Court of Petty Appeals: Angry Horde of 3Ls v. Fuqua

Angry Horde of 3Ls v. Fuqua

901 U.Va. 76 (2018)


HOPKIN, J. delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. UNANIMOUS, FRANCES.


The case before the Court is whether a group of 3Ls (hereinafter “Angry Horde”) can sustain a breach-of-contract claim against the UVA Student Bar Association (SBA) for the severe lack of “Wednesday Socials” held recently. Angry Horde brought this suit against President Frances Fuqua (hereinafter “Dictator Fuqua”) in her personal capacity and requests specific performance of the contract to provide Wednesday Socials. This Court upholds Angry Horde’s claim against Dictator Fuqua and grants an injunction mandating an SBA Social to be held within the next twenty-four hours.



SBA entered into a valid contract with the Class of 2019. If the Court remembers correctly (and the Court does), this means there was offer and acceptance and people were totally allowed to be drunk. See Lucy v. Zehmer, 84 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1954). The Court finds two separate ways to fulfill these requirements. First, when the University of Virginia School of Law admitted the individuals in this class, Dean Cordel Faulk promised “a great law school experience.” The man is a saint, and his word is interpreted by this Court as black-letter law. See Dean Faulk v. Sniveling Law Student, 578 U.Va. 80 (2016) (“The Court didn’t get into any other schools and managed to squeak past the Quality Assurance section of Admissions, and, therefore, like really owes Dean Faulk. He wins on summary judgment. We don’t even know what this case is about.”). The Court has previously held that “great law school experience” means “two kegs of beer and one keg of cider with some kind of cheap food if you show up on time.” Entitled Class of 2017 v. Dean Davies, 593 U.Va. 94 (2017). Therefore, the Class of 2019 was offered bread and circuses and accepted by attending UVA Law rather than another school. The Class of 2019 gave consideration when they turned down other schools that grade on a “High Pass, Low Pass” system.

The SBA, led by Dictator Fuqua, modified this contract by offering Wednesday Socials every other Wednesday during the Fall 2018 Semester. A subsection of the Class of 2019, Angry Horde, then accepted by religiously attending the socials when they were held. Angry Horde even talked some Professors into skipping breaks during class to let students out at 5:30 p.m. instead of 5:40 p.m. so that Angry Horde could enjoy the cold food offered alongside the beer. Therefore, under both theories, Angry Horde entered into a contract with UVA Law for Wednesday Keg Socials to be fulfilled by the SBA under the leadership of Dictator Fuqua.



Dictator Fuqua has allowed SBA to breach this contract. For several Wednesdays in a row, Angry Horde has shown up to an empty Spies Garden. In the words of one member of Angry Horde, “What—and I cannot emphasize this enough—the f*ck. I seriously cannot find the keg.” The Court finds this behavior so repugnant that it cannot comment further on the breach except to say, “RUDE.” I mean I thought we were friends, Frances. We shared a drink special at Bilt—you can’t just turn your back on that.



The most appropriate remedy for this breach is specific performance. The Court cannot place a number on the amount of damage this breach has caused. Any dollar amount given to Angry Horde would fail to make these parties whole, because no amount of money can satisfy the need for cheap beer and cold pizza the way an SBA social can. Damages are, therefore, impossible as a remedy here. Therefore, the Court grants an injunction to Angry Horde ordering Dictator Fuqua to hold a Wednesday Keg Social within the next twenty-four hours.

Dictator Fuqua is lucky that Angry Horde brought this action under breach of contract rather than intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Although so is the Court because all the Court seems to remember about this doctrine is a horse cuddling a toddler and Professor Abraham saying, “It really worries me that you can’t understand basic fact patterns.”)

Even though the Court agrees with her general sentiments, the Court will not consider the amicus curiae filed by Kate Duvall calling Angry Horde “overly dramatic” and urging them to “please study” because she’s “seen [their] grades.” Everyone knows 3Ls don’t study. So silly.



Shaaaaamme. Shame on you, Dictator Fuqua. And Read. And Taz. The people need access to kegs, and you purposefully withheld them. Angry Horde will be in Spies Garden this evening ready for kegs—you better bring them.

Finally, Professor Setear requests that you have a cold Diet Coke ready for him in addition to the kegs. There’s no real legal basis for this, but you’ve upset the Court. And the Court would like to earn above a C- in his class. Two birds, one injunction.

Also, if this Court incorrectly used any Contract Law terms or doctrines, it has been ages since this Court attended any class that even refers to Contract Law. If you push it, the Court is not afraid to use Criminal Law on your insubordinate attitude—and the Court actually learned that subject. See Justice Hopkin v. Her Nemesis, 362 U.Va. 71 (2017) (maintaining a conviction against someone who consistently parked over the line in the D3 lot against a charge of malicious prosecution because of Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1: “We do what we want.”) 


It is so ordered.

Looking Back: 70 Years of the Law Weekly

It’s PILA time! In honor of this weekend’s PILA auction, please enjoy this collection of PILA-related news from over the years before Sunday comes along and brings us the despair of outlining season.


“Also generating much auction-worthy attention was a getaway beachfront-villa vacation in Hawaii, donated by members of Section L of the first-year class. The winner, who had to survive a fierce bidding competition, was third-year Lauren Griswold. If one takes the broader view, this transaction represented a construction transfer of wealth from the television game show Greed (which Griswold handily took to the cleaners) to the deserving pockets of U.Va. students laboring in public interest. Hear, hear!” Jonathan Riehl, “PILA’s Annual Auction a Roaring Success,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, Dec. 1, 2000.

1) 1Ls, please step it up. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s here for a beachfront villa in Hawaii. 2) Hope everyone’s ready for this year’s transfer of wealth! Hopefully everyone gets something good in exchange for their hard-earned (or borrowed) cash.


“Yep, it’s time for the auction again, the event that has given Virginia Law students a reputation as, well, the people you’d most want at a party as long as the party isn’t at your house. ‘Up until last year, the auction was held at a university building,’ explained third-year Auction Director Jennifer Tink. ‘Unfortunately, the Law School got so out of hand that the University won’t let us use any of their buildings.’” Susan Burgess, “PILA Auction Coming Nov. 15,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, Nov. 2, 2001.

Friendly reminder that mens rea will be imputed even if you’re intoxicated. I expect everyone to be all glammed up and on their somewhat-best behavior. On the plus side, we’re back at the Omni again this year so we must not have ruined anything too badly last year!


A sampling of “Top Ten Items We’d Like to See at Next Year’s PILA Auction”:

·       “An NGLS commissionership.”

·       “24-hour access to the library.”

·       “Twenty votes in the Electoral College.”

·       “Law Review membership, minus those abusively long cite checks.”

·       “Dean Jeffries’ ‘Reserved for the Dean’ parking space.”

·       “Tenure.”

Brent Olson, Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, Nov. 5, 2004. Just in case any 1L sections out there need to make some last-minute donations to prove their dominance as the best section ever.


“It is the eve of exam season. I know this because the PILA auction is this weekend. This UVA tradition funds charitable work and gives us one more chance to celebrate before everyone becomes unwashed, bleary eyed, sweat pant wearing zombies. However, the PILA auction is not all fun and games… I have compiled some warnings and advice for this year’s PILA auction.


1.     Bidding Wars Suck

2.     Watch Out for PILA’s Drink Tickets

3.     Clothing Optional

4.     Provide/Buy Creative Auction Items”

Lee Gilley ’11, “Keep Your Eyes Open at the PILA Auction,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, Nov. 13, 2009.

Eve of exam season = meh. Clothing optional = still meh. I know how much pizza this law school consumes. Stay clothed, my friends.

Hot Bench: Jeremy Pushkin '19

Jeremy Pushkin ‘19

Hot Bench Photo (Jeremy Pushkin '19).JPG

Have you ever had a nickname?

Pushkin. And in law school various combos of J-[noun] – J-Bird, J-Bone, J-Dog, etc.

Where did you grow up?

Baltimore, Md., with summers in my mom’s hometown of Sassoferrato, Italy.

What are you most excited for during your first year in San Francisco?

Finding the best burrito in SF.

What is your favorite word?

Apericena: when aperitifs and small plates become your dinner.

What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?

Chirashi at the Tsukiji Fish Market.

What’s your favorite hobby to avoid the stress of law school?

Planning trips to vineyards and never being able to make it the next day.

Where is your favorite place to vacation?

Bermhooda [@bermhooda on Instagram].

What’s something you wish you’d known about law school before coming to UVA Law?

That it’s like being back in high school.

What did you have for breakfast this morning?

An everything bagel with cream cheese from a non-Bodo’s bagel shop.

If you were a superhero, what would your superpower be?

Knowing the Mega Millions numbers in advance.

If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

Rome (Italy, not Georgia).

What’s your least favorite sound?

The sound of a random undergrad’s scent diffuser going off at the table next to me in the library 1L year.

If you owned a sports team, what/who would be the mascot?

The Montgomery Biscuits already perfected it with Monty, an anthropomorphized buttermilk biscuit.

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

The email informing us that “[w]e have had complaints that people are juuling in the Law School.”

Blueberries or strawberries?

Blueberries with breakfast, strawberries for everything else.

What is the best concert you have ever been to?

Danny Brown and Childish Gambino. Donald Glover told me he loved me.

What’s the best (or worst!) PG-rated pickup line you’ve ever heard?

I hope it’s not Shabbos because you’re turning me on.

What’s your spirit animal?

According to a Buzzfeed quiz I just took, a “very cute kitty.”

Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?

*NSYNC. Don’t @me.

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

Four days.

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?

Start my own vineyard.

If you could be in the winter Olympics, which sport would you compete in?

Curling. I’m just waiting for my mustache to grow out so I can really fit in.

Where is a place you haven’t been but want to travel to?

St. Petersburg, Russia.

Court of Petty Appeals: Gunners N' Roses v. Panic! at the District Court

Gunners N’ Roses v. Panic! At the District Court

901 U.Va. 74 (2018)


Elicegui, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ZABLOCKI, Hopkin, and Ranzini, JJ., joined. VanderMeulen, C. J., filed a concurring opinion.


Justice Elicegui delivered the opinion of the Court.


A group of precocious 1Ls formed a band and joined the staff of the newspaper. As a result, the 1L cover band stole the cover photo of the newspaper from the Law School’s official, beloved cover band, Gunners N’ Roses. While such chutzpah might be considered praiseworthy, the 1Ls acted without regard for the laws and social norms which govern our community. Given the relevant laws, which provide that 3Ls rule the school and give property rights to the original creators of great ideas, and the justice system which provides a remedy to the aggrieved, the 1L cover band breached an implied contract, trespassed, and stole the thunder of GNR and must make amends accordingly.




On Saturday, October 20, the members of the Law School’s beloved cover band, Gunners N’ Roses (“GNR”), took to the stage to headline SBA’s new event, Fauxfield. Fauxfield was a replacement for Foxfield, the Law School’s annual event where the 1Ls must provide food and beverages to the upperclassmen to thank them for welcoming the new students into our school. Our treasured band performed their hearts out for more than three hours. By all accounts, they crushed it and demonstrated to the school their countless hours of rehearsal were worth it. During the three-hour performance, Gunners N’ Roses played twenty songs and even refrained from too many beers to ensure they gave it their all.

