“E Pluribus Unum;” out of many, one. That is the inscription on our coins. It reflects our founders’ dream, a dream about a nation that could celebrate diversity and live united as one. Here at Law School, after three years together, we have developed a unique kind of unity. Out of diverse backgrounds, the University chose us. One class, one mission: change the face of the legal profession. We are tomorrow’s change-makers in the world.

Today is a day to celebrate our diversity. Three years ago, we came from all walks of life. We started as engineers, but now we are IP lawyers promoting innovation. We began as accountants, but now we are tax lawyers saving clients money. Yesterday we watched CSI, now we useCSI to solve crimes and prosecute criminals. The unique perspectives we once brought to classroom discussion, we now contribute to the future of the legal profession.

Today is also a day to commemorate our unity. Amidst three years of trial by fire, we bonded over our shared experiences. Prosecutors and defense attorneys developed a real camaraderie through many mock trial practices and tournaments. Volunteers at the Entrepreneurship Clinic collaborated with business people starting or expanding their small businesses. Study groups forged lifelong friendships, sharing the better part of three years trapped in the Library, married to their textbooks.

Today is the day we dedicate ourselves to a higher calling. After three years of training, we are ready to right wrongs, solve problems, and do justice. Following in the footsteps of the great men and women before us, we plunge ourselves into the toughest issues facing our society. We are lawyers. And, as Gandhi said, we must be the change we wish to see in the world.

We are ready to address the pressing issues of our day. We have been trained by some of the best professors and practitioners. They have invested in us, taught us; and they now exhort us to use the tools we have acquired. Abraham Lincoln said, “If you are resolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself, the thing is more than half done already.” We now have the other half; with our education and indomitable spirit, we can face any legal problem. We can and we will. Three issues in particular stand out in my mind. Among the issues we must address, immigration, poverty, and violence against women demand our attention.

There are currently millions of aliens living in our Nation, and the decisions we make about immigration reform will impact all of us. This year, a classmate used her legal training to write a comment advocating for a class of migrants being overlooked during the debate on immigration reform. After seeing a case in federal court dealing with the issue, she dedicated the better part of a year to revealing an important discrepancy in the law. As lawyers, we chart a course for our Nation, developing and applying the laws that order our society.

Similarly, as the gap between rich and poor widens, fewer people have access to legal services, and our volunteer efforts can change lives. I know another classmate who spent the last three years volunteering at a homeless shelter for battered spouses and their children. Seeing the law’s profound effect on those in desperate situations put the long hours studying in perspective. As lawyers, our profession is all about service, and we wield tremendous power through our understanding of the law.

Finally, most of us know someone close to us who is a survivor of gender-based violence, and it is up to us to advocate for these victims. A classmate once helped state prosecutors select a jury in a child molestation case where nearly one-fifth of the seventy-two potential jurors had to be excused for either having been sexually assaulted or knowing a close friend or relative who had been. Our society cries out for lawyers from diverse backgrounds to stand up to the crises plaguing our Nation.

I say this to stir us to action. The founders fought to make our great Nation a reality. “E Pluribus Unum;” out of many, one. Now we are called upon to preserve it. Out of many, the University chose us. These past three years, we have shared our lives with each other, appreciating our diversity. We now stand united in mission. We must be the change we wish to see in our Nation. We have resolutely determined to be come lawyers. We are now one.

By: Stacy Allura Hostetter

Would you take a one-way ticket off this rock? Because Mars One, a self-proclaimed not-for-profit organization aiming to establish a human settlement on Mars, is offering one. The company says that they intend to use already existing, readily available technology to create the colony and the biggest media spectacle this side of the Milky Way to fund it. Their upfront commercialism both oozes slime (in so many words they intend to make a reality show of the entire process from astronaut selection to the daily grind on Big Red) and a strangely refreshing realism but it is the Frequently Asked Questions section that really gets the blood flowing.

