Light. If you’re looking to dance out your stress while enjoying a cocktail, there’s no better place on the Mall than Éscafe. While it markets itself as a gay bar, people of all genders and sexualities flock there for the great music and large(ish) dance floor.

The Corner, more central to university nightlife, has a wider variety of choices for the casual (or less casual) drinker. Biltmore (Bilt) is the “law school bar,” the default stop for law students, but when it gets cold enough to close the outdoor area, the upstairs bar becomes super crowded – claustrophobes beware. Across the street, Coupes is the opposite situation – there’s tons of room because no one goes there. Around the corner, the Virginian is another law school favorite, but the venue is extremely small, and if you or a friend doesn’t get a table early, it’s almost not worth it. But once the crowd gets rowdy enough, people start to dance on the tables. Cf. Trinity, the Ke$ha of bars. After 11:30pm, the top floor becomes a huge dance floor, perfect for dancing those boozy calories away. 



Charlottesville’s location, between the Clinch Mountains of Virginia where country music was born and the major East Coast music circuits, lends it a fantastic blend of attractions that come to town. We are the proud birthplace of the Dave Matthews Band, and with so many venues friendly to up-and-coming musicians; it is easy to see how the Band developed. Here are a few of my favorite spots to hear live music:


John Paul Jones Arena

A short walk from the Law School, Charlottesville’s largest venue seats over 14,500 guests and hosts all of the big name acts such as Paul McCartney, Taylor Swift, and Cirque du Soleil. The arena may be more notably home to the University of Virginia Cavalier Basketball Team, and students (yes, even law students) are encouraged to reserve their free ticket to support the ‘Hoos!


The Jefferson Theater

This theater has a folksy reputation, probably because it has attracted artists like Shakey Graves, Brandi Carlile, and Trampled by Turtles to name a few. But to say this is an Americana joint would be a misnomer: The Jefferson has played host to pop bands like Fitz and the Tantrums to the ravey electronic band Lotus to Southern rapper Big K.R.I.T. 


Twisted Tea Branch Bazaar

This tiny hole in the wall, nearly hidden on the Downtown Mall, is the perfect chill spot to hear local bands and poets for cheap ($5-7 cover). Along with an impressive tea and small plates selection, you can also listen to music in their hookah lounge and patio. 


1 We tried to track down a source for this fact, but it seems like it was started as a rumor by Professor Bowers back in 1940.
2 No, seriously, ask Ryan Caira. He totally admitted that Maya was great.
3 Although I don’t know if it’s possible to have too many of those wraps.
4 I shit you not.
5 Fair warning: there will be undergrads. Something something The Hills Have Eyes.
6 Why?
7 Don't be fooled. Bar Review is always at Bilt. But legally, SBA is required to pick other places sometimes.
8 But see below.

TweedleDee: Charlottesville's Best Bar & Restaurant?

Ryan Caira '17

Best Bar in Charlottesville: Miller’s Downtown

Charged with picking the best place for a drink in Cville, I’d pick Miller’s Downtown. This town is chock-full of worthy watering holes, but few of them have the special local charm of a Miller’s. I can think of only two other townie joints with that kind of enchantment, one of which, C&O, would’ve been my pick until two nights ago, when the spell was broken by the paisley-tie-and-velvet-vest-wearing hipster cocktail artist who’s taken over the downstairs bar lorded over us his authority to ban customers he doesn’t like the look of—viz., us. (The other, Durty Nelly’s, dropped out of the running when the bartender had to shut down drink service because a clogged up toilet had overflowed into the barroom.) 

Miller's Downtown. Photo courtesy

Miller's Downtown. Photo courtesy

Miller’s has got it all. Walk in the door and you’re greeted with friendly service and a homey air of re-circulated cigarette smoke, a smell pregnant with the nostalgia for all the best salt-of-the-earth establishments. I’ve never been a smoker, but having grown up going to restaurants that maintained the smoking- and non-smoking section division, places for me retain a kind of everyman’s charm. The food is hearty and unpretentious. When a friend visiting from abroad asked me to take her to a place where she could get the ‘authentic’ American burger experience, I took her to Miller’s. And it’s a fine place to go and just grab a drink, the most basic criterion for any good bar. They have their fair share of Islay whisky, the tap and bottled beer is quality, and the bartender won’t criticize you for mistaking Amaro for Chartreuse—which you would never order. 

They’ve got regular live music, and the bands can groove. (Let’s not forget that Miller’s is where Dave Matthews got his start, first as a bartender, then as a regular performer on what might be Charlottesville’s smallest stage.) And, as far as I’ve seen, they’ve got the most interesting clientele in town. Where the Corner seethes with undergrads and insecurity, and neighbors on the Mall aspire to gaudy New York heights, Miller’s is just Miller’s, a regular ole small-town Virginia drinking spot.  They’ve got pool, darts, and townies. It’s a good place to be a regular, a good place to hide out, and a good place to meet someone new. As far as I’ve seen, it’s solid in a way that no other bar in town is. And for all that, I’d say it merits the No.1 spot. 


Best Restaurant in Charlottesville: Mas

With all the New York money residing in its perimeter of horse-farm estates, Charlottesville manages to maintain what is, for such a small town, an unusually high concentration of superb restaurants. It’s hard to pick a best restaurant in town. There’s no shortage of greats—The Ivy Inn, Tavola, the Local, Public Fish and Oyster, and El Bebedero are all noble contenders. But it’s the city’s tapas bar that earns the number one spot here. 

For starters, its Belmont location automatically promotes it to a higher tier of competition. There’s something ineffably charming about the neighborhood, though the frequent 1L firm outings to the Local erode that feeling a little bit, so that going out to eat in Belmont feels like more of an event than eating in most other parts of town. The plate of olives they lay out for you when you sit down helps, too.

The interior of Mas Tapas. Photo courtesy

The interior of Mas Tapas. Photo courtesy

Mas sits comfortably in the prime seat chiefly for one reason: its wine list. There’re plenty of restaurants in town where you can get good to great wine, many of which I’ve already named, but Mas has a broad selection of consistently excellent wines at a good value; and for a wine list, value is the hardest thing to come by. It has an advantage, of course: most of the wines are Spanish, and Spanish wines haven’t quite taken off in the States like French or Californian wines have, so they should be well priced even somewhere like Food of All Nations or Market Street Market. But Spanish wines are also very tasty, and at Mas, they know how to pick them. 

Still, most people who’ve been to Mas probably think first of the food, and they’ve got dozens of delicious plates at all sorts of price points. By which I mean, you can go there and have a small bite or a filling meal without paying as much as you would at, say, the other restaurants of its ilk, the datey uptown places like Cville’s pseudo speak-easy Alley Light or its neighbor, the disconcertingly named Red Pump Kitchen. Another fun piece of the Mas experience, and no small part of the reason I enjoy it so much, is that as a tapas place, you can try a bunch of the menu at once, mitigating against the chance that you’ll order the wrong thing and have a bad meal.  

I’ve had restaurant experiences in Charlottesville better than any I’ve had in Mas; but, overall, both the peak and the average Mas experience is high enough that I think it earns the number one spot. 


TweedleDum: Charlottesville's Best Bar & Restaurant?

Alex Haden '17

Tweedledum here to help you find the best hidden and not-so-visited bars and restaurants to be able to impress your friends with your recommendations. Today, I’m here to talk about Maya and Tavern and Grocery.

The interior of Maya. Photo courtesy 

The interior of Maya. Photo courtesy 

Maya Restaurant is one of the great restaurants in Charlottesville, located just off the Downtown Mall in the Main Street District. You’ve probably seen it when you park at the Amtrak Station, because it’s right across the street; it has a huge outside eating area right along Main Street. Maya is a throwback to that old Southern style of cooking, giving a modern twist to classic southern cuisine. They make all their food from scratch using local ingredients. Some 2Ls are lucky enough to go to Maya for various firm events during OGIs, but many people remain unaware of the deliciousness of their menu.

Maya in the summertime is great because you can enjoy their food and drinks on the Patio area, which is fun, intimate, and great for soaking up some rays. Even in the winter, Maya still thrives as the place to go. Their inside seating is surrounded by their beautiful brick interior, and their upstairs area is perfect for a larger gathering or reception.

The management of Maya is well-experienced in the art of fine food and hospitality. Christian Kelly, the co-owner and executive chef, served as the executive chef of the Relais and Chateaux property, Clifton Inn before opening Maya in 2006, naming this new restaurant after his daughter. Peter Castiglione, the other owner and restauranteur, has decades of experience in the food industry and has worked to give Maya its distinctive environment.

But let’s get to the important part: the menu. You can’t afford to skip out on the appetizers at Maya. I recommend their cheese fritters (not only delicious, but fun to say!) and the gnocchi. I know, I know, you’re all saying that gnocchi everywhere is good, and I largely agree, but this gnocchi is something special. 

Entrees: you’re going to want to get the trout. Trout is not very common (at least this far north), and it’s hard to make well. But it is 100% delicious and perhaps even life-changing. As a Marylander, I don’t usually advocate for crab cakes outside of the Old Line State, but people who aren’t from glorious Maryland do like Maya’s crab cakes. Their ribs are an interesting and very different take on the classic ribs; if you’re in love with old-fashioned smokehouse ribs, you might not love Maya’s, but definitely give it a try if you’re ready for a different approach to ribs.

All of the sides are delicious and worth trying (see below about the Tuesday $12 menu). Standouts include collard greens, mac and cheese, and the cheddar drop biscuits. Finally, for the best part: dessert. The all-star of the menu is Mississippi Mud Pie. If you’ve never had one before, stop what you’re doing and go to Maya right now. I don’t even like chocolate, but I would have a bite. 

The best time to go to Maya is on Tuesdays, where they offer the $12 menu. You get to pick one of four entrees with two sides (or, just order four sides as your entrée). Don’t forget the cocktails and dessert! Maya is open all week, but only for food from 5pm to 10pm, although their bar is open even later.

So you’ve stuffed yourself at Maya, and now you’re looking for a great bar afterwards to unwind. Head just down the street to Tavern and Grocery, an unassuming building on the corner of 4th Street and Main Street. The top level of the building is a regular restaurant with decent food and drinks. However, the real treasure is downstairs: a speakeasy-type bar called Lost Saint, open late and serving some of the best drinks in Charlottesville. In a town known for its wineries, cideries, and local beer brands, the craft of a great cocktail can go underappreciated, but Lost Saint has kept me and my need for wonderful drinks well-satisfied.