Four days later, GNR’s lead singer, Betty Rizzo, arrived at school to find the front page of the Law Weekly contained a giant picture of Panic! At the District Court (“P!ADC”), the 1L “cover band,” or, as appellant’s brief asserts, a cheap knock-off version of GNR. Rizzo couldn’t believe her eyes, particularly because P!ADC only played four songs (that’s all they know) and she was still hoarse from singing for more than three hours. Rizzo gathered the other members of the band—Marty Maraschino, Danny Zuko, Sonny LaTierri, Putzie, and Kenickie—to discuss this outrage. As a result of that conversation, appellants decided to file the foregoing suit.

Appellants asserted that P!ADC infringed on their copyright, breached an implied contract, trespassed on their property, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them. Appellants first argued that, as the rightful heirs to the school’s first law-pun cover band, they own a trademark over such band names any other group looking to found a law-pun band must pay them the appropriate trademark fees. Second, appellants argued that, implicit in the 1Ls’ acceptance to UVA Law, they created an implied contract to “wait their turn” to form a band and “know their place” in the Law School hierarchy, which they breached. Third, appellants argued that, as the rightful heirs to the discoverers of the successful formula for law-pun band success, they hold property rights over all Law School musical performances under the doctrine of discovery, and that P!ADC trespassed on their property by performing at Fauxfield without their permission. Fourth, appellants contended that P!ADC intentionally induced other 1Ls to put their picture on the front page of the newspaper in an attempt to sabotage GNR and upset the band members. Appellants asked the lower court for monetary damages, paid in the form of four kegs of good beer, and a permanent injunction preventing P!ADC from performing at future Law School–wide events without their express and written permission.

For their part, appellees, through their lawyer, third-year student Julianna McCarthy, denied all claims.[1] They asserted, “That’s not how trademarks work,” and questioned if the members of GNR had even taken Copyright Law yet. Appellees responded to the breach-of-contract claim by explaining that contracts require an objective intent to form a contract, and no objective person would agree not to form a band when they were as talented as the members of P!ADC and the competition was so weak. Appellees also asserted that the doctrine of discovery only applies to land and is no longer a permissible form of establishing property rights, given that the underlying logic is “pretty racist” and ignores the property rights of the indigenous peoples. In response to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, P!ADC argued that “Gunners N’ Roses shouldn’t be such pansies” and “competition makes everyone stronger.”

After a two-day bench trial at the court below, Judge Jacob Jones found for P!ADC on all claims.[2] Judge Jones ruled that GNR had no trademark on law-pun band names because, “Eh, I don’t know what a trademark is and neither brief really explained it.” He also found no implied contract between the 1Ls and the larger student body and agreed with P!ADC that GNR shouldn’t be “such prima donnas. Who do you think you are, anyway?! Upperclassmen?” Finally, Judge Jones found the doctrine of discovery doesn’t apply because he hasn’t taken property yet. Appellants timely appealed and we granted them a hearing. We now reverse on three of GNR’s claims and remand for a calculation of damages.




First, we address appellants’ trademark-infringement claim. Like Judge Jones, the members of this high court have yet to take Copyright Law and aren’t sure what a trademark actually is. We surmise, though, that trademarks only apply to more specific and original ideas than law school puns, which are a dime a dozen. See Students of UVA Law v. Common Law Grounds, 818 U.Va. 545 (2017) (“As a student organization at UVA, you have a duty to have at least one board member who hates puns to guarantee you don’t subject the student body to events like ‘Confirmation Bias’ focused on judicial confirmation hearings.”). Given this Court’s past pun precedent and Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1,[3] we do what we want and we don’t want to research what a trademark actually is. Therefore, we uphold the lower court’s decision on this claim.

The lower court erred, though, in finding for the appellees on the breach-of-contract, trespass, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional distress claims. The Court will now take them up in that particular order.

UVA Law is a school where students respect their elders and all students who accept their offer of admission form an implied, but binding, contract with the 3Ls to allow them to shine all year. Under this contract, 1Ls, 2Ls, and professors may not require anything particularly strenuous from 3Ls or interfere with their fun in any way. We don’t call it #3LOL for nothing. See Grey v. Collins and Dugas, 713 U.Va. 27 (2014) (“Fed Courts is hereby enjoined from being held on Friday and messing up the 3Ls’ three-day weekend. And don’t even think about doing any cold-calling in there, either.”). Because GNR is made up of several 3Ls,[4] the band functions as an agent of the 3L class and is therefore a party to the implied 3L contract. P!ADC breached this contract by stealing the cover photo from GNR and must make amends for that breach. Besides, wasn’t it hurtful enough that these youngins didn’t have to provide us with food, booze, and ponies?! Where will this madness end?!

While the doctrine of discovery may no longer apply to land, the doctrine is still in full force at UVA Law and GNR has full property rights over all school-wide musical performances and law-pun band names. Although GNR is not the first Law School cover band, GNR is the successor in interest to Jefferson Clerkship[5] and inherited all Jefferson Clerkship’s property rights when the original band broke up. This bundle includes the usual sticks (right to exclude, right to destroy, right to use, right to sell). Given that GNR has the right to exclude others from Law School–wide musical performances and from using law-pun band names, P!ADC violated these rights by performing at Fauxfield without their permission and sucking up GNR’s rightful press coverage.

P!ADC’s transgressions against GNR caused the members of GNR emotional distress and justice requires Panic! At the District Court make amends for the pain they have caused. See Ex-GF v. Ex-BF, 673 U.Va. 1145 (2016) (“You can’t just be a dick and get away with it. Wrongs must be righted, and sometimes the only way to do that is by saying sorry with a keg.”). Because P!ADC breached the laws and social norms governing the law school community, they owe GNR beer to compensate.




The upperclassmen of UVA Law can’t just let these meddling kids get away with it. Therefore, the lower court’s holding is reversed and the case is remanded for a calculation of damages not inconsistent with this opinion. And this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that a majority of this Court’s justices are GNR groupies.


It is so ordered.


VanderMeulen, C. J., concurring.


I join in full my colleague Justice Elicegui’s able opinion. I write separately to note additional precedent that supports the holding outlined in her opinion. Can it be that the 1Ls have never heard of the famous SBA v. First-Year Council, 323 U.Va. 882 (1983)? There, the Court outlined its seminal, nuanced rule controlling 1L cases: “1Ls lose.” Like Professor Kordana’s “female plaintiffs lose” rule, this principle of the law is a time-honored and intellectually sound maxim strongly supported by the Petty Academy. Through the decades, the Court has applied it again and again, with increasing certainty and vigor. See, e.g., Class of 2005 v. Jeffries, 580 U.Va. 100 (2002) (“The 1Ls lose.”); PILA v. Annoying Smelly 1Ls, 612 U.Va. 205 (2009) (“The 1Ls lose.”) (Opinion of Watkins, J.)

 When applied to this case, the outcome is clear: The 1Ls lose. Strongly endorsing this ancient and sound rule, I concur.

[1] Appellees retained Ms. McCarthy’s services because “We’re 1Ls and don’t know any law yet. The doctrine of discovery?! That sounds like some made-up mumbo jumbo to us.”

[2] Judge Jones is the author of the article that originally ignited this dispute. This Court was unimpressed that he didn’t recuse himself from the case, but recusal is up to each individual judge, so our hands are tied. We are excluding him from social events for the week, though.

[3] “We do what we want.”

[4] We ignore, for now, the presence of that 2L guy in GNR. See Footnote 3.

[5] RIP Jeb.

Spotlight: Muslim Law Students Association

Hamna Ahmad ‘20
Guest Columnist

Kareem Ramadan ‘20
Guest Columnist

When we came to Grounds last fall, the Muslim Law Students Association (MLSA) did not exist. Similar to a number of affinity groups at the Law School, the events of August 2017 served as a rallying cry to come together in order to show solidarity with the community and with affected minority groups. For the both of us, it made it easy to give our support to reinvigorating an organization for people that needed a voice within the law school. Thanks to the effort of a number of then-1Ls and 2Ls, we were able to get MLSA off the ground and running after a ten-year hiatus from the Law School. While the events of last August added a sense of urgency to restarting MLSA, the ultimate mission of this group is a simple one: To create and foster an environment for Muslims and allies of all backgrounds to come together as a community, while also functioning as a vehicle to ignite conversation with regard to Islam-centric and minority-focused issues. We both got involved to help future Muslim students find a place they felt comfortable in when they arrived on Grounds, whether that is finding a spot to pray or recommendations for halal food.


Aside from being a space where Muslim students and allies can come together and engage one another with difficult topics, MLSA has served as an excellent way to make new friends and connect with people throughout the school. From game nights to lunchtime discussions, this group has given us the chance to learn about people from all sorts of backgrounds that we may not otherwise have had a chance to otherwise. Most Muslim Student Associations on campuses tend to be ethnically homogenous, but we are lucky to have a Muslim population that has a mix of South Asian, Arab and Middle Eastern, African American, East Asian, North African, and European American students! This allows us to be exposed to Muslim traditions from all over the world, even ones that we may not have known about previously. One of the best experiences of this year was observing an Ashura fast, the first time for both of us. Ashura is a traditional holiday mostly observed in Shia communities throughout the world, and it was great to observe it in our own small group in Charlottesville.


Furthermore, we realized that there is a need for a cohesive network of Muslim attorneys across the public and private sectors. We want to ensure that Muslim students have the same access as other students to career opportunities in the future, even though many of our members tend to come from families with no connection to the legal world. This summer, both of us struggled to find Muslim attorneys at firm receptions in our respective markets. To make Big Law a more diverse experience in the future, it’s vital to create this sort of network starting from the ground up—in law school. As our members start to graduate and enter the legal profession, we hope that they will create a foundation of alumni for future Muslim law students.


We are lucky to have an established Muslim community in Charlottesville. The Islamic Society of Central Virginia is a great mosque that our members attend in town, and we encourage all interested students to stop by Friday services if they are interested in learning about our prayers. Furthermore, the undergraduate Muslim Students Association puts on excellent programming that MLSA members are always invited to, including Quran studies and service events. This year, we hope to forge closer relationships with the Medical School and Darden’s Muslim Student Associations as well.


Although we are primarily a faith-based organization, we realize that the Muslim-American identity has been highly politicized; we, as Muslim law students, do not have the privilege of opting out of the contentious politics of our time. According to the Pew Research Center, assaults and crimes against Muslims reached new heights in 2016, surpassing 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Last semester, the University released a statement condemning “Punish a Muslim Day,” a hateful event originating in Europe that spread to the US. In July of this year, our MLSA signed on to an open letter with Muslim law student associations across the country to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. It was an amazing experience to see the collective power of young, engaged Muslims speaking out against a legal ruling that has affected and will affect our own community and families. Our members are Muslims who grew up in America during the turn of the century, and we have seen our religion twisted by both those who claim to follow it and those who claim to hate it. For many of us, this was a motivation to attend law school: to learn about our rights and privileges as Americans, and to ensure that our faith was treated with as much dignity and respect as all faith groups in this country.


Next semester, we are hosting an event with the Jewish Law Students Association (JLSA) about minorities in faith in Big Law, and how to stay steadfast with your faith while meeting the demands of the workplace. We are also partnering with the Virginia Law and Business Society to host a panel event on Islamic Finance in the U.S. and abroad. We invite all students to attend our advertised events and to ask engaged questions about Islam and allyship.