Almost impressively in tune with their audience the first question hits a high note, “Is this for real?” Their answer: “Yes it is!” is followed by a plethora of pithy blather about financing, voting for your favorite bachelorette–I mean astronaut candidate, possible health issues and success rates (to which the obvious answers are: lots and they recommend you ask NASA but about 50% give or take), the application process, and so on. A hidden gem about the ethics of emigrating to another planet is tucked away between psychological issues (Mars One plans to keep them too busy to have any of that schmuck) and religion (which they seem to think a non-issue considering the lack of convertible life forms) that rambles about the thousands of Europeans who shipped off to Australia with only a one-way ticket who turned out fine. Besides technology develops awfully fast, they are sure to have the option of a return flight soon enough (how long have I been waiting for a flying car?).

But here is the plan, four individuals will leave for the fourth rock from the sun September 2022. And then… well, then, other groups of four will follow every two years or so. Details to be determined and/or announced, blah blah blah.

Family tree time though. Mars One is a Netherlands based non-profit company which owns approximately 90% of Interplanetary Media Group, a Dutch for-profit company responsible for the reality show (though donations are, of course, welcome). Fun fact: the Netherlands are a constitutional monarchy.

This author loves a royal family as much as the next study abroad student, and if the Dutch do the work and want to plant their red, white and blue flag in the new colony that is all well and good. But what pray tell will the Martian politics look like? As it happens, the Frequently Asked Questions section answers that as well, more or (mostly) less. In so many words, the cosmic colonists will be left to figure out the governmental structure for themselves. With only four, Mars One suspects “that most decisions will be collective and require unanimity, but as the community grows it will become necessary to develop more complex systems for managing conflict and maintaining effective ways to make decisions.”

Mars One also plans to “provide training and a database of knowledge about human social organization to assist in that process as the settlement grows.” Will the Queen get a say? How about the sponsors? Or those people who vote for reality TV shows like American Idol? Funnily enough, first year civil procedure never mentioned anything about independent intergalactic jurisdictional bases. If you feel as if you are losing sleep on the unsettledness of it all, fear not. Most authorities not listed on the Mars One website seem to think the whole plot far-fetched and painfully underfunded, the applicants have a better chance hitching a ride to Ares with Ford Prefect. Just don’t forget your towel.

BACON! For those bacon lovers out there who would eat bacon for every meal of the day, then Slater’s 50/50 is for you. Not for the weak hearted, this fine establishment at Liberty Station in Point Loma is the holy land of bacon eaters across San Diego. Building on the basic premise of affordable quality meat and lavish toppings, Slater’s has rocketed to the top of the burger charts across the state. This place has a fun and relaxed sports bar atmosphere with at least a dozen televisions on every wall in the place tuned in to sporting events from across the globe.

Though they have other dishes, Slater’s is primarily known for their 50/50 burgers. These burgers are composed of half beef and half bacon. This combination proves to be a sultry and satisfying mix that left me wondering why haven’t other restaurants emulated this gold mind in the bacon loving industry. Each burger comes available with 8 patty choices (including one vegetarian), 5 bun choices, 19 sauces, 11 cheese choices, 22 standard topping choices, and 18 premium topping choices.  With meat, bun, cheese, sauce, and single topping, this leads to an unlimited number of combinations available to the patrons for whatever mood they are in. Failed a final? Aced a midterm? Choked on your oral argument? Or destroyed your opponent in mock trial? Then you will find some combination of meat and toppings to match your spirits here.

BACONATOR – ENGAGED

From the moment you come to Slater’s you are in for a good time. You check-in with the hostess at the front desk and give her your cell phone number. The restaurant then sends you text message updates giving a time estimate on when your table will be ready. How is this not the standard practice is all restaurants? While you wait for your table and let the thought of a 50/50 burger begin to ruminate in your head, you can relax in their Beer Garden.

The Beer Garden is a courtyard with a bar and various games available for your enjoyment. The bar has over a whopping 110 beers on tap on any given night and more than enough to satisfy the quench of anyone in your group. So as your group gulps down some frosty adult beverages, you can partake in a larger than life version of Jenga or sit and relax amongst the stars.

Once you sit down at your table prepare for your wildest bacon fantasies to come true. After initially ordering fries as an appetizers, I realized that the fries had been topped with bacon salt as I was dipping them into bacon ketchup. Delicioso! I chose to go with the 50/50 burger with a wide variety of toppings, essentially adding more bacon and bacon sauces to compliment the simmering meat. After my burger was delivered, my first thought was how the hell do I eat this mammoth burger? I was required to use their steak knife to cut the burger in half and then took my sweet time enjoying every morsel of the burger. After finishing my meal, I had realized that there was not a scrap of food left on anyone’s plate.