One of the greatest parts about Lost Saint is its atmosphere. The bar is in a basement, and while you’re drinking there, it feels like you’re hidden away in a secret world. To be fair, because few people know about Lost Saint, it is a kind of hidden world. I wasn’t alive in the 1920s, but I have to think that speakeasies at the time felt similar, hiding from big bad Prohibition trying to ruin everyone’s good time. Think of Alley Light, but less upscale, so you don’t feel as bad about showing up in jeans and a t-shirt. 

The interior of Lost Saint. Photo courtesy

The interior of Lost Saint. Photo courtesy

Lost Saint is either completely full or basically empty, which is great; you either have the place to yourself or you’re at the most hopping party in town. Be forewarned, if you’re there alone, the bartenders might listen to your conversations and participate if they feel so inclined. Service can be a little slow, but the good drinks are worth waiting.

My favorite go-to is an old fashioned. They have a wide selection of whiskeys and bourbons to craft your old-fashioned to your taste; just ask your bartender for his or her suggestions. Other great drinks include their mojitos, whiskey sours, and martinis. I can’t speak to their wine and beer selection (I’m not sure why you’d want to order those at a great cocktail bar, but to each their own), but I’m sure that they are more than sufficient for those who don’t “do cocktails.”

I’ll agree that the opinions above are just opinions, but I do think that these off-the-beaten-trail recommendations will satisfy even the most picky of people. Their locations are ideal: not on the Corner where undergrads are vomiting, but not directly on the Downtown Mall, swarming with people. Plus, on your way home, you can stop at Benny DeLucas and get a slice (or a whole pizza for $50), which you can drunk-eat on the Lyft ride home. 


1 Yes, that's Maryland's nickname.

Court of Petty Appeals: Unner v. Society of Healthy Energetic Law Professors (SHELP) 696 U.Va. 924 (2017)

JANI, J. announces the judgment of the Court in an opinion joined by GOLDMAN and ANGELOTTI, JJ.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

Today we consider a matter that has long been theorized as a possible point of contention in the delicate relationship between Law Students and Professors, but only recently has come to be realized. Is it ever appropriate for a student to approach her professor at the gym?

Upon seeing first-year law students frequenting the gym, Plaintiffs filed for an emergency injunction enjoining the Defendant from pestering exercising professors. An injunction, carefully tailored to only apply to 1L students, was granted by Judge VanderMeulen of the lower court. The order was upheld by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc.

Plaintiffs, despite their dubious name, are a class of law professors at the University of Virginia. They bring this suit on behalf of themselves and all UVa law professors. Plaintiffs contend that the newest wave of law school students, more serious and unabashed than classes before, have now improperly extended the realm of professors’ accessibility to the gym. They contend that the gym is a hassle-free zone, dictated by common customs and practices among regulars, which should lie as a refuge from the pestering, bothersome 1L. 

Defendant named is first year law student Greg Unner. (Although the record does not specify, it is of this Court’s strong belief that Mr. Unner is of Section A.) The defendant largely does not dispute the facts at issue. Instead he contests three legal issues. First, he alleges that the Plaintiffs have no standing on this matter as the harm is only theoretical, not actual, and has not been realized to the opposing party. Second, the Defendant argues that any injunction would violate his due process as it arbitrarily denies the Defendant his right to professor access. Finally, in conjunction with the issue one, the Defendant maintains that any alleged tort would not fall outside the normal scope of irritation.

As noted above, the issue at hand has only come recently to fruition of recent. It is a well-known fact to this Court and outside observers that until recently law school professors did not frequent public gyms. Rather, they practiced office calisthenics, as shown in the attached photo, a tradition that was passed down from generation-to-generation of professors. Thus the chance of confrontation between sycophantic students and beleaguered professors remained slim. However, according to historical scholars of this subject, the trend started shifting in late 2011 when now-Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was photographed demonstrating his workout technique in a TIME Magazine feature. Soon after, there was a noticeable uptick of gym attendance as people realized that they could not look any sillier than the then-Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Understandably, Law School professors were a part of this wave, and thus, the path to conflict was laid. 

Before we move on to our opinion, it would behoove this Court to recognize the sheer number of amicus curiae briefs that were filed regarding this case. We must ask that, in the future, parties ask themselves whether the information that they would like to provide this Court is pertinent to the matter-at-hand. Often the received briefs were simply a list of numbers indicating the maximum amount parties could lift, or a ranking of the best whey protein powders on the market (we get it, professors: you lift). One notable exception was the brief filed by one Professor Joe Fore, which was crafted beautifully, both in style and substance. 

(As an aside, this Court must stress again that it normally does not exercise original jurisdiction in deciding disputes between professors, although, if we need to, we will exercise such jurisdiction. As such, at this time, the Court declines to hear the case between Professor Michael Doran and Professor Joe Fore on whether Professor Fore could successfully adversely possess Professor Doran’s property. If the losing party wishes to appeal, we shall consider such an appeal when it appears before us.)  

First, on the issue of standing, it has long been recognized by reputable journals and academics that unwanted gym conversations cause significant stress to the imposed-upon party. See BuzzFeed, 12 Cringe-Worthy Things About The Gym That Are Just Way Too Real (2016). The thought alone of seeing a sweaty, sometimes half-naked student approaching may cause great emotional distress. Without an order from this Court, professors may be forced to live in waking fear or join an off-campus gym should they decide to live a healthy lifestyle. In this sense, the harm in this case has already been realized. We see no issues with Plaintiffs’ standing in this matter. 

Second, it has been long recognized by this Court that Law Professors are people, too (recently upheld in Prof. J.J. v. Council of Concerned Students, 467 U.Va 832 (2016).) Accordingly, on the issue’s face, these Professors should be afforded the same rights and benefits that are conferred upon a normal population of people. The lower court correctly found that it is not prohibited per se to simply approach another during their workout. The tort lies in the nature of the conversation, not the conversation itself. Correspondingly, the question before this Court is not whether professors can be approached at the gym, but whether a Law Student, more specifically a 1L, can ever have an appropriate conversation with a professor at the gym. 

The crafty 1L is no normal person, and it has been echoed by 2Ls and 3Ls in the halls of Withers-Brown and Slaughter that the Class of 2019 is unique. As one unnamed 3L eloquently stated, “These new kids have no chill.” Saddled with good pay and secured employment, Law Professors’ resolve and ability to fend off wily 1Ls, who seek to attain their ends by guileful means, is compromised. 

However, the injunction before us today unfairly targets first-year students in violation of their due process. While this Court recognizes the exceptionally fraught nature of 1Ls, we also recognize that the amount-owed figure in a first-year student’s SIS account is just as absurdly high as that of a second- or third-year student. Therefore, any order enjoining 1Ls must enjoin all law students, or none at all.

This Court acknowledges the concurrence’s extension of The Doctrine of Unclean Hands to this matter. However, the majority recognizes UVa Law’s Faculty Supremacy Clause. As read from Virginia Law’s student handbook, “Behavior constituting misconduct—as described in, and during the timeframe described in, this section—may be subject to sanction regardless of where the conduct occurs . . . . The faculty reserves the right to impose sanctions on students who are found to have violated these standards.” The Academic Policies (2016). All gym conversations are equally vapid and irritating. Yet the law identifies the unilateral authority of Professors over students. Accordingly, no matter how bothersome a conversation, the fact remains that if said conversation is initiated by a professor, it is appropriate. 

Thus we hold the Plaintiffs standing in this complaint but reverse the District Court’s order and remand this matter back to the court of original jurisdiction for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  


HADEN, C.J., concurring in the judgment, joined by HALL, J. 

I commend Justice Jani, sitting by designation, for his foray into this Court’s jurisprudence on standing and the tort of irritation. I would normally join in his well-crafted opinion; however, I am unable to join because of an outstanding issue that forces me to write separate of the majority: the doctrine of unclean hands. While this issue was not briefed by the parties nor discussed in oral arguments, I feel compelled to be discerning with our remedies when the parties do not come to this Court in good faith.

The Doctrine of Unclean Hands bars a plaintiff from seeking relief from a defendant where that plaintiff is guilty of the same or a similar wrong complained of. As former Justice Collins eloquently put it, “You can’t bitch about someone being a bitch when you’re a bitch.” Darden Bro v. Shark Mountain Coffee, 12 U.Va 719 (2015).

Here, professors should be ABSOLUTELY forbidden from bringing this suit, because they are the most frequent gym-talkers of all. It’s hard to even get a mile in on the treadmill without getting a supplemental Torts lesson from your 1L professor. I ccept that this 1L class may be the most gunnery in history, but other students are still forced to be a part of gym conversations initiated by teachers. 

Until professors curtail gym conversations that they initiate, their complaint in this Court reeks of hypocrisy, and their hands are unclean (not physically, although if professors don’t wipe down the gym equipment after use, maybe physically too). As such, I would dismiss the complaint. Because the Court reaches the correct result, but by incorrect reasoning, I must concur.


1   Mr. Unner has asked that we not call him G. Unner, as that nickname has apparently caused him some social discord. 

Hot Bench: Hannah Basta

1. Have you ever had a nickname? What? I’ve had a few nicknames. Pasta, Leetle One (Little One with an accent), just Basta, obviously Hannah Montana. I’m sure anyone with the name “Hannah” could tell you the usual nicknames. 


2. How old are you in dog years? I don’t know dog years. Is it 7 years? I think 154, then. 


3.  Where did you grow up? I was born in Lexington, KY, but I’ve moved around quite a bit since then. I’ve lived in Macon, Savannah, and Augusta, GA, but I call Augusta home. 


4.  What’s the best meal you’ve ever had? Every year at Thanksgiving I think I say I’ve had the best meal ever. But, Shealy’s BBQ is a close second. I just don’t think it can be beat!


5.  If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be? Emma Watson – I love her. 


6.  What’s your favorite book? Jane Eyre – I love Jane Eyre! The Once and Future King is a close second, though.  


7.  Cats or Dogs? I used to dog-sit in college, so I am really used to having dogs around, but I have a soft spot for cats. 


8.  If you were a superhero what would your superpower be? To know what people are thinking. 


9.  Are you a good dancer? Hmmm…good? I don’t think so. But I love to dance! 


10.  What did you have for breakfast this morning? I actually skipped breakfast this morning, which is pretty abnormal for me. Normally, I make eggs and have some fruit. 


