Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (73)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (60)
- Universal health care solves big problems (54)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (24)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
Law school? At my age?
My adventures in bluebooks and memorization
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 6:15 AM PDT
Most of you have heard of "carbon offsets," but few have heard of "humor offsets."
It's a little known fact that when a certain number of jokes bomb, we writers are required by the columnists' union to write a straight piece to offset any "that ain't funny" utterances by our readers.
So here goes my penitence:
What's it like going back to school later in life? Can one from my generation, compete in a rigorous, professional course of study against those who are 30 years younger?
I was in my 50s when the discovery was made that it was the lawyers who ran the world, not the artists, physicians, writers or educators. Call me naïve if you will, but that was the power of idealism — so embedded in us during the 1960s.
I knew things would not be easy in any attempt to embark on a new academic pursuit at this point in life. Inspiration came from attorney James Frolik.
At 85 years of age, he was still practicing law six days per week and still found time to lecture at Hastings College of the Law. I reasoned that if he found happiness and was still pursuing his career at such a late point in life, then there must be something to this "love of law."
The first step, of course, was to get admitted to a law school, preferably within reach of Lodi. There weren't too many with any reputations that wanted to take on someone from my age group. But one school seemed to like my background and thought my presence would add some diversity to the student body makeup.
On the first day of class, there I was — sticking out like whitewall tires on a racecar in a sea of 22 to 30 year-olds. Only one other person was near my age, and he was 45. They all stared as if I were an alien from "Star Trek." But determination not to let this bother me and to somehow "fit in" prevailed. The class was "Criminal Procedure," and the lecture began with a case history about a guy who killed his wife and tried to plead "insanity."
"Could he do this?" asked Professor Jones. I knew from the circumstances described and from my background as a psychotherapist, that the answer was "no," but the young ones battered things around for almost an hour until I finally raised my hand and gave the correct response. The students gazed as if I were a magician, while the professor gave an approving nod.
After that, I thought things would be easy, but it was not to be. Law school was not what I had imagined.
Only constitutional law allowed some room for any degree of speculation. (Something about the Constitution as being a "living, breathing document.")
Most classes involved outlining, and memorization of laundry lists of procedures as to what to write if certain scenarios appeared on an exam.
Speaking of writing, we wrote in our bluebooks until our faces matched the covers. However, most words were wasted, as readers of exams simply looked for the memorized laundry lists imbedded in the essays.
When the curtain fell on the last act of law school, was it worth the wallow? I have no desire, nor am I qualified to practice law. But now, I feel more than entitled to criticize the inaccuracy of Hollywood movies that deal with legal subjects.
In addition, intimidating non-lawyer public officials is a cinch, and oh yes, I also know what Judge Judy is going to say before she says it.
Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer and humorist.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
awobs wrote on Apr 11, 2008 10:04 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 11, 2008 7:53 AM:
My experience (long ago) was obviously different than yours.
My suggestion that Hansen attended a school other than McGeorge wasn't to disparage Humphreys; it was simply because I went through the admissions process at McGeorge.
In fact, the amazing response to my original post regarding whatever 'stellar' institution Hansen attended was more insulting of Humphreys than anything I implied (which I did not).
All this aside, it has always been my belief that any law school is only as good as its ability to prepare its students to sit for and pass the bar exam. Of course there are those destined for Wall Street or high-profile law firms that require more on their resumes; McGeorge (having a sitting Supreme Court Justice as one of its professors) may satisfy that need. Humphreys, aside from its ‘funky’ name is certainly as successful in preparing people to simply practice law; and isn’t that the primary intent of any law school? "
awobs wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:07 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:43 PM:
awobs wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:10 PM:
awobs wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:09 PM:
awobs wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:07 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:34 PM:
Before this I hadn't read anything of his either. As the column related to law school and the practice of law I was intrigued. I've spent the majority of my working life around lawyers and legal situations.
I simply found it amazing, whether he was joking or not (I still can't tell) that anyone would go through all that law school demands and then admit that he had no 'desire' or 'qualification' to engage in the practice for which he worked so hard. And you read the responses. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:25 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:24 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:08 PM:
Finally! Someone who actually 'knows' this guy. Yet, there are others here who claim to either know Hansen or understand him and are then silent in their responses regarding the actual 'intent' of both his column and his reason for apparently squandering his law degree.
Instead, I've been pilloried for even suggesting that his words make little or any sense as well as for my attempt to better understand why anyone would waste all the time/effort/money on a law degree and admit that he is not qualified to practice law. "
Lodian wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:01 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 8:06 AM:
You're clairvoyance caught me quite by surprise. How daring of you to make that statement without any qualification, such as it possibly being your 'opinion.'
In response, I would refer you to Hansen's opening paragraphs. However, assuming that Hansen wrote the entire piece as 'satire' and/or simply to be 'funny,' I suggest, in my humble opinion that he failed at both attempts.
