Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students with Wealthy Families v. The Homeschooled 1L
Law Students with Wealthy Families
v.
The Homeschooled 1L
78 U.Va 11 (2025)
Demitry, C. J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Wu, Vanger, Becker, and Berklich, J.J. join. Berklich, J. concurs. Moore, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Demitry, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
I
Plaintiffs are a class of second-generation lawyers and third-generation narcissists who allege the Homeschooled 1Ls committed Intentional Infliction of Awkwardness during mandatory 1L programming and “throughout the semester, at large.”
The record reflects repeated incidents of conversational violence, including: asking professors follow-up questions after class had ended; citing Blackstone’s Commentaries in casual dialogue; delivering a two-hour monologue on the Federalist Papers that caused three Plaintiffs to spill their Spindrifts; and producing a rolling backpack so loud it triggered the building’s fire-suppression sensors and nearly gave Stephen Parr “a damn heart attack.”
Plaintiffs also file suit for Unjust Enrichment—alleging that Defendants “exploited their childhood Latin instruction to dominate CivPro recitation”—and for Negligent Socialization, claiming Defendants’ over-reliance on references to the Lord of the Rings, Monty Python, and everything by Herodotus “exceeded safe dosage levels for unvaccinated interpersonal skills.”
Defendants answer that Plaintiffs provoked them by introducing themselves as “private-equity-adjacent,” ordering cocktails that required generational wealth to pronounce, owning brand new luxury cars, using “summering” as a verb, and referring to Frodo Baggins as, “That little gay dude.”
II
Intentional Infliction of Awkwardness
To prevail, Plaintiffs must show conduct “so outrageous as to render silence physically impossible.” The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct meets this bar twice over.
Exhibit A: a two-hour unsolicited lecture on the Dormant Commerce Clause, delivered during a SBA happy hour.
Exhibit B: a spontaneous group prayer for Dean Kendrick’s “continued strength in administering procedural due process.”
Exhibit C: having the entire “Battle of Wits” scene memorized from Princess Bride.
However, Plaintiffs’ contributory negligence is overwhelming. Their insistence on referring to New York as “the City,” their belief that “interning for the judge my father golfs with” counts as public service, and their collective decision to bid on Cravath “for the vibes” demonstrates assumption of risk.
The record further reflects repeated acts of self-inflicted harm: submitting LinkedIn posts longer than most appellate briefs; using the phrase “our family’s firm” in public; and audibly sighing when someone mentions legal aid or pro bono hours. Several Plaintiffs also attended an “exclusive” firm dinner and complained that the wine list lacked the depth of their parents’ cellars—namely a 1929 Château d'Yquem. One attempted to expense his trip to Foxfield as “networking.”
While the Court acknowledges the emotional trauma of hearing a Homeschooled 1L use the word “therefore” unironically, Plaintiffs entered this environment fully aware of its hazards. They walked into ScoCo wearing boat shoes in February, discussed “getting into private equity” before finishing Torts, and voluntarily joined Law Review despite describing it as “a non-profit.” Such conduct demonstrates a pattern of reckless disregard for normal human interaction.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs more than 50% at fault for their own suffering and thus barred from recovery under the doctrine of Contributory Entitlement.
III
The Court notes, mostly for comedy purposes, that the defendant class is internally divided into four tribes, Survivor-style:
1. The Patrick Henry Originalists—whose entire jurisprudence derives from watching 1776 (1972) on repeat;
2. The Organic Co-op Constitutionalists—whose oral arguments begin, “As a child raised without processed sugar . . . .”;
3. The Natural Law / Birth Christians—who joined FedSoc mainly for the babysitting network; and
4. The Exiles—those who “failed every other school” and treat UVA Law as witness protection.
IV
The Court finds all equally dangerous when exposed to unsupervised networking events. And, the Court declines to treat “asking professors follow-up questions after class” as actionable—this conduct, once confined to the homeschooled, has metastasized into a school-wide epidemic. Both parties are equally guilty of clogging office hours: the Homeschooled 1Ls to advocate for “a more Augustiniane-inspired pedagogical model,” and the Plaintiffs to sleaze their way into “networking opportunities” with the same professors they spent class-time subtweeting.
Plaintiffs’ claim for Intentional Infliction of Awkwardness is GRANTED IN PART, limited to damages for getting caught in a conversation between a homeschooled student and a junior associate drunk off their ass at a Mix & Mingle firm dinner.
Plaintiffs’ claims for Negligent Socialization and Unjust Enrichment are SUSTAINED, the latter remanded to CivPro II for grading once the professor stops crying.
The court does take notice, however, that Plaintiffs arrived at orientation already “enriched” by several offshore trusts, four unpaid internships at the SEC, and a mysterious LLC that “owns a horse.”