11.  What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?)

  • I played in a band called Before & After before law school. 
  • I funded part of my college education by acting as an extra in movie/television productions around Atlanta. 
  • I hiked the entire Appalachian Trail after high school. 
  • It’s not really that fun if I say which is a lie. 


12.  If you could live anywhere, where would it be? I’d probably get a house boat and travel around living out of that. I’d start with Iceland – in the summer. I haven’t figured out the winter situation, but maybe by the time winter hits I’d have made it down further south. 


13.  Do you sing in the shower? Sometimes! I’ve noticed that if I’m not too tired, I probably will. 


14.  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received? My parents gave me a trip to Harry Potter World after graduating high school…That one’s been pretty hard to beat ever since. I’ve also just recently visited Diagon Alley, which was amazing! I recommend everyone visit, even if you weren’t all that into Harry Potter. They have done an amazing job recreating it! 


15.  If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be? I don’t want to say 1L summer because I think that’s not looking far enough ahead…and I also feel that way about saying I want to know where I’m going to be after graduation. But, I would really like to know where I’m going to be after law school. 


16. Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC? Backstreet Boys all the way. 


17.  What’s the longest you’ve gone without sleep? Close to 48 hours. It wasn’t even for a project or anything. I literally just didn’t sleep for almost two days when I was younger—there was no reason.


18.  What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville? Go to the downtown mall. I love the rare book shops, and Mudhouse is one of my favorite coffee shops here in C’ville. There’s always something to do down there!

Nicola and the Nats

Jansen VanderMeulen ’19
Staff Columnist

For many Americans, the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 was a distant curiosity. For Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, it was simultaneously devastating and triumphant. Ms. Sturgeon’s Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) had been elected to lead Scotland’s semi-autonomous parliament in 2011 on a promise to hold a referendum to end the union between it and the rest of the United Kingdom.[1] Hold the referendum they did, and though polling initially showed a blowout win for “No” (that is, the side seeking to keep the United Kingdom united), “Yes” gained dramatic late momentum despite opposition from all of the UK’s three main political parties.[2] On election night, supporters of independence fell just short; “Yes” earned just under forty-five percent of the vote.[3] Scotland’s then-First Minister Alex Salmond resigned after the defeat, and his longtime deputy suddenly found herself one of the most powerful people in one of the world’s most powerful nations.

Following the referendum loss and Mr. Salmond’s departure, Ms. Sturgeon’s SNP reached previously unseen political heights. Membership nearly quadrupled,[4] and two successive elections showed its staying power. First, at the UK General Election of 2015, the SNP wiped out Labour and the Liberal Democrats (the Conservatives being near-extinct north of the border since the time of Thatcher) across Scotland, gaining fifty seats to win fifty-six of Scotland’s fifty-nine in London.[5] Next, at the Scottish Parliament elections a year later, the SNP fell just one seat short of an absolute majority, while historically-dominant Labour fell into third place behind the long-moribund Scottish Conservatives.[6]

During the Brexit referendum, Ms. Sturgeon campaigned hard to keep Scotland and the rest of the UK in the European Union. Her efforts were rewarded: though the UK as a whole voted to Leave, Scotland voted strongly to Remain,[7] and Ms. Sturgeon was handed a powerful weapon in her quest to separate England and Scotland. The SNP delights in driving wedges between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and now it would have their biggest ever wedge: Scotland’s desire to remain part of cosmopolitan Europe contrasted with the rest of the UK’s know-nothing nationalism.

Ms. Sturgeon seized on the strategy with enthusiasm. The day after the referendum, she declared Scotland’s pending departure from the EU “democratically unacceptable,” and called a second independence referendum “highly likely.”[8] She has sought one-on-one talks with EU leaders, demanded special access for Scotland to the EU single market, and needled UK Prime Minister Theresa May for excluding Scotland from her talks with European leaders. Mrs. May’s decision to seek a so-called “Hard Brexit” (meaning departure from the tariff-free single market and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice) is another boon to Ms. Sturgeon and the SNP.

Ms. Sturgeon must feel optimistic about her nationalist cause, but trouble looms. First, while Scottish Labour has collapsed and struggles to separate itself from its inept and hapless UK-wide leader, Jeremy Corbyn, the long-dead Scottish Conservatives are on the rise. Under the leadership of middle-class kickboxing journalist Ruth Davidson, Scotland’s right-of-center has made a surprising comeback. Ms. Davidson’s party, which had taken just fifteen of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament in 2011, took thirty-one in 2016, beating Labour into second place.[9] Ms. Davidson’s cheery pugnaciousness goes over well with the public; during a Brexit debate, she went toe-to-toe with fellow Conservative and then-London Mayor Boris Johnson (who has quite the personality of his own; he once hung above a London street in a harness and helmet waving UK flags) and more than held her own. If Ms. Davidson’s star keeps rising, Ms. Sturgeon has reason to worry.

Next, the SNP seems to have hit a ceiling. Support for independence remains stubbornly around forty-five percent.[10] Forty-five percent of Scots voted to leave the UK and forty-five percent of Scots regularly vote for the SNP, and while that has enabled it to gain unchallengeable power in the Scottish Parliament while its opposition remains divided, it is not enough to win another referendum. Ms. Sturgeon is stuck: she must continue to promise independence, which is, after all, her party’s raison d’etre. But the arguments that sunk the 2014’s referendum, namely the problem of currency and Scotland’s own economic problems, have only grown stronger with the fall in oil prices, which power Scotland’s economy. Forced to fight another referendum on today’s political ground, Ms. Sturgeon would lose.

Finally, there is the problem of governing. While the SNP rode the post-referendum wave into a dominant position in the Scottish Parliament, Ms. Sturgeon and her party have been bogged down by a raft of unwelcome economic and governmental news. Thanks to falling oil prices and profligate spending, Scotland is running a massive deficit, larger by GDP terms than any Eurozone member, even the debt-beguiled Greeks.[11] Its local-run National Health Service produces frequent claims of mismanagement and pleas for more cash,[12] and the SNP’s penchant for centralization has led to widespread complaints about the organization of Police Scotland, the national police force; one columnist for The Guardian called it “a lamentable shambles.”[13] The longer the SNP stays in complete control of Scotland’s levers of power, the more these problems will be associated with the party’s tenure. The SNP still basks in the glow of its successful campaigns, but if Ms. Sturgeon wants to achieve her dream of a Scotland free of the backwards English, she had better show Scots that she can govern.















Hot Bench: Andrew Bae

1. Have you ever had a nickname? What?


My nickname growing up was A Bae Bae because of the classic song “A Bay Bay” by Hurricane Chris. 


2. How old are you in dog years?


3 years old. Thanks to for helping me with this conversion.


3.  Where did you grow up?


I grew up in Katy, Texas, which is a suburb of Houston. Growing up in Katy was not the most exciting place in the world because it was pretty much composed of high schools and houses.


4.  What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?


It’d have to be whenever my mom makes Korean BBQ with all the fixings back home. I’m still trying to figure out how to make that meal like she does for myself. 


5.  If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be?


Former President Obama. Other than talk about social policy and current world state of affairs, I’d love to play some one-on-one basketball with him.


6.  What’s your favorite book?


Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote (though it is a novella). I know it is cliché and obnoxious to say, but the book is better than the movie. Only downside to the book is not being able to see Audrey Hepburn play Holly Golightly.


7.  Are you a good dancer?


I’d say I’m a passable dancer and I make up for my lack of skill by being unafraid and somewhat enthusiastic about dancing.


8.  What did you have for breakfast this morning?


Smoothie made with frozen cherries, spinach, yogurt, and milk.


9.  What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?)


I’ve coached Special Olympics flag football in the Special Olympics National Games, where we won first place (Lie – we actually got second place).

I have sat down and talked with Former US Representative Ron Paul on the political involvement of young voters.

I’ve written and performed spoken word poetry at open mic sessions.


10.  If you could live anywhere, where would it be?


Houston, Texas; It’s hard to beat somewhere that is home. 


11.  Do you sing in the shower?


Of course! Currently working on perfecting my rendition of “Like I Can” by Sam Smith.


12.  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?


This is a really corny answer but it was after I graduated high school and my parents both sat me down and told me how much they believed in me and thought I was going to do incredible things in my life. No matter how much self-confidence a person can have, I think it’s always great to have people you care about verbalize their belief in you.


13.  Do you believe the library should install a water feature?


I don’t really have a strong opinion about this but I would say yes.


14.  If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be?


This is a selfish answer but I’d like to know that I made a positive difference in people’s lives.


15.  Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?


*NSYNC; no contest. 

Court of Petty Appeals: Standing at Standing Desk v. Sitting at Standing Desk

Standing at Standing Desk v. Sitting at Standing Desk
26 U.Va. 469 (2017)


GOLDMAN, J. presents the opinion of the Court and is joined unanimously by HADEN, C.J., and ANGELOTTI and PICKUS, JJ. THORNTON, J., recused herself as she has joined the plaintiffs as an avid standing desk user and interested party.


Over the course of the academic school year, this Court receives an overwhelming number of complaints surrounding the appropriate use of standing-desks. The topic becomes especially heated approaching finals, when the library saturates with unruly undergraduates and 3Ls opening the packaging on their evidence textbooks for the first time. 

The issue the parties wish us to address is simple: is it ever appropriate or permissible to sit at a standing desk? Ordinarily this Court likes to be challenged by complex and cutting-edge tiffs, and this particular question has an answer so obvious, so uncomplicated, that we had to contact the lawyers for both parties to ask whether the briefs could be best understood if read in a ‘sarcastic voice.’ Mockery aside, our most basic cases are usually handled exclusively by the lower courts but since this issue is one so deeply dividing this school (and Judge DeStefano could not stop laughing long enough for attorneys to present their opening arguments), we hear this case de novo.  

The plaintiffs feel adamant that sitting at a desk meant for standing is “the greatest assault on the integrity of this school since the disappearance of the bust of RFK.” Plaintiffs argue that there are far more desks designed for sitting than there are for standing and that defendants wishing to sit should “pick literally any other desk.” The plaintiffs seek damages for pain and suffering inflicted by sitting at desks, such as back pain, butt pain, and emotional pain experienced when plaintiffs failed to meet their hourly standing goal on their Fitbits. During the course of the latest final exam period, it was noted that nearly every day a student was seen using a standing desk inappropriately. Plaintiffs also wish for us to formally announce guidelines for standing-desks etiquette.  