Finally, are you seriously suggesting that ‘humor’ and/or ‘satire’ are prohibited from invoking 'dialogue' from the reader? That, as well is a bold proclamation. "
drrobertsantry wrote on Apr 8, 2008 3:20 AM:
I am amused at the comments made by many contributors who fail to understand the article as humor (satire). The intent of the author is to provoke laughter not to promote a dialogue.
One can study law for pleasure of reading law without a professional requirement to take the bar and practice.
I congratulate you Dr. Hansen on another humorous story. Well done, Sir.
Prof.Dr.med. R.M. Santry
Ober-Ramstadt, Germany "
JD wrote on Apr 7, 2008 12:51 PM:
That said: I'm not convinced Hansen has done justice to the three-year ordeal that is law school and I (think I) find his column overly cynical. I can safely say I haven't "memorized" a darned thing in my 2 1/2 years of law school. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:40 PM:
Are you suggesting that Hansen attended law school just to ‘teach’ students like himself?
Regardless, my posts have a very simple point - I don't understand his ‘point’.
If Hansen was simply trying to be thought-provoking, he has failed miserably in his quest. I'm only left asking just what was he 'talking' about.
The responses I received, as you can read, were incredible - lots of harsh criticism and little, if any, substance.
Your thoughts on what I’ve asked? "
JD wrote on Apr 6, 2008 5:24 PM:
Seriously--a big part of the law school experience is learning from others with more experience than you. We have several "nontraditional" students at my school (in the intermountain west)--one of them is a retired MD who spent twenty years doing autopsies for the state coroner. All of them have unique insights on various fields of law and, hopefully, their influence will make me a better lawyer. "
Cogito wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:11 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 12:05 PM:
Such is your prerogative, right and privilege. Usually, I do leave it at that, but in this case I am still puzzled as to exactly what we 'disagree' about. Se la vie!
And thanks for your thanks. And you have a good day as well. "
dyan wrote on Apr 5, 2008 11:14 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 10:18 AM:
And on Apr 3, 2008 at 12:54 AM - 'How could any 'sane' person, possessing no 'desire' or 'qualifications to practice law' subject themselves to three years of hell?'
Again, context? These were logical questions offered in response to what appears to me to be a completely illogical column. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 10:11 AM:
This is what I actually wrote on Apr 4, 2008 at 6:54 AM, "Any ‘stellar’ law school fully vets a potential student before permitting him/her from taking what is usually an extremely coveted seat."
Context? Or did you simply try to 'interpret' my words to fit your rant?
"
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 10:03 AM:
They are arrogant; it must be the first course they take in law school. There was one here recently who felt it within his/her purview to publish the actual 'name' of someone that he/she interviewed during a job search. His/her response was that the person didn't have any expectation of privacy as to what occurred during the interviewing process. To the News-Sentinel's credit, they eliminated his/her posts – arrogant! "
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:59 AM:
I clearly stated that a J.D. is an incredible accomplishment - I only question WHY one (Hansen in this case) chose not to put it to any good use. He, himself, stated that he wasn't even 'qualified' to practice law - and this is a man with a law degree? Was that meant to be funny? He trashed himself.
After reading his column, what did he expect me to walk away with? Whenever I write something, I hope that my point gets taken. I’m merely trying to understand Hansen’s point. Yet, when asking these questions, using different approaches by the way, I’m treated to such a defensive attitude by his fans here. How dare I ask these questions! Stop this hate speech! You’re sullying his reputation! What’s wrong with you people?
Tell me, please – what did YOU get out of his story? If there was not point to this column, then the News-Sentinel is wasting whatever money they spend on him. That’s not ‘trash’ talk, that’s simply my opinion. "
dyan wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:40 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:31 AM:
Just why are you concerned about what I do with my time? As far as I can tell, this forum exists exactly for people like me (and I suppose like you) to express our opinions. That question makes as much sense as me asking you why you breathe air. But to be kind my answer is: it’s none of your business. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:26 AM:
When did I 'trash' anyone? I'm the one being trashed here and for what reason?
Just why do you think these blogs exist? Why are YOU here?
As for correcting peoples' spelling, if it bothers you so much, simply run what you decide to post through a spell checker before clicking the 'Post Comment' button. There, problem resolved! "
dyan wrote on Apr 5, 2008 9:17 AM:
"
girard74 wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:57 AM:
A law degree IS something extraordinary. To reduce it to Judge Judy and a couple other completely insignificant 'uses' for the accomplishment forces some of us to wonder 'why?'
Hansen left a lot unsaid; I would simply like to fill in the blanks in order to understand what his point is.
I was accused of 'hate speech' and attempting to destroy his reputation. When did I do that?!?