Unable to resist desert, we had to order a Bacon Brownie for the table. This rich chocolate brownie mixed with chunks of bacon was simply divine. I feel as though finding the perfect combination between sweet and salty in a bacon brownie must be no easy task, but Slater’s found the sweet spot and did not disappoint. The brownie was the perfect cap to a great evening catching up with friends and watching the Laker’s game. For those of you with a knack for trivia, make your way down to Slater’s on Tuesday nights for trivia tournaments and to claim your title as Bacon King of San Diego.

Your crown, sir.

Most law students are familiar with the “Socratic” method and probably received at least a brief description of its purpose, at least in terms of its purpose in law, their first year of school.  Perhaps you were told that the Socratic Method was a way of making you think or a method of legal analysis.  While these descriptions are true, they do not encompass the beauty and ingenuity of one of Socrates’ greatest lessons.  Whether or not you were aware of it at the time, you likely used or at least encountered the Socratic Method your first year of law school in the form of question and answer sessions where you were on call for case analysis.  You provide the facts of a case, the holding, the rule and then it happens.  You want to ask the professor why the court ruled the way it did and their response is something to the effect of “you tell me.”  Now, you are filled with terror and bewilderment because the answer was nowhere in the opinion, not in any footnotes, and how can you possibly presume to know what Justice Brandeis was thinking without diminishing his intelligence or sounding like a complete idiot.  You offer an “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure” only to have the ball tossed right back to you by the professor with “think about it” and if you had Professor Lee, perhaps a lucky thumbs up.  You finally offer a thought on the matter and then the professor changes a fact and asks “would it still be the same?”  Game changer, either everything you thought you knew was wrong or you push forward and show that the new fact still proves your argument.  The game is dialectic between student and professor and its playability has withstood centuries… lots of them.

The Socratic Method is much more than a form of legal analysis and its roots weave through several disciplines including, for example, philosophy, history, and literature.  One of the classic literary examples of the Socratic Method at work is Plato’s Phaedrus.  The scene is idyllic with Socrates and Phaedrus sitting under a tree by the banks of the Ilissus.  Socrates and Phaedrus engage in the dialectic and each prompts recognition and understanding within the other by forcing them to think.  Here is a small excerpt that shows the Socratic Method in action:

SOCRATES: Let us put the matter thus:—Suppose that I persuaded you to buy a horse and go to the wars. Neither of us knew what a horse was like, but I knew that you believed a horse to be of tame animals the one which has the longest ears.

PHAEDRUS: That would be ridiculous.

SOCRATES: There is something more ridiculous coming:—Suppose, further, that in sober earnest I, having persuaded you of this, went and composed a speech in honour of an ass, whom I entitled a horse beginning: ‘A noble animal and a most useful possession, especially in war, and you may get on his back and fight, and he will carry baggage or anything.’

PHAEDRUS: How ridiculous!

SOCRATES: Ridiculous! Yes; but is not even a ridiculous friend better than a cunning enemy?

PHAEDRUS: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And when the orator instead of putting an ass in the place of a horse, puts good for evil, being himself as ignorant of their true nature as the city on which he imposes is ignorant; and having studied the notions of the multitude, falsely persuades them not about ‘the shadow of an ass,’ which he confounds with a horse, but about good which he confounds with evil,—what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?

PHAEDRUS: The reverse of good.

Do you see it?  Do you see game being played between the two men?  Do you see the probing of logic and by addition of facts and application to other circumstance?  Socrates begins with the hypothetical that he is able to convince Phaedrus to buy a donkey by persuading him that this donkey is really a horse.  Phaedrus is unconvinced and probably thinking Socrates is off his rocker so, Socrates has to probe further.  He takes the hypo a step further and amends it to offer prose that this “horse” is the just the most magnificent creature and aid in battle.  Socrates sounds even loonier than before.  Phaedrus is in disbelief at Socrates’ assertions but suddenly, Socrates asks him a poignant question that puts the whole absurd scenario into a practical perspective.  As absurd as the idea of a magnificent battle donkey is, isn’t that still better than nothing?  Phaedrus agrees.  Socrates then applies the logic gleaned from this argument and presents it to Phaedrus in a new context.  Phaedrus, understanding this logic, is able to apply that same reasoning to answer Socrates’ question “what will be the harvest which rhetoric will be likely to gather after the sowing of that seed?”  Phaedrus has essentially done what all law students do; he has applied his understanding in one context to support his understanding of another scenario.  The law student uses the cases he reads to support his further inferences into alternates scenarios and hypotheticals.

