Law Students

Pre-emptive Questions.

By Steve Pirates

So today in Civil Procedure we are talking about Joinder under Rules 18 and 13. I have to admit this stuff is a little abstract for my taste. The difference between “case or controversy” and “transaction or occurrence” is too subtle for my mind I guess. I have a feeling that my turn to speak in class is coming up very very soon, and since this is an area that I don’t feel too bullish on, I decided to take matters in my own hand.

I asked a kind of dumb question. Now, keep in mind that this is a question that I actually did not know the answer to, and was one that I needed to know. But it seemed like kind of a fundamental piece that I assumed everyone knew. My assumption was that if I was called on, my incomplete understanding of this area would lead to a pretty rocky Socratic method. So I asked whether Rule 13(a) automatically gave SMJ under 1367. My professor asked me why she would hedge on answering that, and I didn’t say much because that was exactly my question. Some brilliant young mind in my class piped up with the answer, which was a bit easier than I had anticipated. So I exposed my ignorance, but on my own terms.

I made sure to participate in the discussion more than usual today, and tried to come up with some good answers to show that I was at least paying attention. And after class I asked a follow up to my original question to make sure I had the answer right.

So, what do you all think? Did I just expose myself as an idiot with no legal reasoning ability? Or did I cleverly dictate the terms of the discussion and avoid a direct grilling on the subject by pre-emptively asking?

Full post as published by Jolly Lawger on March 24, 2008 (boomark / email).