The defendants’ argument can be best summarized by the three statements submitted to us in their brief: “We don’t see what the big deal is,” “we just like to piss people off in their time of anguish and anxiety,” and “this is a free country.” Though the Defendants seek the same result (to remove all regulations surrounding the use of desks) they divide themselves into two camps: ones that sit at standing desks using a stool and who immediately stand up when a passerby begins to glare at their offending use, and those who lower the desk to the height of a sitting desk and pull up a chair to the desk, even when other sitting desks are available in the same area of the library.  

Despite countless emails by Student Affairs urging students to go to mindfulness classes, the feud between the sitters and standers rages on. It took a turn for the ridiculous when a group of students broke out into “The Rumble” from West Side Story just outside MyLab (it is unconfirmed whether the sitters and standers have formally codified into gangs or whether Libel was taping for their yearly attempt at Above the Law’s Law Revue Video Contest).    

Regardless, this Court has made its final decision to explain to a group of college graduates attending a top-tier law school the proper use of a standing desk. We hold, aided by the Merriam-Webster definition of “standing,” that standing desks are meant for individual use, with one or two feet planted on the ground, with the user in an upright position, without aid of a chair. Those who require a chair are invited to use a desk intended for use while sitting. When there is a deficit of standing desks, such as during final exam season, students should still not sit at standing desks. If one gets tired of standing, one may remove themselves to a desk meant for sitting. Further, no individual shall monopolize both a sitting and a standing desk unless the library is particularly barren and no other individual wants use of a standing desk. See Coleman v. Guy with Green Backpack, 5 U.Va. 44 (2016) (“We hereby adopt the standard ‘Don’t be a Jerk.’”).

This Court remands to the lower court to determine damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiffs (try to take this one seriously, J. DeStefano). 


HADEN, C.J., concurring.

I join the opinion of the court in full, and I write separately to address an issue that defendants raised but was ultimately not considered by a majority of this Court. Defendants complain about the joinder of Justice Thornton as a plaintiff in this action. Defendants argue that it is improper for her to be a party to this litigation because she works on the Court, and has personal connections that might influence this Court unfairly. That’s a stupid argument.

The defendants’ logic results in a terrible deprivation of justice for all judges on the highest Court. If defendants are correct, then no judges on this Court can ever be plaintiffs in our Petty Jurisdiction. Judges are left without legal recourse, which is a result that cannot be tolerated. Indeed, the reverse situation would also be true, in that judges on this Court could never be sued. Anyone who was wronged by any of these judges would be similarly deprived of justice.

The defendants’ argument is also insulting because it assumes that we, as judges, are unable to be unbiased amongst the parties, regardless of who comprises those parties. This assumption is as wrong as the defendants’ claim that they can sit at standing desks. Rarely is it appropriate in our Petty Jurisdiction for a justice to recuse herself. Indeed, conflicts of interest are typically really petty, so these conflicts are right at home here. I am unconvinced that this case represents one of those rare exceptions to that baseline rule.

As a final administrative matter, my tenure as a member of this Court will soon be coming to an end; the appropriate body will eventually need to name a replacement for me and nominate one of the current justices to take my place as Chief Justice.


Chief Justice Haden has announced his intent to retire in the coming weeks. SBA President A.J. Collins has nominated Judge Merrick Garland for the Chief Justice seat. Senator Catchpole, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has promised to not give Judge Garland a hearing due of President Collins’ lame duck status. Senator Catchpole claims the Law School should let the next President nominate the replacement. 


Court of Petty Appeals: Roach v. Mooch, et. al. 18 U.Va 453 (2017)

Roach v. Mooch, et. al.

18 U.Va 453 (2017)


Today, we consider a vitriolic dispute amongst members of both the student body and the faculty. This dispute causes us to consider not only the world of linguistics, but also standing, the competence of this court to hear certain cases, and our jurisdiction over various parties.

If this Court were some sort of children’s TV show, we might be inclined to humorously note that “the word of the day is ‘brooch.’” Apparently, this word, referring to a piece of jewelry that no one has worn in about 200 years, has caused quite the stir at UVa Law. The plaintiffs in this case are a group of students at UVa Law who have petitioned this Court to offer an official interpretation of the pronunciation of the word ‘brooch.’ They have sued the faculty and administrators at the school in an attempt to bind all professors to our official interpretation. Defendants have claimed a variety of defenses, all centering around our power or jurisdiction to hear such a case.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that, over the past few weeks of the semester, there have been a variety of cases in several classes involving a brooch. The trouble appears to emanate from Professor Ferzan’s Evidence class. Plaintiffs state that, while discussing a case about a brooch, Professor Ferzan stated explicitly that the only possible pronunciation was the pronunciation that rhymes with “roach” (hereinafter, the Roach Interpretation). Plaintiffs allege that other professors, upon hearing Ferzan’s emphatic advocacy for the Roach Interpretation, began pushing a contrary pronunciation; namely, those professors claim that brooch rhymes with “mooch” (hereinafter, the Mooch Interpretation). Still further professors claimed that both the Mooch and Roach Interpretations could be valid. In particular, Professor Doran claimed that either could be used, although one was more common with the proletariat. 

Plaintiffs in this case have asked us to settle this dispute once and for all, in a manner binding upon all parties in the Law School. They filed the original action in this Court, despite our preference to exercise appellate jurisdiction only; however, contrary to defendants’ claims otherwise, we certainly have original jurisdiction over suits (see Petty Rule of Jurisdiction 1: “We hear what we want.”). In addition, for a case as important as this one, we do not see the purpose of having a lower court decide this case incorrectly in the first place just so that we can rectify the decision later. Finally, we don’t really have a lot going on in our docket now that the insider trading suits against the Sec. Reg. professors have been finalized, so we’re happy to hear this case.

[W]hether the Roach or the Mooch Interpretation shall be Supreme
— Haden, C.J.

Defendants first argue that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring this case. They argue that professors disagree on various topics all of the time because it’s simply a part of academia. Defendants cite as an example the fact that Professors Hellman and Prakash disagree as to whether Corinne is on the Bachelor for love or just to promote her acting career; the defendants claim that certainly a dispute such as that does not give rise to an injury that can be resolved by this Court, and certainly not an injury to students.

Defendants’ argument is misguided. There may be such an academic or professorial dispute that does not deserve this Court’s intervention, but certainly this issue is not such a dispute. Professors on both sides of the argument have explicitly invoked this Court’s attention and have mentioned one another as parties to this issue. By involving such students and explicitly saying that one professor or another is wrong, the defendants (and one plaintiff) have involved the students enough to the point where they have suffered an injury, and therefore, have standing to bring the suit.

Certain parties claim that this Court is not competent to hear this suit, and relatedly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. The second question is easily answered. This Court has jurisdiction to review “any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its students.” Defendants cannot seriously argue that this dispute arises independently from the Law School given that its faculty are the ones engaged in this argument. Defendants, especially Professor Doran, may argue that this jurisdiction is too broad and wide-spread but that argument is not properly presented for this Court. Indeed, such a question of jurisdictional breadth is properly submitted to the legislature for determination of the proper scope, although we should warn defendants that several members of this Court serve as members of the legislature.

Professor Doran and defendants argue that we are not a court of competent jurisdiction to hear such a case. First of all, no. That’s just insulting. We don’t go around calling people incompetent; we expect the same courtesy from others. Secondly, what kind of strategy is it to call the judges incompetent? We have never in our history found ourselves incompetent. See CoPA v. Student Affairs, 20 U.Va 16 566 (2017) (“Actually, I think we can assign alcohol permits quite well, thank you very little.”). 

This argument seems to hinge on the idea that there is some other Court that is competent to hear such a dispute; however, defendants seem unable to name a single court able to entertain such a dispute. They simply say that no court can hear such a case, and therefore, we are not able to hear it. Such an assertion is baseless, both in case law and statute. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 32 U.Va 231 (2016) (“Seriously? It’s the 21st century. How are people still arguing this? Love is love.”). 

Having dispensed with all of defendants’ procedural arguments, we turn to the issue at hand: whether the Roach or the Mooch Interpretation shall be Supreme. Ordinarily, we are reticent to enter the field of prescriptive linguistics; we feel that the expression of individuals should normally be the default rule of pronunciation. Nevertheless, we are appalled by the blatant disregard for normal pronunciation rules that the supporters of the Mooch Interpretation advocate, and therefore rule in favor of the Roach Interpretation.

We have yet to see a single piece of independent evidence that supports the Mooch Interpretation and we are surprised that anyone chooses to use such a strange pronunciation. We find that the natural, historical, and linguistically pleasing choice is the Roach Interpretation. Therefore, we reject the Mooch Interpretation and henceforth ban all professors, students, administrators, admitted students, townies, and people in Section D from ever pronouncing “brooch” as rhyming with Mooch. Any violations of this order shall be considered contempt of this Court, resulting in a punishment up to and including grading a four-hour, open book, spaghetti-to-the-wall exam. Please don’t test us.

It is so ordered.

ANGELOTTI, J., concurring in the judgment.

I really like Professor Doran and his classes, especially ERISA, because retirement security is one of the most important things (except for employee benefits for top executives). However, no one really says “brooch” rhyming with “mooch.” That’s as silly as suggesting that securities laws are too lax and that government regulation is always good. Which it isn’t. See Dean Mahoney’s book. I love that book. Do you think I can get a signed copy?

Anyway, I agree with Professor Ferzan. Professor Doran, I still love your class! Can you teach a class on golden parachutes?


We do not address this claim by Professor Doran, as we have been presented with no evidence as to its veracity.
2 Namely, Professor Ferzan.
3 There is no conflict of interest here. All conflicts of interest are petty, and all petty things fall under our jurisdiction.
4 Other than “some people say it.”

SBA Candidate Statements

Editors’ Note:  We opened up this newspaper to the candidates running for SBA positions to tell you about themselves and support their candidacies. Their appearance in the paper does not constitute an endoresement of any candidate. The views expressed in these reflections are the views of the individual authors and are not necessarily the views of the Law Weekly’s Executive or Editorial Board. The candidates appear by position and alphabetically within each position. Each candidate’s name appears next to her or his name, year, and the position for which she or he is running.

Steven Glendon (, 2018

President and Third-Year Senator (running for both offices)

I am a long-standing member of the SBA and believe that my experience will make me a good choice for President. I intend to maintain an open and honest relationship with the student body by communicating SBA activities in a timely manner and making myself available for questions and concerns. I also intend to move forward inter-school collaboration which was started by our current president, focusing on Darden and the Medical School. I will remain open to suggestions from the student body and look forward to implementing new initiatives to engender a positive student experience at the Law School.