Why is this so intimidating to some? "
dyan wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:23 PM:
dyan wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:53 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 8:21 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:12 PM:
"More undisputed proof that blog sites
are the fascinations of fools."
Then welcome to the pool of fools! "
Lodian wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:10 PM:
Lodian wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:59 PM:
"
sam wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:52 PM:
But to me... my opinion... those 1000 word blogs are tough to read.
When I would write math exams I found that the more 'White Space" on the exam, the easier it was for the student to read and the less intimidating the exam was. Just a thought. "
sam wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:49 PM:
I get on these blogs and see a 1000 words blog and have the desire to scroll past it.
Just my opinion. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 5:27 PM:
No, it's a result of my attempt to evade the 100-word-rule set by LNS. I apologize. If you wouldn't mind, please tell me which browser you are using. I will refrain from causing these boxes; I know I get carried away. But if I can determine why they appear on some browsers and not on others, I can continue my mission. Again, sorry. "
Scrutiny wrote on Apr 4, 2008 4:35 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 3:51 PM:
Gee, didn't I answer that question after Aimee asked it? (at 1:03 and 1:31) "
Dyan wrote on Apr 4, 2008 2:13 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:50 PM:
Absent any explanation from Hansen as to why he didn't wish to jump that last hoop leaves me incredulous. If he did all of that simply for ‘grins and giggles,’ then I still question his mental stability. If, however, his successful graduation from law school was a necessary stepping-stone for bigger and better things (for him and his family), then I most likely would not have wasted your or my time here today. But he simply didn’t let us know, did he? I don’t expect him to answer now (yet I do believe he follows this blog) – he already wrote his column and hopefully he proof-read it prior to publication. Therefore, he must be satisfied leaving this question unanswered. At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter to me. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:31 PM:
How cryptic is '...nor am I qualified to practice law?'
Now, from what my experience has shown me, law school exists to educate people to the point where they become 'qualified' to practice law. I am aware that many litigation firms won't permit an associate attorney to appear in court until after they finish an in-house training program. My military justice experience indicates just the opposite to be true. Upon arrival to the JA office, most new 1st Lieutenants are assigned the next court-martial on the docket (even before the results of their bar exam are received (practicing under the authority of a certified JA)); this is their way of receiving ‘training.’
However, upon graduation from law school most students are deemed to be capable (i.e., qualified) to represent clients. The successful completion of the bar exam provides them the legal ‘right’ to perform the duties of an attorney.
Is Hansen stating that he believes his law school education was somewhat lacking in its training? After all that time and work was he truly convinced that he couldn’t even construct a simple will? He certainly ‘should’ be qualified; if not perhaps he’s entitled to a refund. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:03 PM:
I found his piece to make little sense; it wasn't funny at all; it did stretch my imagination as to why anyone would spend so much time and money on a legal education (regardless of age) and then not put it to work; his stated ‘uses’ for his J.D. surely couldn’t be reduced to movies, public officials and Judge Judy, in my opinion; therefore the purpose of this writing AND his advanced degree must lie elsewhere. Naturally I am curious.
Further, and more important to my presence here is that I, along with you and everyone else am entitled to my opinion. Additionally, when I’m accused of ‘hate speech’ and attempting to destroy someone’s reputation when it was clear at least to me that that was not my intent, while not entitled to a response from my accuser, I would be irresponsible if I didn’t at least ask for an explanation. And as I expected, no explanation was forthcoming.
Your making the ‘guarantee’ that law school admissions offices do not ask prospective students about their futures after law school (including their intentions concerning their practice and the bar exam) furthers my contention regarding your arrogance. How do you know my level of exposure to law school admittance applications? Just what value is this ‘guarantee’ of yours? If I am able to disprove this contention, how will you honor this ‘guarantee?’
Finally, as it pertains to ‘blogs’ in general – just why are you ‘here?’ What do you believe the purpose of this forum is? I am as curious about your presence here as I was (and still am) about Hansen’s column. "
Aimee wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:37 PM:
Aimee wrote on Apr 4, 2008 12:35 PM:
Stanford Man wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:05 AM:
dyan wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:58 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:38 AM:
The word 'succeed' should have read 'succeeded.' I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:25 AM:
'Paragraphs' contain words/thoughts designed to invoke 'thinking' by the reader. Obviously, I've succeed in that regard although the quality of the ‘invoked’ thought (above) is questionable.
However, while 'brevity may be the soul of wit,' brief statements such as yours are worthless. You state that I don't 'get it.' Just what is it that you believe I don't 'get?' Brief enough for you? Use as many paragraphs as you would like to respond. I enjoy reading. "
dyan wrote on Apr 4, 2008 10:18 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 9:42 AM:
I suppose I should ask why a fool such as you is ‘here.’ Yup, you’re an attorney all right. And as an attorney, you make such convoluted statements and offer nothing to support them. You accused me earlier of ‘hate speech’ and attempting to destroy the reputation of Mr./Dr. Hansen, Esq./Ph.D. I can only ‘assume’ that you didn’t understand my follow-up question specifically to you to clarify your accusation. Or could it be you didn’t read that far into my most recent response to you and the other ‘attorney’ on board here?