Think about this the next time you find yourself in the impossible hypothetical in front of all your peers leering at you.  How have the courts gotten through their “impossible” case facts to come to a conclusion? Play Phaedrus and go with the game.

Because the truth of the matter is there are lots of smart, well-qualified individuals out there, two city attorneys (Mark Skeels and Miriam Milstein) and three private defense attorneys (G. Cole Casey and Marc Applbaum) filled a panel hosted by the Criminal Law Society on March 19 to teach students how to stand out at their summer jobs.  The discussion focused on how to be a successful intern in criminal law and the advice, both eloquent and universally applicable, is summed up below.

1.  Have no shame.

Do not be shy. Go knock on every door, ask for projects (as in all the time). Persistence will pay off but you have to be willing to embrace that awkwardness sometimes.

2.  And a set of “courage.”

There is a fine line that can be crossed but do not be a doormat, doormats are not endearing. There is an art to conceding but just as important is the art to stand your ground. Be smart, act smart.

3.  Be visible.

If you want attorneys in the office to recommend you for that post-bar or that paid position then it helps if the attorneys know your name and can attach a face to it. If they can not remember you then they probably can not recommend you either so make sure that you are in the office, interacting with colleagues, being helpful, etc…

4.  Master the basics. Writing and researching especially.

Because there will be a lot of it.

5.  Be irreplaceable.

Be so involved that, should you miss a day, everyone in the office notices. These are the people that get recommended for hire. It also helps if you are good at what you do, no surprise there. But remember that you are not expected to know everything either, you are actually not expected to know all that much substantively so just take deep breaths and go from there.

6.  “Being a jerk doesn’t get you anywhere.” / Walk softly, carry a big stick.

Channel calm, smart and perceptive rather than antagonistic. This is the same balancing act as seen in number two. It is a small community and antagonism will only hurt you so minimize snarkiness.

7.  You are probably better off being rude to a judge than one of the clerks.

They forget nothing and forgive nothing. This actually goes to any of the courtroom staff.

8.  Ask the judge after, “How did I do?”

Find out what worked and what did not by asking the judge, chances are no one knows better than they do. Bonus points in that they will likely be impressed that you showed enough humility to ask for advice.

9.  Niche skills can be relevant, helpful and marketable.

Another balancing act of course, do not limit yourself by any means but consider the needs of the office and the market in general. DUI’s involve a lot of DMV paperwork, if you can walk circles around that particular skill set the beleaguered attorneys will appreciate it.

10.  Ask yourself what you want.

If you cannot wake up in the morning and look forward to what it is you have to do then you are screwed.  Far too many attorneys drink themselves into an oblivion every evening hating their life because they do not enjoy what they do. Find out what really gets under your skin, what keeps you up at night and out of bed in the morning. Then go do that. If you can find that passion then all of the above advice will just fall into place because when you love what you do, it shows and that is a marketable skill indeed.

Solana Beach’s Belly-Up Tavern is a venerable San Diego institution, showcasing talent from the obscure to the venerable. On any given night you might find British indie pop, an earnest singer-songwriter, Hawaiian standards, a Nineties one-hit-wonder band, obscure electronica, Gogol Bordello or even Kenny Rogers in this 600-seat venue. Ample stage-view seating (much of it with homework-compatible countertops!), a good-sized dance floor and remarkably friendly security – not to mention the surprisingly un-foul bathrooms and reasonable ticket prices – make the Belly Up a pleasant place to catch a show. Bonus points, too, for the walls festooned with gorgeous Skrojo posters and the enormous red-eyed shark hanging over the bar.

Recently I caught One More Time: A Daft Punk Tribute at the Belly Up. Opening act, DJ Man Cat – “half man, half cat, 100% awesome” – warmed up the crowd with a catchy, genre-bending wall of dance music, running the gamut from Gloria Estefan to Sir Mix-a-Lot by way of the Harlem Shake (which particular snippet elicited simultaneous groans and cheers).