Note from the Co-Presidents: Although we are only in our first year of being a registered student organization, we are indebted to so many individuals at this law school. First, thank you to Muskan Mumtaz, ’19, for creating this group and getting us organized. Thank you to JLSA for helping us through the certification process and for exhibiting the truest form of sisterhood. Thank you to everyone in the Office of Student Affairs for making us feel welcome and for organizing prayer spaces for our members. Thank you to Professor Thomas Nachbar for reaching out to us and wanting us to feel welcome. Thank you to the Office of Admissions for being mindful on how we can grow our representation on Grounds. May God bless our efforts, and allow this group to be a light to all members of the Virginia Law School community.

Hot Bench: Ben Elron '20

Ben Elron ‘20

Ben Elron ‘20

Ben Elron ‘20

Have you ever had a nickname?

I grew up being called Belron, it’s always a bit confusing when people call me Ben. 


Where did you grow up?

Charlottesville, Virginia. 


What is your favorite quote?

“What’s next?” –Jed Bartlet


What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?

I once spent a month wilderness-kayaking in the Kenai Fjords. Tents, sleeping on icebergs, no resupplies, the whole nine yards. After week three, we were eating nothing but preserved/powdered food. On our final day we walked straight from the dock to the closest restaurant––some random pizzeria in Seward, Alaska restaurant–– and ordered an entire pizza each. We all got very sick, but it was still the best pizza I’ve ever had. 


If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be and why?

Dr. Blasey Ford, so I could give her a hug and a high five. 


What’s your favorite hobby to avoid the stress of law school? 

I work as an Emergency Medical Technician on the local Rescue Squad, which is actually quite stress-reducing. I think it has something to do with taking something that’s wrong and fixing it (vs. the law, where we take things that are wrong and argue about them). 


Where is your favorite place to vacation?

Anywhere without cell phone service. Usually Ontario. 


What did you have for breakfast this morning?

Pav machine-coffee and those fruit snacks in Student Affairs. 


What’s your least favorite sound?

Engine-out in an airplane (I’m a pilot). 


If you owned a sports team, what/who would be the mascot?

It would be a team of Battling Robots, and the mascot would be Kristen Stewart. 


Blueberries or strawberries?

Whichever one they decide to throw on the firm reception cheeseboard. . .


What is the best concert you have ever been to?

John Legend at a small, private event in San Francisco. He was great, but it was the best concert because of the person I was with. 


What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?

Close out the Virginian. I was raised in Charlottesville, but I grew up standing on those booths. 


What animal do you most identify with? 



Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC? 

Justin Timberlake is as close to perfect as pop celebrities can get. 


What’s your favorite food(s)?

Egg and feta bagel at Bodo’s (THE MAGIC IS IN THE FETA). Also, bacon-wrapped dates at Mas, house dressing at Take-it-Away, anything at Lampo. Alternatively, anything I get to eat while sitting next to good people. 


If you had to pick one song to play non-stop in the background of your life, what would it be?

“Everybody’s Free (To Wear Sunscreen)” by Baz Luhrmann.


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

42 hours during a search-and-rescue for a lost child (we found him). 


If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?

Drive to CVS, buy a disposable camera, take a picture of the ticket (so it doesn’t exist digitally anywhere). Drive to Bank of America, open a safety deposit box and put it in there. Immediately find a lawyer with expertise in this matter and fly to see her. Tell nobody. Claim the prize in the name of a trust a day before the deadline. Found a new political party, take control of the House and pay off Trump’s taxes as a gesture of goodwill. . .(jk). 


If you had Matrix-like learning, what would you learn?

How to go back and take the Blue Pill. 


If you could be in the winter Olympics, which sport would you compete in?

Triwizard Tournament (which I would have founded using my lottery winnings). 



Ben Elron

Court of Petty Appeals: Class of 2021 v. Doe

Class of 2021 v. Doe 

903 U.Va. 12 (2018)


VanderMeulen, C. J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. Schmalzl, J., filed a concurring opinion.


Chief Justice VanderMeulen delivered the opinion of the Court.

A bright-eyed, smiling young woman laden with heavy textbooks reserves a room on the second floor of the Law Library on a Saturday morning. She sets up her laptop and her books, readies her PowerPoint, and starts writing her equations on the . . . wait a second . . . equations? Smiling?? Is that a . . . chemistry book?!

That’s right, folks: they’re back. Once more, the undergrads of UVA are making felt their presence in our quaint northern outpost. Before you know it, we’ll be inundated with sorority sweatshirts, Roots-to-go, and Juuling in the library.[1] Fortunately, forward-looking plaintiffs have brought the issue before this Court, which is determined to act to protect the Law School.

The instant dispute reads like so many others: appellants Sarah-Jane Lorenzo ’21 and Jacob Jones ’21, representing the Class of 2021, found themselves in the library last Saturday morning[2] grappling with vexing questions about proximate cause. As they approached the doors of the Mason Room, they saw a brown-haired, glasses-clad woman occupying a seat at the long table in the center of the room. According to appellants’ brief, they immediately realized something was amiss when they saw the woman’s PowerPoint was entitled, “DNA Repair and Genomic Instability: Cells, Tissues, and Mechanisms of Disease.” While appellants’ brief admits they “have no idea what’s going on in any of [their] classes” and “couldn’t tell a railroad turntable from rum-ship explosion,” they insist that what they saw “had nothing to do with law ’cause it was, like, numbers and stuff.” Appellants allege this occupation of the Mason Room constituted false imprisonment and a violation of their property right to access Law School facilities. They argue for a categorical ruling barring undergrads from using Law School spaces.

In the court below, appellee Dane Joe—whose identity has been shielded for fear of threats to her person—moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ suit, arguing it failed to state a claim upon which petty relief could be granted. Judge Davies granted the motion, ruling for appellee that appellants had failed to state a claim in their complaint. Appellants timely appealed and we granted them a hearing. We now, shockingly, reverse.


First, we address appellee’s motion to dismiss. Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)[3] allows for dismissal of a plaintiff’s suit if the pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.[4] In reviewing a granted motion to dismiss, this Court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Davies v. SBA, 718 U.Va. 221 (2015) (“The keg is not, as defendant contends, ‘without any redeeming value whatsoever.’ It has at least a teentsy-weentsy bit of redeeming value! The lower court is reversed.”) Here, the lower court held appellants’ false imprisonment claim “completely without merit because they were not imprisoned.” Appellants contend being locked out of the Mason Room counts as imprisonment, and also note that they endured “excruciating mental imprisonment” at being reminded of their inferiority in the hard sciences.

As for the property claim, appellants present a novel claim in their petition, arguing that law students should have a unique right to enter Law School premises, including a right to exclude undergrads from those premises. Appellants claim the Law School’s 1974 move from Main Grounds to North Grounds established a unique “stick” in the proverbial bundle that Professor Doran so adores. They propose that any Law School student, faculty member, or staff member should have the right to exclude from Law School premises any “Obvious Undergrad.” Judge Davies dismissed this claim as well, holding there is “no such thing” as an “Obvious Undergrad.”


We’ll be honest: These claims are pretty weak sauce. Normally, for a claim of false imprisonment, we require a showing of, well, “imprisonment.” See, e.g., Section A v. Verkerke, 810 U.Va. 445 (2017) (“You were stuck in that exam room for how many hours??”). Perhaps, in some circumstances, anguish alone might do. See, e.g., Malkowski v. Cohen, 811 U.Va. 907 (2017) (“Though the door was technically open, appellant’s inability to escape discussion of securities violations in a Professional Responsibility course rendered her sufficiently imprisoned to state a claim.”) Never have we held that plaintiffs were falsely imprisoned for a mere inability to enter the premises of the Law School.

Nonetheless, here we must reverse the lower court. Appellants’ claim may be a bit, eh, creative, but the damage done to them is real. By occupying the space reserved for law students, Doe locked Lorenzo and Jones out of space to which they had a lawful right. By covering the white board with her accursed and befuddling equations, Doe imprisoned appellants in the confines of their own inferiority. That must count for something. And besides, Doe is an undergrad. Is there any more proud a boast than that we are a government “not of laws, but of men”? Were we to allow Doe to stand on equal footing before the law, would that law even be petty?

Similarly, appellants’ property law claim must be reinstated. We declare categorically that denizens of the Law School have the right to exclude “Obvious Undergrads” from any study premise, library table, or coffee-machine line within the School of Law. Contrary to Judge Davies’ holding below, we find that there is such a thing as an “Obvious Undergrad.” Telltale signs include open display of Greek letters; Main Grounds student-organization laptop stickers; math and science textbooks; picture books (!); vaping in the library[5]; untrodden spirit; and “’Potle” bowls, as these despicable cads call Chipotle. Law School denizens are urged to use caution: this right to exclude applies only to OBVIOUS undergrads. If the sneaky lads and lasses manage to disguise their undiminished souls and chemistry homework, they must be allowed to remain.


Stay vigilant, Law Schoolers! The invasion is upon us. Left unchecked, our way of life is at risk. Some undergrads, we assume, are good people. But they are not us. And lurking among them is an even greater threat: Darden students disguised as undergrads. Make no mistake: we will grant no safe harbor to these invaders. The lower court’s holding is reversed, and appellants’ complaint is restored.

It is so ordered.

Schmalzl, J., concurring.

I join the Court’s thorough opinion in full, but write separately to note what I think is a glaring omission from the Court’s decision: the snacks and the coffee. Undergrads who occupy study rooms are bad, yes. No one would deny this. But what about the ones who take snacks! Is there anything more sacred to us than snacks and coffee? And these children come north and just take them. It’s disgusting. And by ignoring the threat posed to law students’ ongoing ability to be adequately fed and sugared, the Court kicks the can down the road once more, leaving for others a threat it should address itself.

On this basis, I object.

[1] The Court once witnessed an undergrad vaping “surreptitiously” on the second floor. She looked like a teapot, vapor streaming slowly out of her nostrils. All hail Queen Davies and the benevolent SEC-028.

[2] The Court takes no position on whether plaintiffs violated this Court’s anti-Gunning injunction, but we’re going to keep an eye on these lads, don’t you worry.

[3] Yeah, that’s right, 5. We do what we want.

[4] This standard should be familiar to anyone who paid attention in Civ Pro, aka that one weird kid with the UVA undergrad ring and no one else.

[5] Sorry, Shanna.

Letters to the Editor: 10-31-2018

Oppose Anti-Semitism in All its Forms
By Jewish Law Student Association (JLSA) Board

This letter was written prior to the mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue that killed eleven Jews. The victims were gunned down while reciting their Shabbat morning prayers. Many of those killed were elderly. Their deaths tragically reinforce the need to condemn anti-Semitic and bigoted rhetoric before it metastasizes into acts of violence. This letter is dedicated to the memories of the victims—may their memories forever be a source of blessings.

As Jewish students in Charlottesville, we feel a particular duty to identify anti-Semitism both on the political left and right. While Jewish law students and the broader Charlottesville Jewish community experienced right-wing anti-Semitism directly in August 2017, we also feel a strong need to point out the degree to which anti-Semitism has been normalized on the political left in the form of virulent anti-Zionism. It is with this educational goal that we write this piece.

Anti-Semitism on the right is relatively easy to see. It comes in the form that we saw last August: swastikas, chants of “Jews will not replace us,” and the specific targeting of Congregation Beth Israel in downtown Charlottesville. This anti-Semitism fits into Prince William County Supervisor and U.S. Senate candidate Corey Stewart’s broader white nationalist worldview. Stewart has engaged in inexcusable racial dog-whistling for years. He has repeatedly downplayed the role of slavery in the Civil War and the prevalence of racism today. In 2017, at the Old South Ball in Danville, Va., he spoke about the importance of Virginia’s Confederate heritage and identity at great length. In his sordid courtship of neo-Confederates, he never paused to mention the evils of slavery and racism that have played such a tragic part in Virginia’s history.