Laura Gregory (, 2018


My name is Laura Gregory, and I am delighted to announce my candidacy for Vice President of the Student Bar Association. The Vice President is primarily responsible for managing all of the SBA’s committees, such as Programming, Health and Wellness, and Barristers’ Ball. Additionally, the Vice President coordinates with the new elections council for all elected SBA positions and assists student groups in renewing their registration with the SBA and accomplishing their organization goals.

As Vice President, I would like to foster a stronger relationship between SBA and student organizations to help increase their funding and funding options for initiatives to support the UVa law school experience for every student.

SBA is more than just its elected officials. The appointed SBA committees, who do the majority of SBA events, should have greater representation and attendance in weekly SBA senate meetings and greater communication with the student body. However, the committees will not have additional requirements just thrown at them. I plan to truly fullfil the role of Vice President to support the committees by having more active involvement in the planning of SBA events.

To accomplish my goal for stronger relationships between SBA, its committees, and student organizations, it is essential to move the meeting outside of the Fox Seminar room in the library to a larger space that can truly be a student forum.

This past year I had the privilege of serving as the SBA Secretary. As Secretary, my primary goal was to increase transparency and communication between the SBA and the student body. I started a new initiative – a weekly table outside Scott Commons called “Say Hey, SBA” – to give students the opportunity to speak directly with their SBA members about current SBA projects and events. We also set up a response form for students to submit suggestions for the law school, such as the implementation of gender-neutral bathrooms.

Additionally, I served as the President of the First Year Council during my 1L year. As FYC President, I worked to integrate the 1L class into the UVa Law community by coordinating events such as Foxfield, the Halloween Carnival, and weekly SBA socials.

Working within the SBA has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my time at UVa Law. I am excited about the opportunity to continue serving on the Executive Board and would be honored to have your vote for Vice President.

Hannah Fraher (, 2019


Through my experience starting a business, working as a bookkeeper for several million-dollar companies, and serving as a member of student government at the largest university in the country (with a budget of over fourteen million dollars) I gained valuable experience in creating and managing budgets which will serve me well as your SBA treasurer.

As your treasurer, I commit to creating a fair and balanced budget that will provide equal opportunities for all members of the student body to partake in the activities they choose. As a member of the greater SBA, I vow to create a transparent and inclusive environment where everyone will have the opportunity to have their voice heard and feel included in the student culture of the law school.

I look forward to the opportunity to serve the student body and welcome the chance to get to know each and every one of you.

Current involvement includes: Federalist Society 1L Committee, First Year Council Vice President (schedules all bar reviews, 3@3, and other 1L class activities), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society, and J.B. Moore Society of International Law.


Frances Fuqua (, 2019

Treasurer and Second-Year Senator

My name is Frances Fuqua, I am a 1L, and I am asking for your support to be the next SBA Treasurer. I have substantial experience that makes me the perfect candidate for this position. In undergrad, I was treasurer of a number of student groups, most notably managing a $5,000 budget for a student peer education group, a $100,000 budget for my sorority, and a $760,000 budget for the programing arm of the university’s student government. I also have substantial fundraising experience, heading up a $25,000 fundraising effort for St. Louis public schools, and managing all the fundraising for my sorority, which totaled 30% of our overall budget. Lastly, I am familiar with how SBA functions; having the opportunity and honor to serve as the FYC president this year. All of this experience, taken together, makes me the most qualified candidate for this position. As treasurer, I will work to increase our fundraising budget from 2% of the total SBA funds to at least 10% in order to lower the costs of attending school events, such as Barrister’s Ball. I will also continue to be as transparent as possible about where your student activity fee is going and work with the administration to keep the budget process as much in the student’s hands as possible. I love UVa and I want to help make our time here as enjoyable as it can be. I know how important it is that you feel SBA is being responsible with your money, and I promise to do my absolute best to serve the students of UVa and uphold that promise of responsibility and integrity as treasurer, and I hope I have your vote.

Muskan Mumtaz (, 2019

Secretary and Second-Year Senator

My name is Muskan, I am a 1L, and I am asking for your support to serve as your secretary. My platform “More with Muskan” is about giving you more: more visibility, more connectivity, and more transparency. As a double-Hoo, I am committed to self-governance, which does not always make its way to the law school. Furthermore, as a current FYC, I am familiar with how SBA functions and have spoken extensively with current members regarding the functions of the SBA secretary. In other words: I know what I’m getting into. Finally, as a Muslim refugee, I am committed increased inclusivity on North Grounds and hope being on the SBA Executive Committee will give me the platform to support affinity groups at the law school.

If I am elected to serve as your secretary, I would dedicate myself to bringing you more visibility of student events. The current bi-weekly email system is a great start, but we can do more. The formatting of these emails can be improved so that you can more easily identify lunch and event opportunities on your mobile phone.

Second, I am committed to bringing more connectivity with main grounds. A part of your tuition goes to the student activities fund on main grounds, and I want to better integrate our events listings with those of the undergraduate community. UVa attracts incredible speakers every week, and I will include the most notable events in a separate “main-grounds” segment of the bi-weekly email.

Third, I am committed to increasing transparency on SBA. Serving as secretary goes beyond sending emails and updating the calendar—I would argue that the most important aspect of this position is serving as your representative on SBA. There are currently two centralized ways of voicing your concerns to SBA: (1) through weekly “Say-hey-SBA” events, and (2) through an online google-sheet. These issues are then brought up in SBA meetings, and unfortunately, the responses and solutions are often buried in the meeting minutes’ document. One way to better publicize the SBA responses to student suggestions is by posting them on the website, which brings me to my fourth point: we need a better website.

Currently, when your organization hosts an event and wants to publicize it online, you need to submit it to both to the administration for it to go on the official UVa calendar and then again to the secretary for it to be featured in the bi-weekly emails. This often leads to events being posted in one or the other. If elected, I will immediately begin working with the administration to streamline this process into a consolidated system.

As the year progresses, we will continue to craft new solutions for the issues our student body face. If I am elected to serve as your secretary, I promise I will do my best to not only execute the plans I’ve outlined here but also expand the SBA’s student-engagement efforts, so that your voice is heard in your student government.

Toccara Nelson (, 2019


My name is Toccara Nelson, and I am running for Secretary for the Student Bar Association here at UVa Law. I aim to continue the great work that Laura Gregory has done with keeping students informed about the various initiatives going on at the law school. I am a proponent of transparency and openness of communication between those part of student government and the students, and I look to uphold these values if elected Secretary. I plan to promote such transparency by further developing current initiatives like “Say Hey SBA” to be a forum for members of the SBA to listen to student experiences and to spotlight different organizations and events at the law school. I will brainstorm additional ways to keep students aware of all that UVa Law has to offer without overwhelming students with too much information, and to also elicit crucial feedback from students about their concerns with the law school. Promoting awareness and communication between the SBA and the student body may involve meeting with individual student organizations or just having one on one conversations with students about their concerns with the law school. Whatever it takes to promote more open lines of communication between the SBA and students, I will put in the effort to do it.

At the end of the day those on SBA serve you, the students. And if elected as Secretary of SBA, I’ll do just that.

Charles Baker (, 2018

Third-Year Senator

Facilitate better relations from Student Affairs and where applicable work towards greater law school autonomy from main ground's student government.

Ashley Finger (, 2018

Third-Year Senator

I have been serving as a class senator since 1L year which means that not only am I familiar with the workings of SBA, but also that I have ongoing projects I wish to continue. Additionally, I have established the working relationships with the administration necessary to continue to accomplish my goals. In particular, I intend to continue to improve the efficacy of the Building Services and Environmental Concerns Committee, addressing issues such as waste management and holding educational events related to topics such as responsible consumerism. Additionally, I plan to continue to work closely with VELF to ensure efficient and effective pursuit of environmental goals at the law school.

Ricardo Fraga (, 2018

Third-Year Senator

It has been my pleasure to serve as the SBA’s 2L Senator over the course of the past year, and I look forward, if elected, to continue my service as a 3L Senator. During my term, I had the honor of working on initiatives involving improved dining options, greater environmental awareness around grounds, a more enjoyable library experience, increased SBA transparency, and greater access to the law school’s administration.

Should I be reelected as a 3L Senator I look forward to building upon these many initiatives and focusing on how the SBA can work more closely with the student body to continue improving our collective experience as students. I believe that there should be greater avenues of communication between the SBA and the many organizations of our law school, and in order to achieve this, I look forward to proposing a bimonthly lunch where student leaders can meet with the SBA and provide us with feedback as well as with suggestions about how we can further improve the student experience.

The SBA is also tasked with providing venues where students can meet with one another in a more casual setting. Understanding the importance of networking both with law students as well as with other graduate students at the university, I will continue to work on an interscholastic competition that will bring the graduate schools together for a weekend of fun and community building.

Lastly, I want to be YOUR representative. I have ideas that I’m excited to propose to the SBA, but I realize that I’m representing the 3L class as a whole and as such there will always be an open line of communication between the class and I. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns, or ideas you may have; I’ll always have an open door policy and I look forward, if elected, to serving your interests.

Thank you for your consideration. Wahoowa!

Lola "Lollie" Akere (, 2019

Second-Year Senator and Student Council Representative

I am committed to the University of Virginia School of Law. In my short time here I have been elected the 1L Representative for Virginia Law Women. I am a proud member of the Black Law Students Association, Women of Color, LAMBDA Law Alliance, Lone Star Lawyers, and the Fed Sox Softball Team. I generally try to speak to everyone I meet, and I pride myself on my ability to make friends with not only my classmates but everyone who is welcomed to the law school. I am quite close with a number of faculty members, and strive to make meaningful and impactful connections daily.

As the Student Council Representative, I would use my roles in various organizations to gain a realistic perspective that consisted of the genuine opinions of law students concerning issues pertinent to our community. I would be able to represent the Law School in matters that require a personal perspective, diligence, and attention to detail. I try to be someone that considers all angles before making a decision. I do feel that my role in the Nelson Mandela International Negotiation Competition will give me an advantage when advocating on behalf of the law school. I pride myself in how much I genuinely care about The University of Virginia School of Law. I know I am capable of representing the Law School Well on the Student Council.