The main act, Daft Punk’d, took the stage to cheers and Daft pyramids galore. These guys do Daft Punk better than Daft Punk themselves – in fact, since they stayed in robot-costume all evening, they may well have been Daft Punk themselves. Atop a giant Lite-Brite pyramid, the Tron-suited duo whipped out a seamless rendition of Daft Punk’d’s quirky synth-voiced Euro-techno, with a swirling, pulsating light show to match. An energetic, tallboy-drinking crowd, fists in the air, commandeered the dance floor for the hour-long set, which included favorites like “Around the World”, “Robot Rock”, “Digital Love”, “Harder Better Faster Stronger” and a heaping serving of Tron soundtrack. Experiencing Daft Punk’d “work it harder, make it better” may be as close as you can get to seeing the elusive French duo perform themselves.

Newly-elected Mayor Bob Filner is kinda funny, if you think about it.[1]  San Diego is used to its lead-from-behind, backroom politicians.  It is a quiet place.  This is Breakfasttown, USA.[2]  We elect Sanderses over Aguirreses, and shy away from the muck-rake.[3]  So, what’s up with Bob?  In his short time in office, he has already put on notice: the Keystone Pipeline;[4] the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;[5] City Councilmember Kevin Faulconer;[6] City Council President Todd Gloria;[7] Police Chief Lansdowne;[8] U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy;[9] San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis;[10] and most recently City Attorney Jan Goldsmith.[11]

The Mayor is not a quiet man.[12]  He recently crashed a press conference of the City Attorney – literally.[13]  It’s been no secret that Filner and Goldsmith are not besties.  It took only four weeks after taking office for Filner to publicly shame Goldsmith over his office’s prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries.[14]  Their relationship has since appeared… tense.  Then it got weird: Mayor Filner showed up, unannounced, to said press conference, and began rebutting (read: shouting replies at) Goldsmith’s comments.  The issue at hand was a City Council approved measure that authorized the Tourism Marketing District to collect 2% of gross revenues from big hotels to promote tourism for the next 40 years.  Filner thinks it’s a tax.  Goldsmith says, “I disagree with whatever he said.”[15]  Goldsmith parted the press conference by telling reporters “We used to have a city attorney who wanted to be mayor, now we have a mayor who wants to be city attorney.”[16]  My goodness.

It’s a clash between two competing visions of San Diego: a multi-cultural, dynamic border town vs. Pete Wilson’s shining resort upon a hill.  Things used to be done in this city – quietly.  Pensions were borrowed from – quietly.  It doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  Filner is sand paper, but he represents a potential sea change for the city.  Sanders had the demeanor of a man on Quaaludes; he is what San Diego was.  Filner’s confrontation with Goldsmith may be political faux pas.  But, at least there’s now a dialogue.[17]

Snooze (Hillcrest)

This place is very popular.  We tried to eat here twice before on a weekend around 9:00 a.m., but were told that the wait would be at least 45 minutes so we booked it.  It turned out that the third time was the charm.  We arrived at 8:45 a.m. on a Tuesday and were seated immediately, but it was really filling up.  So if you want to eat here, don’t come on a weekend, unless you arrive when they open at 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.

The food was decent and the portions were big.  We both ordered lattes, which were quite tasty.  I didn’t find out until later that they have bottomless coffee, which probably would have been a more cost efficient idea, especially because this place, like most Hillcrest places, is kind of pricy.  Our total was close to $40.  I had a Bella! Bella! Benny, which is their Italian version of an eggs benedict.  It came with prosciutto, arugula, ciabatta bread and hash browns on the side.  My boyfriend had the Snooze Breakfast Burrito, which was enormous.  I didn’t try it but he said it was okay.

The service was really great – they were friendly and attentive but not overly so.  The décor was retro; my boyfriend really liked that.  One of my favorite things about Snooze is that they encourage you to customize your order.  Don’t you hate those places that write “No Substitutions” all over the menus?  There’s a parking structure across the street but I’m not sure if they validate.  There are parking meters all around the block and if you arrive early enough, which you should, a lot of them should still be available.

The food definitely was not good enough to justify the high prices, but I would most likely return to try something else just to make sure.