Stewart has sought support from Jason Kessler, the white nationalist leader who helped organize last year’s Unite the Right rally. Kessler paid UVA Law multiple unwelcome visits last semester, ranting about the “Jewish-looking” students who were following him. After getting banned from UVA following his visits, he bemoaned UVA Law’s receipt of its largest ever donation from “Jewish” investors Bruce and Marsha Karsh as evidence that “our rights can be sold to the highest bidder.”

In early 2017, Stewart attended an event hosted by Kessler and his organization, Unity and Security for America. He listened as members discussed the importance of allowing immigrants from Western countries and excluding Middle Easterners. He also held a press conference with Kessler to support Kessler’s efforts to retain Charlottesville’s Confederate statues, praising Kessler’s group for standing up to “real racism” while Kessler declared that the statue of Lee held “ethnic significant to Southern white people.” Kessler rewarded Stewart for his courtship by endorsing Stewart during his failed 2017 gubernatorial bid.

Almost a year later, about a week before this year’s June primary, Stewart finally repudiated Kessler, claiming “I didn’t know who he was when I met with him.” This should be convincing to no one, since it is far from Stewart’s only dalliance with white supremacists. In January 2017, he appeared with Paul Nehlen, an unsuccessful candidate in Wisconsin’s First U.S. Congressional District’s last two primaries. Stewart told Nehlen that Nehlen was “one of my personal heroes . . . I can’t tell you how much I was inspired by you.” Nehlen has supported considering deporting all Muslims from the United States, and became notorious for attacking the “Jewish media,” as well as bizarrely tweeting, “Poop, incest, and pedophilia. Why are those common themes repeated so often with Jews?”

Most pertinent to the Jewish community, Stewart was quick to attack Republicans who denounced racism in the wake of the Unite the Right Rally. In our eyes, he crystallized his sympathy for anti-Semites when he said that those who denounced the rally were “weak . . . they couldn’t apologize fast enough.” Stewart’s anti-Semitism is situated firmly in his broader white nationalist views. For people like Stewart, Kessler, and Nehlen, the centrality of anti-Semitism to their worldview cannot be overstated.

It is also incumbent upon us to point out the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests in the political left. While it does not usually come in the easily-identifiable form of Nazi imagery and outward racism, its underlying principles are still insidious. Unfortunately, U.S. Congressional candidate for Virginia’s Fifth District Leslie Cockburn has a troubling track record of propagating anti-Semitic canards that have disturbing historical origins. While we are aware that Cockburn in no way exhibits the outward anti-Semitism that Corey Stewart seems to be comfortable with, we feel uncomfortable with the degree to which anti-Semitism has been normalized on the political left.

Much of the Jewish community (though not the entirety) is deeply concerned about Cockburn’s 1991 book Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.Israeli Covert Relationship. In the book, Cockburn describes Jewish control over U.S. foreign affairs in ways that mirror the narrative of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Protocols, published in the Russian Empire in 1903, is a fabricated text that purports to describe Jewish schemes for world domination. Anti-Semites have used its core theme ever since to peddle conspiracy theories about Jewish domination of finance, the media, politics, and the international system. Protocols’ ideas were used by the Tsars to instigate pogroms and by the Nazis to justify genocide. Today’s anti-Semites use Protocols to accuse Jews and Israel of causing everything from 9/11 to the 2008 financial crisis.

In Dangerous Liaison, Leslie Cockburn offered her variation on the Protocols theme, including accusing Israel of helping Saddam massacre the Kurds, training a Colombian drug cartel, and dominating U.S. politics. The New York Times published a review excoriating the book for being “largely dedicated to Israel-bashing for its own sake,” and for suggesting “win or lose, smart or dumb, right or wrong, suave or boorish, Israelis are a menace . . . the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us.” Many of us see Cockburn's book as part of a long tradition of scapegoating Jews for social problems and believe her use of the terms “Israel” and “Zionists” instead of Jews should not give her cover. Importantly, we acknowledge that not all criticisms of Israel constitute anti-Semitism. But sometimes the demonization is so strong and the conspiracy theories are so potent that Jews realize that criticism of Israel is a thin veil for well-known anti-Semitic tropes.

To her credit, Cockburn has reached out and received the support of some in the local Jewish community. While her outreach is laudable, she has yet to fully repudiate her book or even acknowledge why Jewish individuals feel that her book touches a nerve in ways that Jewish individuals uniquely understand. Our group has a wide range of viewpoints, but some of us feel that she treated her meetings with the community as a perfunctory campaign stop, aiming to secure support from a key constituency rather than deeply engage with concerns about her problematic book.

To be clear, this article is not a call to take political action against Leslie Cockburn. Despite the problematic nature of her book, some Jewish students, including some of us, continue to support Cockburn. Some of us believe her commitments to progressive values will better serve the minority communities of her district. Nevertheless, as a whole, we are deeply troubled by the way in which anti-Semitism has gone unquestioned in the political left, not just in the United States but globally within liberal democracies. We hope that we can help educate others so we do not reach the point that the British Labour party has, where politicians including the leader of the party, Jeremy Corbyn, have proven worryingly tolerant of widespread anti-Semitic themes and stereotypes.

We feel a moral responsibility—especially after August 2017—to identify anti-Semitism on the left and on the right. While Nazi imagery from the right is easy to identify, anti-Semitism from the left is often intertwined with virulent anti-Israel sentiment.

We write this piece fully aware of the complex, multi-dimensional political world in which we live, vote, and advocate. But we also write this piece inspired by the words of the great Rabbi Hillel, who said “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?”

Keep Campus Speech Open
By Virginia Law Republicans

Say someone were to pen an op-ed in this paper discussing some of the terms surrounding the immigration debate. Say this were to spark outrage, resulting in some students removing all copies of this paper from its places of distribution. What ought to be the consequences of doing so? Is the removal of copies, preventing students from exposure to such expression, a violation of campus free-speech rights or an expression of them?

This Thursday, November 1 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Purcell Reading Room, the Law Republicans will co-host a debate with the Goldwater Institute, beginning a conversation on some of these questions.

In early January of 2017, the Goldwater Institute issued model campus free-speech legislation which has been adopted in whole or part in over a dozen states, including Virginia in 2018.

The model provides that campus administrators cannot disinvite speakers, no matter how controversial. It sets up disciplinary sanctions for students who interfere with the campus free speech rights of others and, interestingly, permits students whose rights were improperly infringed by the university to recover court and attorney’s fees. For many, this seems like a step in the right direction—an indication that campuses will be legally required to take the free speech rights of all students, no matter their political affiliation, seriously. Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation Senior Educational Policy Analyst, and co-author of the model legislation Jonathan Butcher believes that turning to the law to protect students’ rights on campus is the best solution to the current free speech crisis.

Some, however, like Professor Michael Behrent of Appalachian State University, view laws of this kind and the campus free-speech movement as “false friends,” undermining the fundamental values and benefits of free speech with political ends. By emphasizing punishment, the fear is that genuine freedom of expression will be chilled.

So, are campus free-speech laws a help or hindrance to the free speech cause?

I welcome you to join the Law Republicans for what will be a totally non-partisan and nuanced debate about an issue that impacts every student on Grounds and beyond. If we believe that freedom of expression is a good, then how ought we to go about protecting it for all students on campuses across the country? Let’s debate! 


Spotlight: Lambda Law Alliance

Dana Raphael ‘20
Guest Columnist

As many of you know, Lambda Law Alliance is the Law School’s LGBTQ+ student organization; providing professional, social, and academic support for LGBTQ+ students. But Lambda is more than just a student organization—Lambda is a family for both LGBTQ+ people and straight allies.

Relocating for law school is a daunting process for many students, especially those who identify as LGBTQ+. Our goal is to ensure that there is a supportive group ready to welcome these students when they arrive. In fact, Lambda was one of the reasons I was so excited to come to UVA Law. I attended Lambda’s welcome party during Admitted Students Weekend and was blown away by welcoming and friendly community. I left knowing that I had an immediate group of friends and mentors to lean on when I started my first year.

Our 14-member Executive Board works tirelessly to allow us to host a wide range of activities—from social events to career panels to networking events—and I am incredibly honored to be a part of such a wonderful group. My role on the board is Vice President, a new position this year, and my primary role is to support the President and other Board members on their projects. One of my responsibilities is managing Executive Board elections, and I am excited to oversee our transition from a plurality voting system to instant runoff voting.

Eleanora Kaloyeropoulou is the President of Lambda this year. She is a fantastic leader and has made great strides to promote Lambda across the Law School community. She knew every 1L almost instantly, not only their names but also their interests and backgrounds.

Hanaa Khan and Taz Jones are tasked with alumni and law firm relations. Among their responsibilities are coordinating the mentorship program, which matches Lambda members with practicing attorneys to discuss their careers and what it means to be LGBTQ+ in the legal profession. Taz and Hanna also worked together to plan an incredibly successful Career Day, which allowed 1L Lambda members to network with attorneys from a number of law firms.

Alex Downie and Alyssa Daniels are our social coordinators. They are responsible for planning many of our great events, including the Welcome Back Barbeque mixer with other graduate schools, the Charlottesville Pride brunch, movie nights, last week’s HalloQueen party, and Lambda’s famous Taste the Rainbow FebClub party, one of the most popular events of the month.


Adele Stichel is our Inclusivity Chair, another new position this year. Adele was an integral part of the “What I Wish I Had Known as a 1L” panel where she, along with other Lambda members Hanaa, Taz, Robbie Pomeroy, David Goldman, and Emmaline Rees provided 1Ls with tips about how to survive and succeed in law school.

Alex Viner is our Allyship Chair, working to engage more students around the school. He was a competitive ballroom dancer before law school and taught a fantastic dance class for straight and LGBTQ+ students. Alex helped organize our “Bring an Ally” potluck and plans to host mixers with other student groups as the year progresses.

Chandler Walpole and Michael Denton are our Programming Chairs. Chandler is the representative of the LGBT Bar, both for our law school and the tristate area. She plans monthly events based off themes from the LGBT Bar. In September she led an event where students told stories of times they felt uncomfortable being LGBTQ+ at the Law School and discussed strategies to make the Law School more inclusive. This October, she and Michael are planning an event around the history and politics behind the concept of coming out. Michael organizes the student mentorship program, pairing 1Ls with 2Ls and 3Ls who have similar backgrounds for informal mentorship and friendship. He also leads our inaugural book club, where we most recently read “Covering” by Kenji Yoshino. Michael and Chandler also worked to table with the Domestic Violence Project to raise money for domestic violence shelters that support LGBTQ+ people.

Joe LoPresti is our Communications Chair. He is responsible for collecting and disseminating news about Lambda events and other event of interest within the Law School community. One of the most popular features of his emails (besides the lovely use of color and highlighting) is the “In the News” section, where he shares important news about LGBTQ+ rights worldwide—a great resource for learning about topics ranging from the role of tech companies in censoring LGBTQ+ content to U.S. policy on granting visas to same-sex couples. 

Taylor Mitchell is our VP of Finance, managing a large budget provided by the Law School and our nearly 70 dues-paying members. Lambda usually hosts at least two events per week, and sometimes as many as four, meaning money changes hands often. Taylor is an integral part of Lambda, and our organization would not be able to function without him managing the budget, collecting receipts, and ensuring our bills are paid on time.