As far as my ‘assumptions being factless (sic) and baseless,’ I wonder just how limited you are in comprehending the English language. Yours and Aimee’s ‘assumptions’ are that I possess no knowledge of the workings of law schools or the statistics regarding how many law school graduates do or do not go on to practice law. I provided sufficient evidence to prove you wrong. Yet, you continue to believe that it is only you, the ‘learned’ attorneys, who understand not only the ‘law,’ but Steve Hansen as well. I’m certain if I look up the words lawyer or ‘attorney’ in my thesaurus ‘arrogant’ will be near the top of the list of synonyms (and not just because it begins with the letter ‘A’).
So, in your incredibly acceptable and logical opinion, where do you believe Hansen attended law school? More important, though, is just what point was Hansen trying to make with his piece? Usually, a writer wants the readers to walk away with some sort of ‘moral to the story’ after digesting its content. Hansen, for whatever reason, left us with nothing other than perhaps expecting us lowly non-lawyers to sit back in awe of his incredible achievement – an achievement having no value whatsoever according to Hansen himself. Unless, of course, this remarkable accomplishment was earned so he could spend his time sitting in front of the TV speculating as to the future words of Judge Judy. Now THAT I can sink my teeth into!! Bravo Mr./Dr. Hansen, Esq./Ph.D.!! Bravo!! You have indeed arrived!! "
Cogito wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:51 AM:
Stanford Man wrote on Apr 4, 2008 7:12 AM:
are the fascinations of fools. Your assumptions sir, are factless and baseless, yet you display them as if they are chiseled in stone. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 4, 2008 6:54 AM:
I am very familiar with McGeorge. My comment had nothing to do with his 'age;' it was directed at his lack of drive. Sure, they'd take his money and let him endure three years of law school. But schools like McGeorge don't exist simply to assuage the egos of old guys with nothing else to do with their lives. Law schools create successful attorneys to practice their craft if for no other reason than advance the reputation of the school itself. If, during the admission process Mr. Hansen had been honest and admitted that he had no intention of at the very least ‘enduring three days of torture and hell’ sitting for the bar exam, they would be extremely hesitant to permit him to ‘sit’ for three years of law school. Any ‘stellar’ law school fully vets a potential student before permitting him/her from taking what is usually an extremely coveted seat. As such, I concluded that Humphreys was his likely choice (or more accurately, according to Hansen, Humphreys chose him).
Further, I responded to Hansen’s statement that, ‘[t]he first step, of course, was to get admitted to a law school, preferably within reach of Lodi.’ If, as suggested, Dr. Hansen found such a law school close to Lodi, McGeorge or Humphreys appeared to be logical choices. For whatever reason the good doctor felt we readers didn’t need to know which school he attended thereby forcing us to come to our own conclusions.
Stanford, your statement that ‘… hate speech and the attempts to destroy reputations on these blogs is (sic) truly stunning,’ is stunning itself. What ‘hate speech?’ In what way was any speech an ‘attempt to destroy [any] reputation?’ I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you are very new to the concept of ‘blogging.’
Blog sites don’t exist for everyone to simply nod their heads in agreement and praise the author and others for writing pieces that leave the reader wondering just what the purpose is. My observances and the comments I left here were a valid critique of not only the readability of Hansen’s ‘column,’ but also why the Lodi News-Sentinel would waste newsprint on such a worthless attempt.
It stated at the end that Dr. Hansen (I would have replaced the prefix ‘Dr.’ with the suffix Esq., but somehow it didn’t seem appropriate at this time) is a writer/humorist. After reading it a few times desperately trying to determine where I should be able to emit even a chuckle and failing in that endeavor, I then evaluated it on a more serious level – I was still left scratching my head wondering, ‘What’s the point?’ "
Stanford Man wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:06 AM:
Aimee wrote on Apr 3, 2008 9:03 AM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 3, 2008 8:56 AM:
Stanford Man wrote on Apr 3, 2008 7:36 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 3, 2008 12:54 AM:
How could any 'sane' person, possessing no 'desire' or 'qualifications to practice law' subject themselves to three years of hell? I assume he attended Humphreys - surely McGeorge wouldn't accept this guy.
I also assume (and this is a stretch) that Hansen actually finished his studies (although he purposely left us wondering) – why would he not attempt to pass the bar exam? Surely he would make a better attorney than a humorist/columnist. He really isn’t funny. "
Cogito wrote on Apr 2, 2008 8:00 PM:
Comments on this story are now closed.