Verdict: 3.5/5

The Eggery (Pacific Beach)

The Eggery is, hands down, my favorite place to get brunch in San Diego.  It’s large, so even if you have to wait, it’s never for a very long time.  The best part is that they’re right next to the beach and you can bring your dog with you as long as you sit outside.  And when you’re done eating you can take your dog for a walk and burn off [some of] the calories you just ingested.  The service is friendly and if you order coffee with your meal, they give you a whole carafe of it so you don’t have to keep asking for refills.  I am fairly certain it is bottomless.

I always order the Bacada Benedict, because it’s amazing and if I order anything else I’ll stare wistfully at other tables that have benedicts.  It comes with hash browns on the side, which you can substitute for fruit.  My boyfriend has ordered the French toast (good), the breakfast croissant sandwich (good), breakfast enchilada (meh) and the bacado omelette (yum), which is exactly what it sounds like – a bacon and avocado omelet.  Everything is always brought out fairly quickly, even if the restaurant is crowded.  Our bill usually comes out to around $23.

As for the parking situation, there is an underground structure around the corner from the restaurant if you can’t find space in the lot.  Also, you don’t have to pay at the box in the lot if you’re eating at The Eggery.  The above ground lot is closed on Saturdays to make room for a farmer’s market, which sells flowers, fruits, produce and some delicious cashews.

My boyfriend and I eat here about once a month, and will continue to return as long as we live in San Diego.

Verdict: 4.5/5

The Cottage (La Jolla)

If you’re willing to commute to La Jolla, The Cottage is a semi-fancy brunch place with both inside and outside seating.  On weekends I would recommend getting there by 9:00 a.m.  They have coffee while you wait, which is always nice.  I have had their eggs benedict, but their French toast is really where it’s at.  It is divine.

The parking situation isn’t great, because it’s all street parking, but there’s usually a lot around and you won’t need to walk more than a couple blocks to the restaurant.

It’s a bit of a drive and a little pricy, but in my opinion, The Cottage is worth it.

Verdict: 4.5/5

For people like me, the red carpet is really the highlight of the show.  We ooh and aah at Catherine Zeta Jones, we drool over Hugh Jackman (and the entire male cast of Les Mis, for that matter), and we start using tons of Visine to sooth our burning eyeballs after Anne Hathaway pops up on screen.  After watching Hathaway’s boobs accept her Oscar for her that night, I (and the majority of America) found ourselves echoing Heart of Darkness as we screamed “The horror! The horror!” (And yes, I did just mention Heart of Darkness solely for the purpose of trying to sound smart.)

Now don’t get me wrong, I understand everyone has the right to “individually express themselves” and all that crap.  I don’t care.  There are certain things that will never look cute, and there are certain fashion trends that will never be OK.  Anne Hathaway wearing a see through pink apron made out of paper-bag material on the night she is going to win an Oscar is just one example.  Here are some others that I unfortunately see all too frequently at USD.

1.) Spandex Pants as Real Pants

Stop doing it. Unless you are going to the gym, wearing black spandex pants in place of real pants will forever make you look like white trash.  Even if you’re not white.   This is not a good thing.  There are only two permissible exceptions where wearing spandex pants is permissible, if not encouraged: (1) If you are going to exercise after class or if you just left the gym and then came to class.  Yeah you’ll smell like sweat, but at least you won’t look like an idiot. (2) If you are wearing a tunic or a shirt that is long enough to at least cover your butt.  Go crazy with your spandex in that case, my friends.

This plea is probably going to upset some of my male friends, but seriously, looking like a hobo in public is not worth being able to show off your goodies at law school.  Then again, if you are going to school with the intention of showing off your goodies, you probably have problems far worse than looking like a hobo in public

2.) Tank Tops on Men

We’ve all heard me talk about this one many a time.  Naturally, the gym and beach exceptions apply here as well, although even then you’re pushing it.  Basically, it’s pretty simple, guys.  If you want to look like you just left the set of Jersey Shore, please, keep wearing your tank tops.  And while you’re at it, go and get a spray tan after class too.