Jameil Brown and Jess Feinberg are our 1L Representatives. As new members of Lambda and the Executive Board, they keep us informed of what’s going on in the 1L class, share their perspectives, and suggest areas for improvement. They will be planning a canned food drive this November for the Law School.

Lambda continues to grow each year as more LGBTQ+ identifying students come to the Law School. Just a few short years ago the number of out LGBTQ+ students at the school was merely four; now LGBTQ+ students represent between eight and ten percent of each incoming class. As the student population continues to grow, so will Lambda.

Looking Back: 70 Years of the Law Weekly

“When most law students think of heavy metal, groups like M[ö]tley Cr[ü]e and Van Halen probably come to mind. But the genre has changed quite a bit since (most of us) were in high school, and surprisingly, Charlottesville attracts a fairly significant number of very talented metal bands. In the past year, Trax (now Crossroads) has hosted some prominent, nationally known bands, including Overkill, Pro-Pain, Sacred Reich, Corrosion of Conformity, and Souls at Zero (formerly Wrathchild America). Hint: if you want to see one of these bands, Crossroads is a great forum because of its size, but do yourself a favor and don’t dress like a student. Tattoos, although popular, aren’t necessary, but L.L. Bean and J. Crew will get you some funny looks.” Van Hardenbergh, “Charlottesville Metal Scene Flourishes,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, October 28, 1994.  The Law Weekly can neither confirm nor deny whether heavy metal continues to flourish in Charlottesville because I am writing this article wearing both L.L. Bean and J. Crew, but I’m glad to know even law students got in on the grunge and metal of the 90s. 


“The competition challenges candidates on several levels, including a talent, swimsuit, formalwear, and even a best eyes event… Watch out contestants and audience. The competition up to this point has been cutthroat, especially considering the impressive pool of male law students to choose from. Narrowing the group down to seven must have been extraordinarily difficult, but the real challenge faces the eager contestants on Saturday night,” Jackie Sadker ’02, “Men Compete for ‘Mr. U.Va. Law’ Title,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, November 3, 2000. It turns out, last year’s Libel video, UVA Law Boys, draws on a long and storied tradition of allowing male law students opportunities to strut their stuff. 


“As the only common forum for the Law School community, the Law Weekly has a fiduciary duty to readers to publish content that is responsive to their social, academic, and professional interests. Moreover, because it has a monopoly over the Law School market, the paper should reflect not only some, but all of the diverse interests represented in the student body… Most importantly, remember that this is your paper. Although you have no choice over whether to buy it—it’s ‘free’—you also have no choice over whether to pay for it because it’s heavily subsidized by the SBA, which in turn gets its money from your tuition and activity fees… To really make your voice heard, you are still better off sharing your thoughts directly with the Law Weekly staff. I think I can speak for the paper when I say, in the words of Ross Perot, we’re ‘all ears.’” Eric Wang, “How Are We Doing?” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, October 8, 2004. You still don’t have a choice about whether or not you pay for the Law Weekly and I no longer get the Ross Perot reference, but the Law Weekly staff still worries about preserving the history of the school and is still all ears. 

“The short course is a tempting choice for the enterprising procrastinator. One whole course that you don’t need to attend until November! Well, I’m here to tell you: That’s a load of horse puckey. Short courses have many great things to offer, but lightening your per-credit workload is not one of them.” Evan Mix ’12, “The Short Course: A Pocket Survival Guide,” Virginia Law Weekly, Friday, November 19, 2010. I thought this was a good reminder for the 1Ls out there thinking about spring classes. Mostly, though, I really want to bring back the term “horse puckey.” 


Hot Bench: Lina Leal LL.M. '19

Lina Leal
LL.M. ‘19

Lina Leal LL.M. ‘19

Lina Leal LL.M. ‘19

Where did you grow up? 

In Bogotá, Colombia. 

What were you doing before coming to UVA Law? 

I was a clerk at the constitutional court of Colombia. 

What was that like? 

It was amazing. It was a great job. All my life, all I wanted to do was to protect people’s rights, and the constitutional court is the highest court where Colombian citizens got their rights protected, so I think it’s the best place to do that, to really help people. 

What made you decide to come here? 

After law school in Colombia, one of my goals was to work for a while and then get a master’s in the U.S. because the master’s education is outstanding and very good. And I really wanted to go to an Ivy school, and this is the Ivy public school, so it is an honor to be here. For me it’s an honor to be here. 

You’re the President of LLMs. What is that like? 

It’s fun. I’ve been meeting a lot of people because of that. It’s cool because I think it’s a link between the LLMs and other things in law school but also to other graduate schools. It’s kind of interesting. I think it’s a great position to meet people and do fun things with the LLMS. 

What do you wish the JDs knew about the LLMS? 

Well, I don’t know if the JDs know exactly what an LLM is. I’ve been to different conferences and meetings, and I always introduce myself like, “Hi, I’m Lina, an LLM from Colombia.” They’re like, “Cool, what’s an LLM?” When I tell them it’s a master’s program, they’ll ask, “So, are you a lawyer?” “Yes, I finished law school in my country, I worked for a while, and then I came here to get my master’s degree.” But I thought it was common knowledge, and it’s not. Not for everyone. 

What is your favorite English word? 

My favorite English word, and I use it for everything and everywhere, is “amazing”. To me, everything is amazing. 

What is your favorite Spanish word? 

My favorite Spanish word, I could say lo máximo, which is great or amazing, but yeah, lo máximo. 

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

That’s a tough one because I’ve had so many, but I would say in Spain they have this plate huevos estrellados, so it’s scrambled eggs with French fries. 

If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be and why? 

This guy, I’m in love with him, Daniel Brühl. The one from Inglorious Basterds and Good Bye Lenin! He’s German. I love him, and I love his films. In Inglorious Basterds, I think he is amazing. 

What is your favorite hobby to escape the stress of law school? 

Watching Netflix, I think, is my favorite. And I’ve discovered this new TV show called La Casa de Las Flores. It’s great, and I watched it all in two days! 

Where is your favorite place to vacation? 

Somewhere with a pool or a beach. Somewhere very calm, like nothing to do, just read a lot of magazines, and Netflix. 

What did you eat for breakfast? 

Popcorn, caramel and cheddar. It’s a mix. It’s so good! 

What is your least favorite sound? 

I’m a very nerdy person, so whenever I’m in class and someone has a pen and is tapping it on the table––I hate that. 

If you could live anywhere, where would it be? 

I would say in a city, like a big city like Bogotá or a small city like Charlottesville, but near my parents and my friends. 

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

This old, vintage record player from my boyfriend on my birthday. 

What is your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville? 

Now, I would say hiking. I’ve been here for two months, and I’ve been on two hikes, and I think that’s my favorite thing. 

Letters to the Editor: 10-24-18

Letters of interest to the Law School community may be sent to Letters may be published at the discretion of the Editorial Board and are subject to editing for grammar, style, and clarity, but not content or viewpoint. The Law Weekly does not necessarily endorse the content or viewpoint of any letter herein published.  

Kavanaugh: Neutrality Matters

On October 4, a letter signed by more than 2,400 law professors was submitted to the U.S. Senate opposing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh because he “displayed a lack of judicial temperament” during the hearings held on September 27. We want to talk about something different, but related, namely how Judge Kavanaugh chose to speak in public about the issues surrounding his confirmation.  There are two features of Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony that we want to address. We write as scholars who feel called to nurture the rule of law, but also as teachers who are devoted to your education and who care about your personal flourishing.  

First, we fault Justice Kavanaugh for so angrily displaying his alignment with the extreme partisanship being expressed around him.  Judges have prejudices and political preferences like anyone else. Good judges are better at limiting the improper influence of their prejudices, but one would be naïve to think they always succeed. What is especially regrettable in this case is that Justice Kavanaugh so violently displayed his own partisan preferences, which had the effect of associating him with the partisan voices surrounding his confirmation.  We live in a moment where the institutions of our democracy seem fragile; they are viewed with unrestrained cynicism and the only motivation anyone can imagine is the will to power. And so, some celebrate Kavanaugh’s performance as the unveiling of truth. We do not feel that way. It may well be that judicial virtues are rare, but if we do not even aspire to them, if we do not even expect the public performance of impartiality, then we have given up too much. Some of you will become judges and most of you will become lawyers. We hope that, as graduates of UVA Law, you will inspire others about the possibility of fairness and impartiality in the law with your words as well as your actions.  

Second, and of even broader significance, we lament the way that Kavanaugh’s rage and defensiveness elevated him and his own sense of persecution above all else. We assume that Kavanaugh does not believe that he assaulted Professor Ford and we do not trivialize the feeling of being unjustly accused of heinous crimes. His behavior would be expected of anyone coming to terms with such accusations in the privacy of their own home. However, venting his rage publicly wasted an opportunity to demonstrate grace and understanding about the trauma that no one doubts Professor Ford experienced. The purpose of the hearing was, of course, to vet Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. It is entirely appropriate that he defend himself against accusations that he believes false. But the consequences of our public conduct go beyond the narrow purposes at which that conduct is directed. Responsible, wise people who care about others consider those other consequences.  

There was an opportunity to make the hearing not only about his anger about his reputation being besmirched, but to show compassion to a woman who clearly believed that she had been assaulted by him. Such compassion is noble on the part of one who deems himself unjustly accused. But compassion is an important, even essential attribute for those of us who will be hearing and defending the rights of others.  Professor Ford’s testimony prompted women all over the country to relive their own assaults, and in certain places, on social media and elsewhere, you may have seen the torrent of human suffering. Kavanaugh is not responsible for all of this, but he is responsible for the example he set of how to respond to credible accusations of sexual assault and the essential role of law in addressing those accusations.    

And so we pose the question: how would Kavanaugh have responded if he thought not only about his reputation, but also about dampening the partisan fever surrounding his hearing and about Professor Ford and the millions of victims of sexual violence? How would the substance of his comments have differed? How would his tone have differed? Perhaps this is a lot to ask, but it is not too much to ask, and it is something that we should all aspire to. 

— Professor Barbara E. Armacost ‘89 and Professor Andrew Hayashi

Scalia Deserves a Law School Portrait

When Dean Goluboff was welcomed as the twelfth dean of the University of Virginia School of Law, she emphatically stated that the faculty at UVA “are among the finest anywhere.” Our academic experience thus far permits us to concur in that judgment in full. But the law faculty did not become exceptional overnight. Rather, the faculty has been shaping and molding young, ambitious minds at a level unsurpassed by peer institutions for decades. One needs just walk the halls to recognize the truth of this claim.  
The walls of law schools around the country are adorned with the stern, lifelike painted faces of academics, intellects, and influential alumni. UVA Law is no exception. Portraits immortalizing professors and alumni fill the walls of Slaughter Hall, the alcoves of the library, and the classrooms of Withers-Brown. The portraits recognize the contributions the school’s faculty and alumni have made to the Law School. But they also serve an important additional purpose. The portraits provide the onlooker a vivid reminder that the law is just as much about the diversity of individual lawyers’ thoughts, dispositions, and idiosyncrasies as it is about rules, precedents, and theories of interpretation. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” 

One such life experience was recently commemorated by the law school. The legacy of Gregory Swanson—the law school’s first black student—his career contributions, as well as his courage and perseverance in the face of racial adversity, was rightfully recognized this past spring at a ceremony revealing his portrait, which is on permanent display in the law library. We were glad to see Mr. Swanson receive the appreciation he deserves for fighting for civil rights in the Commonwealth of Virginia and for the equal protection of all Americans. Reflecting upon portraits of alumni like Mr. Swanson makes us proud to be Wahoos.  