I intend to run on a platform that embodies kindness, inclusivity, and genuine care for every member of our community. Although collegiality is one of the pillars of UVa Law, I worry our values may not transcend our small society, and I would love to serve as a liaison between the Law School and the rest of the campus. I do feel there is value in the opinions and views cultivated here that all of grounds could benefit from. I envision a future where we are working closer with the undergrad and other graduate schools on issues we both care about. I think exposure to other types of thinkers would add to the diversity, and aid UVa lawyers in being even more of the personality types the world so desperately needs. As Student Council Representative I would pledge to abide by the Law School values, while aiming to strengthen our role in the greater UVa community.

I intend to seriously listen and to prioritize the needs of my classmates. I have felt nothing but love and inclusion since the day I stepped on the Law School’s campus, and I want to make sure everyone else also feels that way. As a member of various affinity groups, it has been unfortunate to hear the consistent trends of people feeling lonely. Although they may be surrounded by so many people who care about them, some people are still feel left out. That feeling is uncomfortable and is not welcome at UVa Law. I would like to work toward eradicating it.

As a Senator, I feel I would be able to directly contribute to events and decisions in an innovative and inclusive way. I feel my unique perspective as someone who comes from multiple historically marginalized groups makes me the perfect candidate to consider those who may not always be in the majority. I also feel my friendships with people of all backgrounds helps me to balance the wants and needs of both parties in a unique way. I would use my roles in the various organizations to gain a realistic perspective that consisted of the genuine opinions of law students concerning issues pertinent to our community. I would be able to represent our class in matters that require a personal perspective, diligence, and attention to detail. I do feel that my role in the Nelson Mandela International Negotiation Competition will give me an advantage when advocating on behalf of our class. I pride myself in how much I genuinely care about The University of Virginia School of Law. I know I am capable of representing the Class of 2019 well as a 2L Senator.

Aparna Datta (, 2019

Second-Year Senator

Hi friends! It's me, Aparna! [Pronounced Uh-par-nuh just in case you're wondering. :)] I hope all is well! I just wanted to say that I've had a blast serving as a First-Year Council representative and senator this year, and I really hope I have the chance to serve y'all as a 2L senator too! For this upcoming term, I'd really like to focus on helping SBA's efforts in promoting diversity and inclusion on grounds. I’ve had a lot of experience with planning fun and educational (fun-ducational!) multi-cultural events, and I hope that my experience can be a positive addition to SBA’s work in fostering and maintaining an open and inclusive environment for all. We are so lucky to be at such an amazing law school, and I hope I can play a small part in contributing to the awesomeness that is UVA law. Thanks for such a great first year! #ClassOf2019 #BestClass #AmIRite? #Yes

Robbie Pomeroy (, 2019

Second-Year Senator

Hi everyone! My name is Robbie Pomeroy and I am so excited to be running to represent our class as your 2L senator. I came to UVa Law because I loved the community. Since arriving, I have already taken steps to further our community and will continue to do so as your 2L senator. As co-chair for Admitted Students Open House, I am working with the Admissions Office to showcase our community for the incoming class of 2020. As a member of the First Year Council, I have focused on making opportunities for members of my section to connect with each other and other 1Ls. I will take my event planning skills from these two positions and apply them to our school as a whole to continue to bring exciting and innovative events that bring us together. Using my experiences in affinity groups such as Lambda and the Latin American Law Association, I make a commitment to diversity and inclusivity and growing our sense of acceptance and solidarity at the law school. Being a senator is what you make of it- having the drive to take initiative and run with an idea is important to success, and through my time here at UVa, I hope I’ve shown that I am already committed to improving our community in any capacity I can. As an undergraduate student at UF, I was committed to university growth through the ambassador and orientation organizations. It was such an important part of my life there, and I cannot wait to apply my skills from those experiences to our community. Go Hoos!

Julia Wahl (, 2019

Second-Year Senator

I look forward to helping facilitate and continue the success of the Virginia Student Bar Association. I hope to do so through three key means: transparency, honesty, and communication. I plan on using my position as a liaison to the administration to increase understanding with the student body to change dissatisfaction to action. Beyond internal communicative responsibilities I also hope to facilitate contact and interaction with other post-graduate divisions of UVa–specifically to work toward an annual university-wide event that incorporates both professional networking and social interaction of post-graduate students. On that note, I also hope to bring more programming (and free food!) opportunities to law students so we can utilize our building for more than just academic pursuits!


Lindsay Fisher (, 2019

Honor Committee Representative

As we all did, I chose UVa Law for many reasons. An important one of those reasons is its commitment to the Honor Code and to a Community of Trust. The ideals of honor and integrity are not only vital to a thriving community here at UVa, but they are also values and standards that we as lawyers will be held to as we enter the practice of law.

Immediately upon arriving at UVa I sought out ways to learn more about the system and to work within it to further that Community of Trust. My goal is to build upon that knowledge and experience through representing the Law School as an Honor Representative through the Student Bar Association.

As an Honor Committee Representative on SBA, I hope to be a voice of collaboration between Main Grounds and North Grounds, encouraging cooperation and finding opportunities for collaboration. Relating more specifically to Honor, I look forward to continuing to work towards an expansion of the Informed Retraction.

In my role as SBA Honor Representative, I would also encourage more law students to engage with Honor. I have found the process of training and subsequently serving as an Honor Support Officer to be incredibly challenging and rewarding. The position is also an excellent training ground for future lawyers, as Support Officers have the opportunity to conduct interviews, investigations, as well as provide advice and counsel to either accused students or the Community. I would encourage incoming first years to apply to serve as Support Officers and to serve the Community during their time here.

Similarly, I look forward to implementing the recommendations of the independent Honor Audit Commission. The Honor Audit Commission is currently studying the Honor system holistically and will provide recommendations on how the system can improve moving forward.

I have served as an Honor Support Officer for the last semester-and-a-half and have seen cases from a variety of perspectives. I spent a significant portion of my first semester of law school training for this role and have already found it to be an enriching experience. I have served as counsel for the Community and have provided advice to students regarding the Honor system. I also currently serve as an Honor Representative for Section F, working to foster a dialogue about Honor among my section. During my undergraduate studies, I served on my school’s University Judicial Committee, a body that is similar to both UJC and Honor.

 Owen Gallogly (, 2019

Honor Committee Representative

I have been involved with the Honor System since 2009 when I was an undergraduate. Over my four years as an undergraduate I served in numerous roles within the Honor Committee, including as a Senior Counsel, investigator, advocate for both accused students and the University Community, and a Pre-Trial Coordinator. In my fourth year I drafted the legislation that would become the Informed Retraction, one of the most significant changes to the Honor System in the past 50 years, which allows students who have been reported to the Honor Committee to admit guilt and face a one-year suspension in lieu of trial. Since returning to Law School I have continued serving as a Pre-Trial Coordinator and counsel.

My primary goal if elected is to build a closer relationship between the Honor Committee and System and students and faculty at the School of Law. As an undergraduate, the Honor System was an important facet of my educational experience and one that I believe helped cultivate a strong community. Unfortunately due to a variety of reasons, including simple physical distance from the Central Grounds of the University, the Honor System seems less prevalent in everyday life at the Law School and other graduate schools. I hope to work with both the other Honor Committee representatives from graduate schools, the SBA leadership, and law faculty to address this disconnect.

William Nagy (, 2019

Honor Committee Representative

I will help facilitate the operation of the honor system, ensure equitable application of its principles, and serve as an approachable point of reference for students at the School of Law. A student-run, effectual honor system provides a tool for creating a more trusting environment, reflected in both the conduct of students and the trust and latitude of the staff and faculty. The Honor Code plays a large part in making UVa Law the unique and amazing place we love. I will dedicate my tenure as Honor Representative to keeping this tradition strong.

My qualifications include serving as an elected representative for the Honor system at West Point, where I helped educate my peers about the code, served as a reference contact for questions regarding possible violations, conducted investigations, and as a voting panel member during honor hearings. I also served as an honor representative for my 1L section.


Peter Bautz (, 2018

Running For University Judiciary Committee Representative

I am seeking re-election to continue serving you as a law school representative to the University Judiciary Committee (UJC). Over the past year, I have served as one of the two law school reps on the UJC. In that position, I was elected to serve on the Executive Committee of the UJC as the Vice Chair for Trials. This experience is important because it is vital that we keep graduate students on the Executive Committee next year. Undergraduates tend to be disproportionately represented on the Executive Committee, including having no graduate students on the Executive Committee last year. As someone with experience on the Executive Committee, I stand the best chance of keeping a law student on the Executive Committee, possibly as the Chair of the UJC.

If elected, I would work to add a dedicated graduate position to the UJC Executive Committee to ensure graduate students have a guaranteed voice in that body–a voice that is important to give undergraduates the perspective of graduate students both as accused students and as members of the University community. As the graduate members of the UJC are mostly law students, it is important that we at the Law School lead the charge on this issue. With my experience as a member of the Executive Committee this past year, I believe that I would be best suited to filling this important role. I hope you will vote for me, so I can continue serving you as your UJC Representative!

Brandon Newman (, 2018

University Judiciary Committee Representative

This past year, the law school students, as well as other grad students in UJC, have done a great job making sure there is more grad-student representation in UJC. I will continue to make sure grad students (especially law students) are fairly represented in UJC.






Food and Fun with Prof. Ferzan

Allie Thornton '17
Staff Columnist

Grace O’Donnell dressed as Prof. Ferzan for Halloween. Can you tell them apart? Courtesy of Prof. Ferzan

Grace O’Donnell dressed as Prof. Ferzan for Halloween. Can you tell them apart? Courtesy of Prof. Ferzan

Professor Ferzan sat, beaming at me with her bright eyes, in a vibrant purple blazer, with a white button down artfully folded over the cuffs at her wrist. I instantly wanted to know everything about her, but feel overcome by the imposter syndrome. Who am I to ask her invasive questions? Who am I to attempt to match her intelligence? 

    Professor Ferzan smiles as she vividly describes the course of her career. Every milestone seems deliberate, but at the same time each feels like a product of chance. Perhaps this impression comes from Professor Ferzan’s exuberance, which makes the life experiences of this academic seem less like a trajectory, and more like a lively story in which you are rooting for the narrator. No matter, it is incredibly clear that Professor Ferzan has earned all she has accomplished. 