3.) All Too Short Shorts

Don’t get me wrong, I honestly love me a pair of Daisy Dukes.  However, there’s a line between wearing shorts and between wearing bathing suit bottoms.  For example, there I was, the first week of class.  My morning class had just ended, and I friend of mine and I were getting up and heading towards the exit of the classroom, when suddenly I spotted a girl who at first glance appeared to be wearing only a shirt and nothing else.  In shock, I went a bit closer to her and noticed perhaps one of the greatest magic tricks I had seen all year: she WAS wearing shorts! Granted, they were probably an inch long, but lo and behold they were there.  Here was someone who had managed to wear bottoms without actually wearing bottoms.  It was miraculous.  It was also absolutely horrific.  Listen, homegirls, if you’ve got it and want to flaunt it, that’s great, really.  We’re all proud of you.  But seriously, save it for the beach or the clubz.  I’d like to think the law college is a bit classier than that.

I could probably go on for a bit longer about fashion faux pas, but I don’t think I should come off as more of a judgmental elitist than I really am.  So let’s leave it there, people, and try to up our standards a bit.  Trust me when I say that you don’t want to look like the next Anne Hathaway.

By JC Sheppard
President, Public Interest Law Foundation

One of the things that attracted me to USD is the fact that its programs offer a unique opportunity for exposure to the world of public interest law. These opportunities enable law students to learn substantive law while gaining real-world experience in many niche areas of public interest law—everything from domestic violence prevention to environmental law, from children’s advocacy to consumer rights.  I immersed myself in the courses and clinics offered by the Center for Public Interest Law and the Children’s Advocacy Institute, which have opened my eyes to how the government works (or doesn’t work) to advance the interests of consumers and children.

With Community Service Grant (CSG) funding provided by USD’s Financial Aid Office, I spent the summer after my 1L year working at a domestic violence clinic in a public courthouse, writing restraining orders for victims of domestic violence or civil harassment.  My experience at the clinic was fantastic:  I had a lot of one-on-one client contact, I improved my legal writing and analysis skills, and I went home each day feeling like I had improved someone’s life. During the summer after my 2L year (again, with CSG funding provided by USD), I worked at Advocacy Forum-Nepal, an organization of Nepali lawyers who work to assist victims of human rights abuses through Nepal’s legal system.

But what good will this exposure and training do if my student loan debt keeps me from working in public interest law after I graduate?  How can we encourage intelligent, hard-working young lawyers to take public interest jobs, like the director of a DV clinic, when the salary is not enough to pay off law school debt?

The Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF), a student organization, started USD’s Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP) in 1993.  LRAP provides postgraduate assistance to USD law graduates who go into qualifying public interest jobs at nonprofit organizations.  To ensure adequate funding for this program in perpetuity, PILF and then-Dean Dan Rodriguez reached an agreement in 1998:  The Dean would expand and enlarge CSGs, and allow them to be used anywhere for summer nonprofit employment; PILF would conduct an annual pledge drive to raise funding for LRAP; and the Dean would match the funding raised by PILF up to $20,000 per year.  This plan has proven very successful: through the efforts of PILF and the support of three successive deans (Dan Rodriguez, Kevin Cole, and current Dean Stephen Ferruolo), LRAP is now endowed and is able to fund 4-6 grants per year at $7,000-$8,000 per award.  Since 1995, LRAP has funded 61 grants totaling over $350,000.  LRAP allows USD Law graduates to take (and keep) public interest jobs that they love but would otherwise have to forego because of outstanding law school debt.

Students who receive LRAP funds must work at a nonprofit organization, earn under $52,000 at the time of initial application, and have at least $80,000 in law school debt (undergraduate debt is not included). Recipients of LRAP funds in previous years have worked at nonprofits like the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, USD’s Children’s Advocacy Institute, the Immigration and Refugee Rights Coalition, Legal Aid, the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, the Humane Society, San Diego Advocates for Social Change, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Centro Legal Por Derechos Humanos, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, Public Law Center, and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego.

We need your help!  During the week of March 4-8, PILF will conduct the Fifteenth Annual LRAP Pledge Drive.  PILF members will be approaching USD Law faculty, administrators, alumni, and students for contributions which will be matched by Dean Ferruolo up to $20,000.  Every penny contributed will be used to assist USD law graduates working in public interest jobs in repaying their law school loans.  The practice of public interest law benefits everyone, so please, make a contribution.  Let’s make the Dean pay!