We encourage everyone to spend a few minutes wandering the halls to inspect the portraits of those who have taught at and graduated from the Law School. You may be surprised to discover that a portrait of the country’s twenty-eighth president, Woodrow Wilson, hangs in the library. Moreover, the portraits of Elizabeth Nelson Tompkins ’23, one of the first women admitted to the law school, and John Barbee Minor, a professor at the school for nearly half a century, greet library visitors at the entrance. However, despite the recognition of numerous alumni and former faculty members, a commemoration of a man who is one of the school’s most noteworthy former professors, and one of the most influential jurists of the last half century, is nowhere to be found. 
The late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia taught at the law school from 1967 through 1974. In addition to teaching, then Professor Scalia made it a priority to have a good relationship with students. Then-Professor Scalia officiated the Virginia Law WeeklyVirginia Law Review football game—a tradition that we hope to revitalize next year—demonstrating his commitment to cultivating a sense of community at the school. And in 1983, he helped establish The Journal of Law & Politics, a journal that continues to play an influential role in legal academia. Professor Scalia’s affinity for the law school did not end when he donned a robe. During his thirty years on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia hired eight law clerks from UVA Law. He frequently returned to Charlottesville to give speeches. And a number of his former clerks now teach at the Law School. In recognition of his many contributions to the University, Justice Scalia received the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law, the highest external honor bestowed by the University of Virginia.  

After Justice Scalia’s death, then-Dean Paul Mahoney wrote in the Virginia Law Review about Justice Scalia’s love for, and contributions to, our community, which includes a video appearance in the Libel Show. Dean Mahoney also mentions that Justice Scalia returned while on the bench to commemorate the life of Dean Emerson Spies, for whom Spies Garden is named. Justice Scalia’s devotion to our Law School was evident in that speech when he noted that “the institution that Emerson Spies helped to shape, the lawyers he helped to form, will continue to reflect his good work for many years to come.” The library currently has an exhibit showcasing the indelible impact twenty-four former professors, including Justice Scalia, had on the intellectual community at the law school. However, Justice Scalia’s legacy and his commitment to our school deserves permanent recognition.  
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose photograph graces the wall in front of Caplin Pavilion, eulogized her “best buddy on the court” by recalling the time he reminded her, in a lone dissent, that “there is only one University of Virginia.” You can disagree with Justice Scalia, but we all should honor his many contributions to the Law School, just as his opponents on the court honored his contributions to intellectual diversity in the law. He gave the school his time, his energy, and his passion. He made the University of Virginia School of Law a better institution. His contributions to our school, along with his formative legal and intellectual legacy, both deserve our recognition, and his portrait deserves a spot on the wall.  

 — Justin William Aimonetti ‘20 and TJ Whittle ‘20

SBA: Blood Drive Will Go Ahead with Antidiscrimination Messages Attached

On Monday, October 15th, the Blood Drive Special Committee voted on whether the SBA at UVA Law should continue hosting Blood Drives on Grounds. In a 9-1 vote, the Special Committee voted to recommend that SBA continues Blood Drives on Grounds. The Blood Drive Special Committee also recommended significant programming attached to our Fall and Spring Blood Drives. Future programming will educate the student body about the discriminatory nature of the FDA's men who have sex with men (MSM) blood donation prohibition, while providing students outlets to express concerns about the FDA's policy. The committee leadership presented recommendations to the general SBA body on Tuesday, October 16.  

Our list of recommendations include: no blood drives during Diversity Week; fundraising for LGBTQIA+ organizations working to overturn the MSM blood donation prohibition; distributing an ABA/FDA petition for those seeking to protest the Blood Ban; implementing improved and empathetic Blood Drive promotions that acknowledge the MSM blood donation prohibition; organizing programming with legal/medical scholars discussing the MSM blood donation prohibition; having a Lambda and/or LGBTQIA+ liaison on the Health and Wellness Committee to preserve institutional knowledge; submitting our recommendations on Blood Drives to UVA Law/UVA administration; improving SBA Committee record-keeping to preserve institutional knowledge; and other initiatives.  

We truly hope that the Special Committee's recommendations adequately address and challenge the discriminatory nature of the FDA's MSM blood donation prohibition while simultaneously addressing and being respective of the U.S. Blood shortage.  
With saying this, our recommendations are difficult and triggering for a significant and valued part of our UVA Law community. We recognize the magnitude of our recommendations. Whether you are a student for Blood Drives on Grounds or against, valid perspectives exist on multiple sides of this issue. Over the course of Committee deliberations, we found that many members of our student community were against the FDA's MSM blood donation prohibition. The central disagreement was how UVA Law and its SBA should address our tradition of having Blood Drives in lieu of the FDA's policy targeting members of our LGBTQIA+ community.  

As chairs of the Blood Drive Special Committee, we urge students not to dismiss or demonize the perspectives of those brave enough to voice disagreement with our recommendations. We value those perspectives. We instead encourage our community to educate themselves about why students may feel hurt, upset, triggered, and displeased with our decision. Students must build bridges of empathy instead of indifference or dismissiveness. We are, in fact, a community of future attorneys and policy makers. Many students who are against the FDA's MSM blood donation prohibition will have the political or governmental power to challenge this policy in the near future. But, an attitude of disdain and apathy toward our colleagues who are validly hurt by this policy only derails such efforts. 

We plan to work with the SBA Health and Wellness Committee and the SBA Diversity Committee to implement these recommendations not only for this year’s Blood Drives, but for any future Blood Drive at UVA Law. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any other recommendations or concerns. 


Toccara Nelson ‘19 and Tim Sensenig ‘20
( (  


Jeopardy! At UVA

Taylor Elicegui ‘20
Features Editor

Are you tired of always pulling the team on your back during bar trivia? Do you feel like you are destined for greater things than simply using your knowledge of random facts to win gift cards at local breweries? Although I am useless at bar trivia and highly doubt I am destined for trivia glory, I recently sat down with Ruth Payne, Director of Clerkships, Matt Hoffer-Hawlik ’21, and Alex Caton ’21 to discuss their Jeopardy! experiences and gather some tips from the pros. 

Caton tried out for Jeopardy! in September and is waiting for the official invitation to be on the show. Caton decided to try out because, although he doesn’t watch Jeopardy! that often, he gets sucked in and ends up yelling at the TV whenever he stumbles upon the show. After passing the online quiz (to audition, first you have to pass on online quiz given once a year,1 compete in an in-person audition, and then get lucky and be selected from the potential contestant pool), Caton drove up to Philadelphia for the in-person audition. Caton accidentally went to the wrong hotel and ended up having to sprint to the correct hotel a half-mile away. Luckily, Caton made it and completed a written quiz, interview, and played a mock game. He played with some characters, including a “jaded” professor who makes crossword puzzles, a PhD student in a cover band called The Footnotes, and a software programmer who designs software for Amish farmers. Caton hasn’t done much preparation yet but will start if he gets the official call. Fingers crossed he hears good news soon! 

Payne appeared on Jeopardy! in an episode that aired this summer and got third place. This was Payne’s second time reaching the in-person tryout phase. After completing the in-person audition in March, which she thought went well, Payne forgot about the audition and never expected to hear from Jeopardy! again. To her surprise and excitement, Payne received a call from Jeopardy! the following January, asking her to fly out to Los Angeles in February to tape an episode. Taping occurred during Payne’s busiest time of year, which limited her prep time, but Payne drew on her high school and college Quiz Bowl experience. Payne tried to study for an hour per night and focused on her weaker categories like pop culture and sports. Her daughter made a pop culture Quizlet to help. 

Payne had a great game. The show starts with the contestants’ stories, and show host Alex Trebek, a sucker for romance, was a big fan of Payne’s story—she and her husband are high school sweethearts who went to college on opposite sides of the country, so her husband wrote her a letter every single day. During the game, Payne only got two questions wrong. She told me her strategy was to buzz in only when she knew the answer. Payne also told me she was surprised at the random things she knew, including the original inventor of the infomercial (the category was called “Birth of a Salesman”). It paid off, and Payne went into Final Jeopardy with $14,000. The Final Jeopardy question was: “Researchers in London & Vienna now speculate that his 1791 death was due to a strep infection, not poisoning.” Payne knew she could only win if she got the question right, and the contestant in first place missed it. Unfortunately, Payne wrote down the right answer (Mozart) but crossed it out and replaced it with the wrong answer. She told me Trebek made fun of her after the show, telling her she should always trust her gut with trivia questions. 

Hoffer-Hawlik won Jeopardy! in July 2016. Hoffer-Hawlik always loved Jeopardy! and has watched for as long as he can remember. After taking the online quiz three times, he made it to the in-person audition and got into the contestant pool. After getting the call and being asked to come on the show, Hoffer-Hawlik also began preparing and focusing on his weakest categories—for example, 70s/80s pop culture. He also made a spreadsheet of questions from the Jeopardy! archive and tried to look for trends in the questions to have a better idea of what to expect. Like Payne, Hoffer-Hawlik also benefitted from his high school and college Quiz Bowl background. 

Hoffer-Hawlik won the first day of Jeopardy! and then lost the second. Hoffer-Hawlik’s categories included Good & Bad Investments and My Name is Symbolic (singers with $#!@ symbols in their names—P!nk, Ke$ha, A$ap Rocky). Hoffer-Hawlik enjoyed meeting Trebek, a fellow music lover, and was impressed by how many answers Trebek knew. Hoffer-Hawlik also enjoyed the access to the network of Jeopardy! Alumni that helped him get ready for the show. He hopes to do the same for contestants in the future.  

So, if you’re a trivia buff hoping to get on the show, sign up for the online quiz! It only happens once a year, so until then, watch the show and enjoy some bar trivia around Charlottesville (if you Google “bar trivia in Charlottesville,” you can find a different place to play every night of the week). Until then, test your Jeopardy! knowledge with the five questions below answered correctly by our local Jeopardy! experts while on the show.2 


  1.  Burning Love Songs: Robby Krieger wrote most of this 1967 classic, but that “mire”/“pyre” rhyme is pure Morrison.3 

  2. Clothing in the Middle Ages: A baldric was a wide, decorative belt worn diagonally across the chest to carry one of these at the hip.4 

  3. 3-Letter Words With Only 2 Vowels: It’s a synonym for color, or a shade of color.5 

  4. Canadian Prime Ministers: During Joe Clark’s tenure (1979-80), 6 Americans trapped in this country were able to escape using fake Canadian papers.6 

  5. Final Jeopardy: Brought to our attention by a 1984 film, this Italian had success with the 1780s operas “Tarare” & “Les danaides.”7 

1 No one knows how many correct answers you need to move on to the next round. All three Jeopardy! pros gave me different guesses. 
2 All questions and answers come from J! Archive. 
3 What is “Light My Fire,” answered correctly by Payne. 
4 What is “a sword,” answered correctly by Payne. 
5 What is “hue,” answered correctly by Hoffer-Hawlik. 
6 What is “Iran,” answered correctly by Hoffer-Hawlik. 
7 Who is “Antoni Salieri,” answered correctly by Hoffer-Hawlik. 

