Law students introduced to rigors of profession on first day

by Skip Anderson

Photo by Neil Brake
Professor Robert K. Rasmussen challenged first-year law students to discuss the details of Hawkins v. McGee on the first day of class.

As is generally the case at top-tier legal education institutions, first-year students at Vanderbilt Law School were indoctrinated to the rigors of their chosen profession in the opening seconds of their first class.

With four words, Robert K. Rasmussen, professor of law, derailed the pre-class buzz of conversation.

"Is Ms. Kano here?"

"I can't catch a break," said Kano, laughing. The professor and the other 90 students in "Contracts," a staple in the first-year curriculum, also laughed.

"What are the facts of Hawkins v. McGee?"

Kano proclaimed her answer with confidence.

"That is the procedural history of the case," said Rasmussen. "What are the facts?"

Her fellow students were not invited to help her; Kano was on her own. With very lawyer-like diction, the young woman dressed in a dark suit recited important-sounding facts, occasionally glancing to the hand-written notes before her. Apparently her lengthy answer was correct. Over the course of the next 15 minutes, Rasmussen posed question after question to Kano. Some of the answers were factual, others called for legal interpretation or analysis of the text. As the discussion gained momentum, Rasmussen removed his dark suit jacket and rolled up the sleeves of his blue, tailored shirt.

"What is the legal theory by which the plaintiff believes he is owed money?"

After 20 minutes or so, much of the class was included in the discussion. A tall, thin man, the professor paced back and forth with his arms folded as he listened, occasionally nodding his head. Rasmussen smiled as he prodded the students for more information, or challenged a statement he or she had made. Perhaps he smiled because the students who comprise "Section B" of the Class of 2003 did not seem intimidated. They appeared well prepared and eager to engage in the classroom discussion. Perhaps, too, he smiled because the students remained focused amidst the muffled sounds of the construction/renovation project that will continue through 2001.

Class convened in the beautiful Auditorium located in one of the two impressive additions flanking the northeast and southwest sides of the 38-year-old Law School Building currently under renovation.

In stark contrast to the "old" Law School Building, the additions are as comfortable as they are aesthetically impressive, inside and out. The additions feature high-tech amenities and plenty of sunlight. The almost-finished Auditorium, located where Underwood Auditorium once stood, has generous, room-long student workspaces complete with AC power and Ethernet terminals. The back of the room has rows of large, cushioned chairs with retractable desktops tucked away between the armrests. The smell of new carpet and fresh paint is prominent in the room. The head of the classroom resembles a courtroom, with an elevated judge's bench and a witness stand on either side. On the front of the judge's stand is a dry-erase board on which Rasmussen scribbled details of Hawkins v. McGee and three fictional cases created to illustrate points raised by inquisitive students. Student questions were frequently met with new questions.

"Does the appellate court agree with the trial court regarding reliance damages in Hawkins v. McGee?"

Pacing, Rasmussen stumbled a bit when a student offered the incorrect answer that, truthfully, sounded more like a question in the way it was stated.

"Let's go to the second page [of the class roster]. People below 'M' can now feel comfortable," said Rasmussen. "Ms. Simpson ..."

Halfway through the period, the students had commandeered much of the dialogue, prodding deeper and deeper into the nuances of the Hawkins v. McGee case from 1923.

"You can believe that judges at this time were all white males," said Rasmussen. This is not the case for the Class of 2003, which appeared roughly equal numbers of males and females, and many African-American, Asian-American and international students.

The longer the class continued, the more detailed-oriented the discussion became. Efforts to determine the differences between reliance damages versus expectation damages brought a fictional scenario involving a roofing company.

"What if I hired Hetcher Roofing Company to install the very best shingles available, but Hetcher used the second-best brand?" asked Rasmussen.

Hands went up and students offered explanations.

Rasmussen, whose wide range of vocal inflections was accompanied by animated gestures, used a reference to the movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome to illustrate a point about how contracts relate to broken verbal promises.

"Who remembers the punishment for someone who is charged with breaking a promise in that movie? Break a deal, spin the wheel."

In the real world, "you can have a contract without having anything written down," he said.

At the conclusion of class, the students made their way out of the Auditorium and through an impressive vestibule and into brand new study areas, parts of which await a final coat of paint, or other minor bits of work to be considered finished.