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ accumulation of generational wealth, coupled with their monopolization of section outlines, introduces a foundational and doctrinal fault line—can Plaintiffs really claim unjust enrichment when they currently monopolize the entire concept of unjust enrichment?
The Court agrees. If Plaintiffs want to press the issue of unjust enrichment, they are then ordered to disgorge one (1) Vineyard Vines vest, two (2) summer associate offers, and all remaining capital gains from their grandparents’ municipal bonds. What can we say . . . . The homeschoolers really convinced us with that whole Solomon story.
The Court finally holds that both parties are further ordered to attend remedial instruction in “How to Talk to Normal Human People,” to be co-taught by Roseanne Ibanez, Ms. Kathy from the College, and the meanest Shenandoah Joe’s barista (iykyk, shout out to my scary queen).
Costs are taxed jointly against parental accounts ending in -529.
So ordered.
Berklich, J., concurring:
I concur that both sides are unbearable but write separately to express existential concern. If these are our future lawyers—half feral, half franchised—then perhaps the real tort is being here at all.
I also regretfully note that both Justices Demitry and Moore are homeschooled (ew), and should have recused themselves in this case. “As if,” said Chief Justice Demitry. In typical stubborn and small-minded home-school fashion, they have refused. Shame.
Moore, J., Concurring in part and Dissenting in part.
Perhaps the same justice is befuddled by their brethren, or perhaps is searching for a foolish consistency on account of being the possessor of a little mind of the type Emerson alleged to be admired by similarly diminutive statesmen, philosophers, and divines, but the judgements on Infliction of Awkwardness and Negligent Socialization are lacking in gestæððignesse. Accordingly, the granting in part of the former charge is dissented from while the sustainment of the latter merits concurrence. Additionally, while the reverence of the Solomonic precedent is appreciated, the reference is as lacking in application and analysis as the vault was upon Teodoro Moscosco. FAST FIVE (Universal Pictures 2011).
I
First to dispose of the ludicrosity of the denouement of the decision regarding the disciples of the domicile with their alleged Intentional Infliction of Awkwardness and Negligent Socialization. The reasoning of the Court here may be more appropriate in mensis Ianuarius but is out of place in the present. In the former charge, the Court, with a precision reminiscent of the Caravaggisti, paints The Homeschooled 1L as possessing a Borgian intellect “which appreciates what others comprehend.” Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince 185 (W.K. Marriott trans., J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. and E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1st ed. 1908) (1513).
However, in the latter charge, the Court seemingly attempts to follow the model of Iago in making The Homeschooled 1L out to be a fool and, therefore, their purse. William Shakespeare, Othello, act 1, sc. 3, l. 426. Disregarding their earlier characterization, the Court here characterizes Defendants as possessing no social skills or knowledge thereof. Whilst the exceptions to this amongst the homeschooled contingent “are as many as leaves of the forest or sands of the shores,” the same justice does recognize that there are members of the Defendants who do indeed lack the aforementioned skills. Brian Jaques, Lord Brocktree 30 (Penguin Group 2000). The fact that the quantities of rolling suitcases used by the Defendants approach the amounts of “Russian locomotives and rolling stock” in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is evidence enough for the finding of a lack of social awareness so the judgement on the charge of Negligent Socialization is affirmed while the egregious granting of Intentional Infliction of Awkwardness is disputed. James L. Stokesbury, A Short History of World War I 215 (HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 1981); Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Deutsches Reich, Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie, Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿOs̱mānīye, and Tsarstvo Bŭlgariya–Rossiyskaya Sovetskaya Federativnaya Sotsialisticheskaya Respublika, Mar. 3, 1918.
II
Second, the decision of the Court to onfindaþ precedent for the charge of Unjust Enrichment in the Solomonic decision of Doe v. Lozada is laudable if lacking. 78 U.Va 5 (2025). Much like the definition of life, so too that decision had the mathematical and logical rigor of “a number on a piece of paper.” See Logan Roy, Succession: Chiantishire. That decision, matched only in its practicality and reasonableness by the dissent to Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, established the Solomonic sentence was to be used solely in situations in which outcomes were adjudged to be both equally funny and absurd. 78 U.Va 7 (2025). However, the Court here refrains from such an analysis and would apply the sabre of Cavman in the widest uses of blades since those used by the Spetsnaz at Ilha Aramacá in 1957. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Paramount Pictures 2008).
A more reasonable decision must be urged to rectify the regressive taxation imposed upon the Defendants, who would be forced under this decision to pay a price which they could ill afford, in contrast to the Plaintiffs who would comfortably pay the comparably smaller price. Accordingly, the Brownbackian regressive taxation imposed by the Court and their aforementioned lackadaisical application of the decision of Doe v. Lozada require that the larger decision of sustaining the charge of Unjust Enrichment not be promulgated sans dissent.