Spotlight: Asian-Pacific American Law Student Association

Jessica Rennert ‘20
Guest Columnist

Nicole Park ‘20
Guest Columnist

The Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, or APALSA, is dedicated to promoting awareness of legal and cultural issues affecting Asian Pacific American law students. APALSA strives to achieve these aims through a variety of programs and panels, in addition to providing a forum for discussion. In a professional environment such as the legal field, where there is a clear dearth of Asian Pacific representation, a community that is able to supply both support and guidance to law students hoping to enter the field can be a helpful resource. Throughout the year, we hold events such as Career Networking Day and other academic panels targeted at assisting 1Ls with their transition into law school and the legal profession. Our main focus is oriented towards fostering a network that is helpful to both students and alumni alike. 

Nicole: In my own experience, I have always been surrounded by a prominent Asian Pacific support system––I am originally from the second most densely populated Korean municipality in all of the United States. Naturally, I was nervous about attending a law school with a significantly smaller percentage of Asian Pacific students. I had been working as a paralegal in New York for two years, and the lack of diversity in the legal industry was surprising and extremely noticeable. Being the only East Asian student in my section, a phenomenon I had never experienced in my academic career, I joined APALSA hoping to seek advice from upperclassmen who shared my cultural identity. I was immediately welcomed into the small but friendly community and paired with a supportive mentor, Gina Sato, who had already dealt with many of the same worries I was experiencing. Gina is one of several upperclassmen who have been incredibly welcoming and willing to lend advice on how best to navigate the legal industry as an Asian American. 

Jessica: I grew up in a biracial, interfaith household. From an early age, my parents taught my brothers and me to celebrate diversity and to view it as a catalyst for positive change. Similar to Nicole, I worked in a law firm for two years before attending law school. I, too, quickly noticed the lack of diverse attorneys in the industry, and I specifically noticed the shortage of Asian attorneys in the legal profession. I expected that I would face certain challenges as an Asian woman entering a field with relatively low Asian representation, so I wanted to join APALSA to be a part of a community that genuinely understands these challenges and offers guidance on how to navigate them. APALSA turned out to be that community, plus so much more. Though it is a smaller group than some of the other organizations at our law school, it is a community full of intelligent, compassionate, and accomplished people who are dedicated to supporting one another and developing relationships—both personal and professional—that will last long after graduation.  

This year, we are very excited to serve as co-presidents of APALSA. We both enjoyed serving on the board last year as 1L representatives, and we were eager to get more involved in APALSA this year to continue to help it grow and develop. We are also very lucky to serve on a board with an amazing group 1L and 2L students who share our dedication and appreciation for this organization.  

One of APALSA’s main priorities this year is to work with the Admissions Office to increase representation of Asian Pacific students in the Law School. We hope that with a larger student body, we will have more opportunities to promote a stronger network of both law students and alumni. Throughout the fall semester, we plan a mix of casual dinners, panels, and socials in order to give the 1Ls a chance to meet each other and the upperclassmen. Our main fall event is the annual mentorship dinner, during which mentors and mentees have an opportunity to officially meet if they have not already done so.  

Next spring, APALSA will collaborate with SALSA to host our annual Career Networking Day and provide our members a chance to connect with Asian Pacific and South Asian attorneys already in the field. Career Networking Day is our biggest event each year, as it is valuable to all of our participating members and gives 1Ls a chance to practice networking in a comfortable, and perhaps more familiar, setting. In the meantime, our top priority is to support the 1Ls as they continue to adjust to their first semester as law students. We hope to serve the UVA Law student body as an all-inclusive community. Whether you need a supportive community as a respite from your busy law school career, or you simply hope to learn more about cultural issues that touch the lives of Asian Pacific students, you are welcome to join APALSA. 

Hot Bench: Liz Sines '19

Liz Sines ‘19

Liz Sines ‘19

Liz Sines ‘19

Have you ever had a nickname?
Liz, Lizzie, Liza, Lizard Breath (kids are mean).  

Where did you grow up?
Oakland, Maryland, a tiny town in the Appalachian Mountains, right by the West Virginia border.

What is your favorite word?

What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?
The other day, Colleen Guinn and I each spent $55 at Bang! That’s approximately 6 small plates each. I don’t know if it’s the best, but it definitely ranks.

If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be and why?
Seth Rogen. He’s my celeb crush.

What’s your favorite hobby to avoid the stress of law school? 
Swimming, going out to eat, and watching trashy television with my pals.

Where is your favorite place to vacation?
Anywhere by the ocean.

What did you have for breakfast this morning?

What’s your least favorite sound?
The construction that wakes me up every single morning (thanks, UVA).

If you owned a sports team, what/who would be the mascot?
We would be the Elizabeths, and the mascots would be Queen Elizabeth’s royal corgis. The brand is strong.

Blueberries or strawberries?
Bluebs, as I like to call them (or BOOberries, only during the month of October).

What is the best concert you have ever been to?
Bryson Tiller, right in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.

What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?

What animal do you most identify with?  
A slow loris. Look it up. You will not be disappointed.

Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC?
Backstreet’s back ALRIGHT!

What’s your favorite food(s)?

If you had to pick one song to play non-stop in the background of your life, what would it be?
I’ve given a lot of thought to this throughout my life, and I must instead give you a playlist: Little Bitty Pretty One (the Matilda song), Ain’t No Mountain High Enough, Int’l Players Anthem, and the soundtracks for Sister Act 1 and 2. Is that not the feel-good playlist of the century?!

What’s the longest. you’ve gone without sleep and why?
Probably 48 hours. Something finals and cramming related, I’m sure.

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?
Pay off my student loans. And with the remaining $10, buy a bunch of real estate and give the rest to charity.

If you had Matrix-like learning, what would you learn?
Every single language in the world. How badass would that be?!

If you could be in the winter Olympics, which sport would you compete in?
I sobbed inconsolably after the U.S. men’s team won America’s FIRST Olympic gold medal in curling, if that answers your question.

Spotlight: UVA Law Rod & Gun Club

W. Agustus “Gus” Todd ‘19
Guest Columnist

If the name didn’t give it away, the Rod & Gun Club at UVA Law brings together students interested in fishing and shooting or interested in learning how to do either. While most people might not immediately associate lawyers wearing suits with tramping through the woods to go fishing or hunting, the members of the Rod & Gun Club beg to differ. In fact, time spent at the pond or at the range can be extraordinarily helpful in helping law students stay grounded and relaxed as the stress of day-to-day life builds.

Few things in life are more effective at helping one relax than finding a quiet pond and casting a few lures in the solitude of the outdoors. Or, if that nagging voice is reminding you of all the things you forgot to say during your last cold call, there is no better way to drown it out than by going to the range and blowing off a few dozen rounds. Either way, fishing and shooting easily go hand-in-hand with keeping your mind and body healthy in the high-stress environment that we law students tend to create for ourselves.

To be honest, I didn’t even look at the list of student organizations at UVA before I came for orientation as a 1L. I found out about the Rod & Gun Club through the Student Activities Fair and was actually shocked to see that such a club existed. I expected to see a litany of organizations relating to specific causes, political affiliations, and affinities, but I did not expect to see that fishing and shooting had enough of an interest among the students who attend a top law school to warrant having its own organization. Having grown up fishing and shooting, I was anxious to find places to do both during my time here. In that regard, the Rod & Gun Club seemed like a gift to me and has introduced me to an entire community both inside the Law School and out that love fresh air and making things go boom.

The elephant in the room for the Rod & Gun Club comes with the “Gun” part of the club. I recognize that the issue of firearm ownership in this country can invoke intense political passions. More than that, firearms are dangerous when used improperly and can be very intimidating to those who do not have much experience around them. I am sure that in and of itself is a turn-off for many here at the law school. I would urge those people to come to an event and give it a shot. We are not a political organization, so you don’t have to worry about us trying to get you to change your political beliefs. We just really enjoy these activities and love sharing them with anybody who is interested. We also are really good at teaching people how to safely handle firearms and become proficient shooters. If you have ever been curious about how to shoot a gun but never knew how to go about learning, we are more than happy to show you how!

In fact, many of our members came to their first event with absolutely no background in either shooting or fishing; most of them also come without equipment. So if you have an interest but are afraid of looking like you have no idea what you are doing, you probably won’t be the only one. Thankfully, our members are generous with their skills as well as their stuff and are more than willing to give individual lessons on how to use their things. The club also will rent equipment at our group outings for members to use. Keeping watch over everybody is our Safety Chair Michael Haden, who knows how to keep all of us safe through his years of experience running shooting ranges as an officer in the Army.

We host monthly group shooting events, usually at the Flying Rabbit Sporting Clays course in Mt. Crawford as well as numerous other informal shooting events at local gun ranges. We also plan on hosting a “New Shooter’s Day” in the spring for anybody in the UVA Law family interested in getting hands-on instruction behind an assortment of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. For the anglers, we are planning to set up a fly-fishing tutorial in the spring as well. And as always, we have members going to ranges and fishing holes all the time to unwind.

If you are interested in anything the Rod & Gun Club has to offer, feel free to reach out to any of the members of the board. I serve as the President (, but you can also contact Jansen VanderMeulen, Vice President (, Scott Myers, Treasurer (, Jacob Roth, Shooting Chair (, our FChairs James Lockerby ( and Justin Aimonetti (, or last but not least, Michael Haden our Safety Chair (

President Ryan Dishes Goals, Bagels with Law Weekly

M. Eleanor Schmalzl ‘20
Executive Editor

1.      Among the myriad options you had, what led you to become a law professor and then a university administrator?

I know from experience that education transforms lives, and working to expand educational opportunities for others has been the guiding principle and aim of my professional life.  

It’s why I taught and studied law and education and the different ways that law structures educational opportunity, it’s why I went to Harvard to become the dean of their education school, and it’s why I returned to become president of the University of Virginia.  Simply put, I care about making a difference in the world, and I believe law and education offer some of the best ways to do that.

President James E. Ryan ‘92. Photo courtesy Harvard Magazine.

President James E. Ryan ‘92. Photo courtesy Harvard Magazine.

2.      You clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist after graduating. What advice do you have for students thinking about clerking? Did you enjoy the experience?

For students thinking about clerking, I would strong[ly] encourage them to pursue the opportunity.  They are terrific jobs and ones that you can really only do shortly after graduation.

3.      One of our editors had an article you wrote with Professor Jeffries assigned for thier Religious Liberties class. Do you have time these days to focus on your legal scholarship? Anything interesting you’re working on?

Sadly, I don’t have much time to pursue serious academic writing, which for me requires sustained periods for research, thinking, and writing.  As for working on something interesting, my day job is actually pretty interesting at the moment!

4.      What’s the biggest challenge facing you as UVA’s ninth president?

I don’t know if there’s a single biggest challenge or a series of them.  UVA has accomplished a great deal already, but we also have the potential to accomplish even more and define what a public university should look like 12 or 15 years from now.  

For example, we should look for ways to become even more accessible to anyone who is qualified to study here, regardless of their economic circumstance.  We should find more ways to work together across schools and disciplines to solve some of our biggest challenges.  And we should focus on building stronger relationships with surrounding communities and being of even greater service to the Commonwealth and beyond. 

The common thread here is the need to live out our values and close the gap between our aspirations for the University and our everyday realities.  I see that as our biggest challenge and greatest opportunity.

5.      What do you see as the role of lawyers in today’s society?

My father never attended college, but he made sure to impress on me from a very early age that the highest calling in life is to serve others.  At its best, law is a form of service—a chance to speak for those without a voice and make the system work a bit better for those who need it. 

