Jessie Zaylía's Law (and Law School) Blog

Normally, I don't post things like this, but I think that all new lawyers and law students should have a look at this video. First, it's so unbelievable that it's hysterically funny. Second, sure, it's a major money-making program, but whatever. Third, it speaks to deference, if nothing else. Until next time...

About mid-semester, if I'm being smart, I start busting out some practice exams. But why now? Why would I start doing that before I have a full course's worth of materials to incorporate? I'll tell you why: Doing practice exams over a prolonged period of time makes your thinking and analysis on the day of the exam go very smoothly because, after all, you've done it before. Personally, the more I do, the better I tend to perform. However, this doesn't hold up as well if I wait until the last few days before the exam. I think one reason for this is because doing the exams creates a more holistic approach in terms of everyday learning in class. By the time you take the real exam, you've been so used to analyzing problems for your class a certain way that it becomes a cinch. Note: I have a very specific way that I use practice exams. I only take exams that have either model answers (by the top scoring student) or model outlines (by the professor who gave...

Last week, an inquisitive 2L approached me about her upcoming oral argument. We spoke for a bit until it became clear to both of us that she did not really know what on Earth to do with her introduction sentence. She didn't know how to structure it or, more importantly, what particular functions it serves. Many law students and, likely, lawyers encounter this same stumbling block. I have been lucky enough to have participated in many moot court competitions before actually arguing before the California Court of Appeal three times (successfully) last summer. Through trials, errors, triumphs, and blunders, I have learned a thing or two about oral argument. One of the more important things that you can work on to focus your entire argument--not to mention direct the court to the point of your "presentation"--is the introduction. The introduction acts as a sturdy, no-nonsense frame. And it lets the court know that you know what the heck you're doing up there. Now, t...

This is one of the posts that I've looked forward to completing for a long time. On a basic level, we all have different learning styles. Outlining for law school caters to linear thinking, which is great for linear learners. Regardless of whether you're a linear learner or a more holistic-type, outlining sucks. The process sucks. The time that you put into it sucks. And, moreover, if you lose part or--heaven forbid--all of it, that REALLY sucks. For those who find that they learn best from outlining, good for you! I am happy for you. For the rest of us who hate it for whatever reason, consider my alternative. Preface: this method has also worked really well for two of my mentees. One is in the top 10% at USD; the other is in the top 10% at UCLA. I suppose I'll call this process "index-carding" only because "flash-carding" sounds too much like pre-made flashcards, which is NOT what my alternative to outlining consists of. 1.  Get a pack of ...

I realize that for some of us, this is getting down to the basics, but that's precisely why I'm writing about it. What, exactly, is the legal question?  And how do we get to it? Many 1Ls will notice that professors often pause during lectures, look to the the frightened students in the peanut gallery, and ask, "So, what's the legal question here?" Some brave students--the Gunner likely beginning the trend--attempt to answer this question. The Broad: "How should the court decide?" Uhh... no. The Slightly Confused: "Whether the buyer relied on the seller?" No... that's the issue.  But that's a good try. The fact is that almost nobody explains how  you're supposed to figure out what the hell the legal question is ! Another fact: I didn't know what in the world anybody meant by the mysterious legal question until my second year of law school, while I was taking a course on advanced legal writing. Even then, the professor d...

What I am about to share with you is the one piece of advice that I wish somebody—anybody—would have told me as a fresh, green 1L: the key to legal argument lies in asking “why” twice. Allow me to explain. But before I do, come with me on a journey of realization. Keep in mind, although I direct this blog post to 1Ls, many attorneys have not yet grasped the ask-why-twice concept. (To provide a bit of background, the legal positions that I have held in the short two and one-half years that I’ve been in law school have provided me with opportunities to read, analyze, write, distinguish, edit, and otherwise flesh out scores, if not hundreds, of briefs, memoranda, motions, and orders. Specifically, when I worked in the chambers of two federal judges, I read many poorly reasoned briefs and noted how this affected the judges’ decisions and opinions of the attorneys. I only provide this information so that you understand that I have seen time and time again the consequences of poor legal an...