    Professor Ferzan talked about her time at Penn for law school. One story that she recounted will be familiar to many of her 1Ls, regarding a cold call. Her professor called on “Miss Kessler,” [Ferzan’s maiden name] and looked up at Professor Ferzan. She looked up, surprised to be called on, and pointed across the room at her friend (with the same last name), asking “Me Miss Kessler, or her Miss Kessler?” Needless to say, the professor was neither amused nor distracted, and she still had to answer the question. While at Penn, Ferzan studied torts with Professor Heidi Hurd; several years later, Professor Ferzan is good friends with Professor Hurd, despite the fact that Professor Ferzan believes that the tort system could be entirely absorbed into criminal law. 

One example of the earned-yet-seemingly happenstance incidents comes from the story of her choosing a clerkship. Like most would-be clerks, Professor Ferzan applied to most judges in a geographic region, around Philadelphia, and then went to interviews as opportunities were presented. Not shy to admit to the superficiality of wanting to enjoy her workplace, she was charmed that the judge had a pink couch in his office and a painting by Claude Monet on the wall. She thought it was homey. Professor Ferzan would later discover that the judge was color-blind, and his secretary had chosen the couch. Nonetheless, that judge would later officiate her marriage. 

Professor Ferzan also spoke about her career at the DOJ as a prosecutor in the Public Integrity division. Following the trend of fortunate moments, Professor Ferzan applied to the DOJ because that’s what all of the other clerks did. After an afternoon reviewing criminal law with a fellow clerk, she went to the interview, where she was (fortunately) not asked any questions about the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Professor Ferzan assured me and fellow students interested in working with the DOJ that they should not be deterred by a change in administration.

    Professor Ferzan spoke quickly, which contributes to an impression that she is genuine. When I asked Professor Ferzan what crime she would commit if she were guaranteed to get away with it, she logically responded, “murder,” without hesitation or embarrassment. I wonder how this criminal law professor who enjoys exploring deontological theories can justify such a deadly inclination. Correctly, she pointed out that if she’s going to get a “get out of jail free card” she wants it to have the most value as possible. She is self-assured and straightforward. 

    Professor Ferzan has a special connection to the Virginia Law Weekly. She is ranked as the most-quoted professor in recent history, and is also one of two faculty members who actually read the paper. In an attempt to treat Professor Ferzan like one of us kids, I asked her the questions the Law Weekly often asks students for its “Hot Bench” feature. She resolutely informed us that she is a cat person. She wondered why have a dog when you can have a pet that you can love on your own terms? Why have a dog when you can have a pet that you can throw off your lap when you’re trying to read your book? 

    Professor Ferzan also participated in two truths and a lie, which turned out to be one truth, one half-truth, and one lie. The truth is that she once hitchhiked. Professor Ferzan travelled to Death Valley, California years ago for a conference. When a group of intellectuals invited her on a light hike through Death Valley, she agreed. Upon realization that the hike would be more like a trek through the desert, she politely decided to wait by the car for the group to return. As time passed, and more and more people pulled over by the trailhead to take pictures, she suddenly felt quite vulnerable in this remote area. A minivan pulled up and a three-generation family hopped out. The family began taking photos. Knowing full well that cell phone service was non-existent, she asked to use their phone. The family took the hint that Professor Ferzan was looking for a way out and drove her the mile back to her hotel. She clung to the car door the entire way, just in case, despite the family’s assurances that they would not harm her.

The half-truth is that Professor Ferzan has hang glided. In reality, she once held onto a hang-glider as an instructor failed to guide her off of the ground. The lie is that Professor Ferzan has ever done illegal drugs. Professor Ferzan classifies herself as a rule worshipper. This trait came in handily when she was going through the background checks at the DOJ. One friend remarked, “not only has she never done drugs, she is rude and judgmental to everyone who has.” 

    Professor Ferzan is quick to reveal a relatable self-consciousness. Raised in Miami, Florida, Professor Ferzan’s Sunshine State roots show through by her love for the beach. However, Professor Ferzan is aware of the sideway glances she must get when reading books such as Entertaining Satan at the beach; she has wisely begun a system of removing the book covers before venturing into public. For the record, Entertaining Satan is about the Salem witch trials; Professor Ferzan does not spend her free time summoning the devil. 

    We at the Law Weekly thank Professor Ferzan for her wit in the classroom, her good humor about being quoted so often in the paper, and her willingness to be the subject of this article. For those students reading this article who are in her Evidence class this semester, please remember to write down her quotes and send them to


Hot Bench: Charlie West

1. Have you ever had a nickname? What?

My parents call me June because I’m a junior. My college friends called me Hyde because of my nighttime persona. My former students called me C-Dub after I wrote a math problem featuring a DJ named C-Dub. I think that’s all I want in print. 


2. How old are you in dog years?

I’m an old soul. Probably should’ve been born in 1942. So I’m a spry 525 in dog years. 


3. Where did you grow up?

Columbia, SC, in a loving home that promoted middle class values.


4. What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?

I was doing a project in Nicaragua and spent some time on Ometepe Island. I rented a horse one day, went fishing in Lake Nicaragua and while riding around, complete strangers offered to cook my fish and make me a meal. Still waiting on an experience to top that.


5. If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be?

Forest Whitaker. I want him to teach me his Idi Amin accent.


6. What’s your favorite book?

In high school I once admitted to a television audience that my favorite book(s) were the Harry Potter series. I got so much flak for that. One of my favorites is The Water is Wide by Pat Conroy.


7. Cats or Dogs?

Dogs, but cats are making a come back in my book.


8. If you were a superhero what would your superpower be?

Oh, I’d want to manipulate matter for sure. I think my first super act would be creating money out of thin air because the working for money thing is getting old.


9. Are you a good dancer?

Yes. That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it.


10. What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Quaker apple cinnamon oatmeal with dried cranberries and coffee.


11. What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?

Advice from my great-grandmother.


12. What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?)

1) I used to be a Boy Scout. 2) I dislocated my jaw once. 3) I know how to hunt for bats. The first is a lie. I never completed my Cub Scout requirements.


13. If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

Right at the foot of the Andes in Ecuador. Bye-bye seasons.


14. Do you sing in the shower?

Rarely. If I am singing, I’m singing anything Earth Wind and Fire.


15. Do you believe the library should install a water feature?

No! I couldn’t abide another distraction in the library.


16. If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be?

I want to know everything. I don’t like surprises. 


17. Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?

C’monnnn. Consider this simple logic game: NSYNC–>Justin Timberlake. JT–> Justified. Justified–>FutureSex/LoveSounds.


18. What’s the longest you’ve gone without sleep?

Probably 30 hours. And it was probably in college. 


19. What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?

I really appreciate anytime I get to discover a new Charlottesville restaurant that isn’t on the Mall.


20. If you could make one law that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

Truth is becoming optional. My law would require that everybody be truthful, live in truth, and cling to the truth no matter what external influences are at play. 

LAW WEEKLY FEATURE: Reflections on the Inauguration and Women’s March

Editors’ Note:  We opened up this newspaper as a forum for student voices to express their feelings about the inauguration and the Women’s March. The views expressed in these reflections are the views of the individual authors and are not necessarily the views of the Law Weekly’s Executive or Editorial Board. 

Michael Goudey '18

The Women’s March on Washington gave me an opportunity to stand up, acknowledge my privilege, and signal to my friends, family, and former co-workers who felt vulnerable that they were not alone. That despite feeling besieged by a wave of misogyny, jingoism, and intolerance, millions of men—straight and gay, cisgender and trans, black and white—stood with them in opposition to the hateful, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, and anti-LGBTQIA rhetoric the 2016 presidential campaign fueled. 

I felt inspired to stand, packed like sardines, on Jefferson Ave and slowly march the 1.5 miles to the White House with millions of brilliant, passionate women proudly asserting and demanding respect for their humanity. I worried, though, that as the afterglow of the march wore off, so too would the energy of the hundreds of thousands who chanted, “Her body, her rights,” and “Immigrants are welcome here.”

I could not have been more wrong. Thousands of lawyers descended on airports this weekend to assist refugees, immigrants, and non-immigrant visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations navigate the President’s Executive Order on immigration. Closer to home, I know dozens of friends and family members who—for the first time in their lives—are contacting their elected representatives and urging them to stand-up for Progressive policies. Friends who had never considered entering politics are attending training sessions on civil activism and running for office. The Women’s March didn’t represent the apex of a movement organizing to oppose hateful policies. It was just the start.


Alana Harris '18
Attending the Women’s March in New York City was a memorable and inspiring experience. I am not sure whether I was more touched by the little girls holding signs, emulating their strong moms and big sisters, or the older women who have dedicated their whole lives to fighting for equality for women, unwilling to let their decades of hard work go undone. The crowd was lively and energetic—I’ll certainly remember this experience forever.


Madison Bush '17

The Women’s March on Washington will, without a doubt, remain one of the formative experiences of my life.  I was moved and inspired to spend the day in our nation’s capital, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people of many different genders, races, nationalities, and religions, all coming together to stand up for what we believe in. But what exactly is it that we all believe in?  It is this uncertainty that is both a strength and a weakness of the Women’s March movement. 

    Early on, the March was criticized for a lack of intersectionality, prioritizing White Feminism over equality for all. In response, the organizers reached out to a slew of leaders from diverse backgrounds, emphasizing diversity moving forward.  This inclusivity became a key message of the movement, one that desperately needed to be addressed, especially in light of statistics showing a majority of white women voted for Trump, a sad truth which I can only continue to apologize for. 

Diversity is absolutely crucial if feminism is to succeed in America.  At the same time, achieving ethnic and religious diversity in the movement should not mean that there is no shared goal.  At the March itself, cheers including, “We want a leader, not a creepy tweeter,” clashed with others such as, “Fired up! Ready to go!” All too often, the marchers lapsed into silence, unsure of which message to carry forward. I worry that the leaderships’ choice to let the marchers choose the message may be the movement’s greatest weakness in the long run. 

    At the March, I worried what would come after. I worried that, much like the Occupy Wall Street movement, there would be nothing tangible to show for our efforts.  The “10 Actions, 100 Days” initiative assuaged my fears, promising continued actions in the coming months. I jumped right into the First Action: writing postcards, happily scribbling away to urge all of my representatives to defend the Affordable Care Act and the environment.  I also considered writing about protecting a woman’s right to choose, protecting marriage equality, opposing the wall, etc. etc.   It didn’t take me long to realize that the “10 Actions, 100 Days” plan may face many of the same issues as the March itself. Writing postcards certainly garners involvement, but without a clear message of what the movement wants to achieve, will a real chance for change get lost in the muddle of myriad mixed messages? 