6.      Are you ever going to give Professor Jeffries back to us?

Hah!  No.  I’m kidding.  John has agreed to serve for three years, for which I am grateful—and for which I apologize to all of you.  But he is doing very important work for the entire university.

7.      When can the students of the Law School expect to see you on North Grounds for a public event?

I was at the Law School for an event with the Ron Brown Scholars not too long ago, and I’m sure I’ll be back up there again soon.  It still feels like home to me.

8.      Bobby or Teddy? Scalia or Ginsburg?


9.      How has UVA changed since you were a student?

The University is a very different place than it was when I was here in the early 1990s, but I think one of the most profound changes—and the one that makes me the most hopeful—is just how much more diverse we are.  The current first-year class is the most diverse in UVA history, and I truly believe we are stronger because of it.

10.  How did the events of August 11th and 12th affect you in Cambridge? How has what you’ve seen since coming back to Charlottesville affected your view of those events?

I was horrified watching the events of last year unfold in real time online.  I love this University and I love Charlottesville, and the events of August 11 and 12 convinced me that coming back was the right thing to do.

Since coming back, I’ve been both humbled and incredibly impressed by the people who have endured so much pain and yet have also found the strength to move forward.

11.  Students and community members have criticized the University and Charlottesville for the heavy police presence on the one-year anniversary of the 2017 rallies that seemingly targeted counter-protesters. What led to the University’s actions on the one-year anniversary?

Uncertainty.  Leading up to the anniversary, we didn’t know how many people would come to Charlottesville, whether they intended to do harm, and even where they planned to show up.  As a result, we had to prepare for every possible situation.  While I realize some people thought the police presence was excessive or at least worrisome, in a situation with that many unknowns I would make the same choice again. 

12.  What led you to come back to UVA after your time other places?

UVA is home for me.  I met my wife when we were both student at the Law School, and this is where our four children spent the bulk of their childhoods during my 15 years on the law faculty.  I see this very much as an opportunity to serve and to give back to the University and a community that have given so much to me and my family.

13.  What was your favorite thing about the Law School during your time as a student? As a professor?

It was the same for both:  the people and the sense of community.  The law school attracts remarkably talented people who are not only smart, hard-working, and ambitious, but who are also humane, grounded, and decent.  

14.  Is there something you wish you’d known as a law student or advice you have for the current UVA law students as they go through law school and enter the workforce upon graduation?

Instead of thinking about what you want to be, think about what you want to do and the difference you want to make in the world.  If you focus on the work, the rest will take care of itself.

15.  Favorite restaurant in Charlottesville?

Totally depends on the occasion, so I can’t say I have a single favorite.

16.  Word on the street is you’re a big Bodo’s fan, so I have to ask: What’s your Bodo’s order?

Chicken salad on an everything bagel with horseradish.  Trust me, it’s a lot better than it sounds.


Hot Bench: Shivani Patel '19

Shivani Patel ‘19

Shivani Patel.jpg

Have you ever had a nickname? 
Yup! Shiv, Shivu, Shivvy . 

Where did you grow up?  
All over Georgia, but mostly Atlanta and Albany. 

What are you most excited for during your first year in Wilmington, Delaware?  
Being close to the beach. 

What is your favorite word?  

What’s the best meal you’ve ever had?  
A friend’s mom makes the best pizza I’ve ever tasted because there are chilis baked into the crust. That would be the best meal I’ve ever had. 

If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be and why?  
Priyanka Chopra cause she’s living my childhood dream of marrying Nick Jonas. 

What’s your favorite hobby to avoid the stress of law school?   

What’s something you wish you’d known about law school before coming to UVA Law?  
Plenty of people take gap years. 

What did you have for breakfast this morning?  

If you were a superhero, what would your superpower be? 
Time-control—the ability to slow down, stop, or speed up time.  

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

What’s your least favorite sound?  
Anything remotely similar to nails scratching on a chalkboard. 

What’s the best gift you’ve ever received?  
A greeting card with a Starbucks gift card at a random time during 1L from a friend who just wanted to send me mail and remind me to chill.  

Blueberries or strawberries?  
I only really like berries baked or in a smoothie. 

What is the best concert you have ever been to?  

What’s your favorite thing to do in Charlottesville?  

If you could make one rule that everyone had to follow, what would it be?  
Restaurants shouldn’t be allowed to just throw away vast amounts of leftover food at the end of each day.  

What’s the longest you’ve gone without sleep and why? 
36 hours because I was cramming for a Physics final. 

If you won the lottery, what would you do with it?  
Well I’d pay off my law school debt and my friends’ law school debt and then create a scholarship so some kids don’t have law school debt. Then I’d buy an awesome vacation home in some remote, unconnected place. 

If you had Matrix-like learning, what would you learn?  
A ton of different languages including Latin, cause why not? 

Where is a place you haven’t been but want to travel to?  

What are the 7 wonders of the law school?  
The study rooms on the first floor of Slaughter, Everything about Student Affairs, Mandy, the PILA office couch, Mylab coffee, the free food table, and Frank. 

If the Law School had yearbook awards, what would you win?  
Most likely to be spotted at the law school as a 3L (the PILA couch is really comfortable guys). 

Court of Petty Appeals: NGSL v. Parr

North Grounds Softball League (NGSL) v. Parr  

892 U.Va. 112 (2018) 


Schmalzl, J., delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court. VanderMeulen, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. 


Justice Schmalzl delivered the opinion of the Court. 

“Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, the law students of UVA played copious amounts of softball in the fall to bond with classmates, find a good reason to crack open a cold one at 11:30 in the morning, and justify wearing bro tanks in the name of getting an even tan.” These facts, as alleged by plaintiffs, depict the scene of UVA Law as it traditionally has been since anyone can remember. After weeks and weeks of rain and mist and the worst weather Charlottesville has seen since any of us can remember, NGSL has brought suit against defendant, Stephen T. Parr aka the UVA Law god of weather, to enjoin Parr from abusing his power over the weather and, as they put it, “let us play some damn softball.” Further, NGSL seeks compensatory damages for all the members’1 bloodied hands from their grueling attempts to revive the fields after every rainfall, as well as punitive damages because, they allege, Parr has waited until the week of Fall Break to bring sunshine back to North Grounds. This Court, having felt its own frustration with the puddle that is Copeley Field, is ready to take action to save the UVA community from any more of this treachery. 

In his defense, Parr raises several points. First, Parr claims that no damage has really been done because it’s “nice out now” and “the rain seems to have cleared out.” This Court, while receptive to this argument (likely due to the Justices’ good mood after the first beautiful weekend in C’ville since the end of August), must ultimately refute the notion that no damage has actually been done. Fall Break is this week and no one will be here to play on Friday. Parr’s response that “students can still play Monday through Thursday” is weak at best––while classes after 1L don’t matter, we all know that Friday is the only day softball captains can actually drag their gunner sectionmates out of the Law School and onto the diamond.2 

Second, Parr claims he’s doing a service to UVA Law by taking down the alleged cult that is NGSL via destroying their only legitimate purpose, softball. While some members of the law community may appreciate Parr’s attempt at destruction, such as the plaintiffs in Non-Athletic 1Ls v. NGSL, 713 U.Va. 12 (2010) and UVA Law Women v. Sexist Men in the “Regular” League Who Think They’re More Athletic Based on the Sheer Fact that They Have a Pair 612 U.Va. 333 (2001), this Court feels NGSL does a good enough job destroying their own reputation without the help of any third party. Between the group’s takeover of the couches in front of ScoCo, the members’ annoyingly loud conversations through the hall about how many fireball shots they had last night, and wearing their jerseys to class, there’s no need for Parr to intervene. His reasonable necessity claim falls short in this Court’s eyes and, as such, is dismissed. 

Third, Parr raises his most ridiculous defense, saying he should not face penalty because he “do[es]n’t actually control the weather” and that he’s “just the Senior Associate Dean for Administration.” This defense is so absurd that this Court refuses to allow any further discussion of it, and is offended that the defendant has engaged in such blatant dishonesty while under penalty of perjury. This Court will not allow such lies in the briefs and, as such, will not consider any other defenses raised by Parr in this action. 

This Court orders the following: Parr is enjoined from allowing further heavy rainfall in Charlottesville this fall and must make Spring 2019 weather the best it’s been since the 3Ls arrived on Grounds. Further, Parr must take full responsibility for the fact that the 1Ls are extra-gunnery since they haven’t been able to use softball as an excuse to leave the library at all this semester. Finally, Parr must attend the 1L softball tournament and throw out the ceremonial first pitch to prove his contrition for attempting to destroy all things softball and NGSL. Refusal to comply with any of these orders will result in further sanctions and uncountable thumbs downs from ANG for the remainder of this school year.  

It is so ordered.  


Chief Justice VanderMeulen, concurring. 

I join my colleague Justice Schmalzl’s judicious opinion in full. I write separately only to note that Stephen T. Parr’s denial that he controls the weather is particularly unbelievable given last year’s blessed snow day. Careful readers of their UVA email will recall that Parr’s email cancelling classes last March 21 came at 5:04 a.m., when the snow had only barely begun to fall. What did Parr know that the rest of us didn’t? Is he just risk-averse, like some kind of college administrator? Of course not. Parr’s control over the weather was manifestly evident that day, as benevolent sheets of snow relieved students, professors, and staff of the need to trudge to the Law School on a dreary Wednesday and enabled a glorious day of hot chocolate, sledding, and snowball fights. This Court merely prays that Parr’s benevolence underlying that act of pure grace would return, that the skies would clear, and that the ring of softball bats would once more sound on Copeley Field. If an act of penance is needed to inspire Parr’s goodwill, I am sure a willing volunteer (*cough* Dugas *cough*) can be found.

1 Or at least those not too hungover from last Thursday at Bilt. 
2 Stop trying to make “SCOTUS Clerk” happen, Gretchen, it’s not going to happen. 

Law Weekly Staff Biography: David W. Ranzini '20

David W. Ranzini ‘20
Production Editor

Law Weekly Position: Production Editor 

Hometown: Waynesboro, VA 

Undergrad: I, sir, am a graduate of the College of William and Mary! Raised at TJ’s alma mater to make fun of the school he merely founded, I couldn’t be gladder to be here at UVA Law.  

Favorite Fish: Mackerel, whether raw, flame-broiled, or pickled.  

Least Favorite Fish: Hagfish. These vile prehistoric slime eels taste like a caramelized inner tube.   

Weeknight Tipples: 1. Negroni 2. Whiskey Sour. 3. Gimlet.  

7-11, Lawson, or FamilyMart? 7-Eleven pasta is superior to either major competitor, but its coffee lags significantly. Its oden is best-of-breed. FamilyMart is a strong contender in the coffee space, and is the only one which offers make-your-own frappes. Lawson’s coffee edges past FamiMa, but its pizza manju are what really satisfy. Circle K, Sunkus, and the independents typically boast better bread selections than any of the majors, but when you want a curry-filled dumpling, it’s 2 a.m., and the last train has left the station, that’s when Lawson comes through clutch.   

What? Take my word for it, this is important.  

Why I Joined the Law WeeklyWas press-ganged into the first meeting by my brother Gregory Ranzini ’18. Love ya, Greg!  

Favorite Law School Activity: The Law Weekly is without a doubt the best community of any in the Law School. The friends I’ve made here have more than made up for the sacrifice of my Monday nights.