    There is a bigger, overarching problem, one that I fear the Women’s March will be unable to solve—the Donald himself. The basic presumption of democracy is that the president is a representative of the people.  But what happens when the person elected by the unpopular vote is an unpredictable egomaniac who was inaugurated without having turned over his tax returns, divest from his business investments, or having relinquished his personal cellphone? Will that man change his mind about anything when three to four million Americans march in protest nationwide? If the first ten days have shown us anything—apparently not.  The Donald is not willing to listen to the people, and that should scare us all. 


Lauren Sandground '18

When the Women’s March on Washington became a coherent event in late 2016, I had serious hesitations about whether to attend.

Despite holding strong beliefs in particular about women’s issues, I had never participated in a march before, and never had the desire to. Honestly, I have always questioned the efficacy of marching. I thought that participating in a march would be a romantic way to live out one’s freedom of expression, out in the polis. Yet, as a law school-bred consequentialist, I questioned whether marches resulted in something tangible. I wanted my efforts to be worthwhile. Why should I bother?

Prior to this march, I had several conversations with fellow UVa students about my musings on marching. Two thoughts stuck with me from these conversations, and they ultimately motivated me: One, marches build movements, and two, marching is a vital tool in the toolbox of a people-driven democracy. Without people committed to marching, the Tea Party would not have been formed, nor would MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech have resonated across the country. Arguably, neither would have had such an impact on American politics. Without marching, people with less privilege (political privilege, which compounds further with identity privilege) would be limited in their means of voicing their concerns and participating in democracy. 

If marches are worthwhile generally, was it worth it for me? What was at stake that would shake me out of my bed at 5am to drive 2.5 hours up Route 29 in the (mild) Virginia winter? This part came more easily. Women have made significant progress in gaining civil, political, social, and economic rights and protections in America over the past two centuries. These guarantees are not rigorously maintained, especially along intersectional lines, and cultural misogyny has become normalized. I wanted to march to remind myself that I should speak and act where and when it is necessary for me to do so to uphold these rights. As one famous scholar and feminist, Audre Lorde, said, “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.” 

Even at the risk of being misunderstood, I marched. On January 22, I drove up Route 29 with eight other law students and friends. I shuffled at 0.5 miles per hour with 500,000 people from different backgrounds. In the heart of the nation’s capitol, I saw a movement forming. I was part of it.


Kendall Burchard '19

I have struggled to unpack the complex feelings and reactions I have had to the Women’s March on Washington. I do not claim to speak for all the women involved, nor do I claim to speak for even a small number of those who marched. The reasons millions of men, women, and children left their homes and flooded the streets of cities across the world were as varied and diverse as the individuals themselves. And yet, we marched in solidarity, drawn together by the simple, unwavering belief in the immense power of physical presence to convey what individual actions and solitary voices fail to do adequately. Simply put, I marched against fear. I marched against the fear that my potential will be undercut by my sex. I marched against “alternative facts” and the blatant disregard of truth, humanity, and equality. I marched to show that the actions of the Trump administration would not define me as an American, and I marched to show I would not allow unconstitutional bans and inhumane policies to be enacted without a fight. I marched for my friends concerned for the safety of their families, those fighting to protect their bodily autonomy, and those fearful their right to marry the person they love is now in jeopardy. I marched to show that I refuse to accept the violent attacks that have plagued our schools and public spaces as the “new normal,” and I refuse to blame an entire religion for the actions of few. Although I am deeply concerned about the policies and proposals the President has offered this past week, the March and subsequent displays of patriotism and unity this weekend have remind me of the common individual’s ability to make a difference, to fight against oppression, and to hold the powerful accountable for their actions and rights violations. While our country’s principles and priorities appear to be shifting at times, watching hundreds of thousands of people flood the streets of Washington and cities around the world reminded us all of America’s resilience and fight.


Tess Fardon '18

I feel very lucky to have been able to participate in the Women’s March on Washington. The March itself was empowering – it was great to see so many people coming together for women’s rights, standing up for each other, seeing family members marching for the women in their families who were unable to – but the best part, to me, was the walk down to the National Mall, where the March took place. My friends and I walked three miles from Columbia Heights to the Mall. People were dancing the entire way down, and strangers were smiling at each other and hugging one another. Cars drove by with the passengers honking and cheering. It felt like we were all part of this giant picture, this historic moment, that anything was possible, and we were thrilled to share the moment with so many others. Feeling this intense bond with so many strangers, and seeing that such an overwhelming number of people are passionate about equality, was a nice reminder that we are not alone. I think the best thing that can come out of this election is finding solidarity with others who share your beliefs. The he comfort that comes from that solidarity was what the March brought out for me. 


Sarah Ingles '19

I’ve heard some criticism about the lack of a “unified message” from the Women’s March, but I think the diversity in messages was its greatest strength. Intersectional feminism is a concept to which people are still adjusting. It’s not a lack of unification, but rather an acknowledgment that my concerns as a straight white woman don’t encompass the entire spectrum of feminist issues. The real impact of marches lies in their aftermath, and attending the Women’s March plugged me into a number of networks that will help me stay politically active and informed. Had the march been limited to a single issue, I may not have even heard about so many great organizations promoting the rights of different groups.

Campbell Haynes '19

The Women’s March left me feeling inspired, activated, energized, and optimistic. It gave both of my grandmothers hope that a movement led by women can change this country. It is something that I will tell my own grandchildren about one day. Now, I pray that the activism of the Women’s March will turn into tomorrow’s direct political action. Judging by this weekend, it may already have. 




On my way into D.C. for the Women’s March, I knew my day would be unlike anything I had ever experienced before. I’m a big crier—I cry at everything—and, looking around at the beaming faces on the metro, so excited and anxious about the day to come, I was moved to tears. There were dads with their daughters, college students, 80+ year old women enthusiastically explaining how they had knit their “pussy hats” at a party they threw in their hometown in Idaho. There were no strangers on that metro; it was unspoken that we were all friends, all in this together, all here for each other. That positive spirit carried through out the entire day. Even when we were packed like sardines, over 500,000 people crammed into just a few streets, everyone around me had a smile on their face. 

Many people don’t realize that the march was actually cancelled; when so many people showed up to the rally, the organizers were forced to cancel the march. But it would’ve been impossible to hold back a crowd of that size and with that much passion. After about four hours of standing, we flooded into the streets and ended up in front of the White House. For many, it was an act of defiance. For others, a place for catharsis. But, for most, it was both, and so much more. It was a sign of hope that we desperately needed and it opened up a dialogue about the future of a more intersectional, inclusive, action-oriented feminism that was long overdue. In that regard, the Women’s March may have been a one day event, but its effects will be felt for years to come. I will be forever proud and forever grateful to have participated. 


Elizabeth Sines '19


On my way into D.C. for the Women’s March, I knew my day would be unlike anything I had ever experienced before. I’m a big crier—I cry at everything—and, looking around at the beaming faces on the metro, so excited and anxious about the day to come, I was moved to tears. There were dads with their daughters, college students, 80+ year old women enthusiastically explaining how they had knit their “pussy hats” at a party they threw in their hometown in Idaho. There were no strangers on that metro; it was unspoken that we were all friends, all in this together, all here for each other. That positive spirit carried through out the entire day. Even when we were packed like sardines, over 500,000 people crammed into just a few streets, everyone around me had a smile on their face. 

Many people don’t realize that the march was actually cancelled; when so many people showed up to the rally, the organizers were forced to cancel the march. But it would’ve been impossible to hold back a crowd of that size and with that much passion. After about four hours of standing, we flooded into the streets and ended up in front of the White House. For many, it was an act of defiance. For others, a place for catharsis. But, for most, it was both, and so much more. It was a sign of hope that we desperately needed and it opened up a dialogue about the future of a more intersectional, inclusive, action-oriented feminism that was long overdue. In that regard, the Women’s March may have been a one day event, but its effects will be felt for years to come. I will be forever proud and forever grateful to have participated. 


HOT BENCH : Emily Mordecai

1. Have you ever had a nickname? What?

Several of my friends call me by my last name, Mordecai. Last syllable pronounced “key” as in #MajorKey. 

2. How old are you in dog years?


3.  Where did you grow up?

Virginia Beach, VA

4.  If you could live anywhere, where would it be?


5.  What’s your favorite book?

The Defining Decade by Dr. Meg Jay. I would totally hire Meg Jay to be my life coach, assuming Mariska was unavailable. 

6.  What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?

One of my best friends who lives in Richmond took me to a restaurant where they serve a sandwich with mac-and-cheese, bacon, and BBQ sauce on it. The American dream.

7.  If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be?

Mariska Hargitay: my greatest role model, other than my mom.  

8.  Cats or Dogs?

Not really an animal person, tbh. 

9.  What did you have for breakfast this morning?

A granola bar from the Student Affairs office. Thanks, Ms. Lisa!

10.  If you were a superhero what would your superpower be?

Teleportation. It’d be helpful for spending time with my aunts, uncles, and cousins who are spread out along the east coast, and in California. Also helpful for times like the morning I accidentally woke up at 8:22 for my 8:30 class.  

 11.  What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?)

1. I went to UVa for undergrad.

2. I studied abroad in Europe. 

3. I spent my early childhood as a member of the hip-hop dance company at a place called Attitudez Dance Studio. 

Lie: #2. I’ve never been to Europe. 

12.  Are you a good dancer?

Yes. See Question #11. 

13.  Do you sing in the shower?

Yes. Mainly alternating between a two-song repertoire of KT Tunstall’s “Black Horse and the Cherry Tree,” and John Legend’s “Ordinary People.”

14.  What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?

Last year for my birthday, several friends from my section chipped in $5/person and got me a $70 Bodo’s gift card. Whoever said diamonds are the way to a girl’s heart has clearly never been to Bodo’s. 

15.  Do you believe the library should install a water feature?

I thought we already had one…

16.  If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be?

At what age my hair goes gray; tends to happen earlier rather than later in my family.

17.  Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?

Gotta give it to *NSYNC, seeing as they provided the soundtrack for that dance my two sisters and I made up to “Pop” in 2001. 

18.  What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?

    Watch the greatest men’s basketball team in the entire NCAA/universe play at John Paul Jones arena. #gohoos

19.  If you could make one law that everyone had to follow, what would it be?

    Federal mandate for all disc jokeys to play at least one Beyoncé song per gathering, and tax cut eligibility for satisfying mandate with dance anthems from her B’Day album.