Rofes, Peter K.

English

bepress Legal Repository

One Fine Day

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

ESSAYONE FINE DAYPEThR K. RoFEstOne day, when our sixth-grade teacher posed the question ofquestions-What Do You Hope To Be When You Grow Up?-aclose childhood friend replied that he planned to be a philanthro-pist. Pressed to explain this unusual aspiration, my friend con-fessed that although he had no idea what philanthropists did for aliving, he had never heard of one that hadn't done well.Law professors have at least one thing in common with phi-lanthropists: People lack a clear understanding of how we spendour days. Perhaps that is because few people care. Or perhaps itis because we ourselves don't really know because, unlike practic-ing lawyers, we no longer have to fill out timesheets each day tojustify our paychecks. Even family and friends ask questions thatreveal a shameful ignorance of what we do for a living. Inevitably,as May approaches, we are greeted with a chorus of "Well, withclasses finishing up, what are you gonna do with three monthsoff?"t Associate Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School; B.A. Brandeis,A.M. Harvard, J.D. Columbia.This essay is part of a larger project underway in which I examine (in much thesame vein as this piece explores the work day of law professors) a host of aspects of theAmerican law school, including the admissions process, the classroom, the final examina-tion, grades, the role of the Constitution, the job interview, multiculturalism, the facultymeeting, and the graduation speech. See, e.g., Peter K. Rofes, Ethics and the Law SchookThe Confusion Persists, 8 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 981 (1995); Peter K. Rofes, Getting In."The Why and the How of It, 1995 UTAH L. REV. (forthcoming); Peter K. Rofes, Grades,73 WASH U. L.Q. (forthcoming 1995); Peter K. Rofes, Law School and the Constitution,23 FLA. ST. U. L. REv. 71 (1995). As for acknowledgements, candor compels me todisclose that, with one exception, none of my colleagues at Marquette has offered any-thing but scorn for the project. The one exception is a colleague who has offered whatcan best be described as derision rather than scorn. I remain grateful nonetheless fortheir collegiality, congeniality, and conviviality. I am also grateful to the editors of Wis-consin Lawyer, whose invitation many years ago to discuss the work-day activities of lawprofessors first prompted me to sketch the outlines of the approach I have pursued inthis piece, and to the editors of the Duke Law Journal, for their encouragement, mischie-vousness, and good judgment. Finally, thanks to the Chiffons, Carole King, and GerryGoffm for help with the title.DUKE LAW JOURNALDespite these misapprehensions, the work life of a law profes-sor consists of three principal activities: teaching, scholarship, andservice, both to the law school and to the community at large.'The typical professorial work day reflects these activities. As mightbe expected, no two professors allocate their energies in quite thesame way. Nonetheless, a survey of colleagues across the nationand a look at my own calendars from the past few years have en-abled me to piece together a paradigmatic work day in the life ofa law professor.'8:05 - 8:30 a.m.Commute to work, thinking deeply about recent Supreme Courtdecisions.8:40 - 8:55 a.m.Thumb through New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and othermajor American newspapers. Outraged at persistent absence of"certiorari," "penumbra," "mandamus," "Lochnerize," and "pruri-ent" from daily crossword puzzle, compose scathing letter to theeditor advising Times to cancel subscription.8:56 - 8:58 a.m.Class preparation.Prepare for class in the usual fashion: Scramble around the officesearching for notes used last year to cover same materials. Wipedust off notes.9:00 - 9:50 a.m.Teach class.Remind students several times during the hour that cases beingdiscussed today would have come out better if judges were asincisive, analytical, and sensitive as law professors.1. As will become apparent to the discerning reader, the paradigmatic professor setforth in this essay specializes in constitutional law and professional responsibility.[Vol. 45:133ONE FINE DAY10:00 - 10:20 a.m.Coffee in faculty lounge.Spirited discussion of contemporary legal issues, including annualNCAA tournament pool, prospects of Red Sox or Cubs winningWorld Series prior to the end of the world, and extent to whichactivist federal judges bear responsibility for the assassination ofJFK, the federal debt, and the major league baseball strike.10:25 - 10:40 a.m.Meet with research assistant.Advise her what article she should write next under my name.11:00 - 11:55 a.m.Meeting of faculty appointments committee.Notify colleagues that both Michael. Milken and Robert Pack-wood have declined our offers to occupy the Segretti Chair inProfessional Ethics for the upcoming year. Vigorous debate aboutbackup candidates. Professor Plum pleads with committee mem-bers to be sensitive to considerations of diversity and then votesagainst all candidates who attended law schools other than hisalma mater or are in any other respect different from himself.12:00 - 12:15 p.m.Research.Examine bootleg copy of Richard Posner's The Problems ofJurisprudence. Explore suggestion of hermeneutics scholars that,by putting together one letter in every ten thousand, message"Bork is dead, Reagan should have nominated me instead" is re-peated seven times throughout the book.Put finishing touches on most recent law review article,Deconstructing TV Guide: Derrida and the Power Rangers.1995]DUKE LAW JOURNAL12:20 - 1:15 p.m.Lunch with colleagues.Discussion ranges from low faculty salaries and financial sacrificesof career in legal academics to comparative performance ofLexus LS 400, Infiniti Q-45, BMW 5 series, and Acura Legend.Questions raised about extent to which Kantian theory can justifyviolent overthrow of current Dean. Consensus reached: RequestDean to form ad hoc committee charged with investigating mat-ter. [Later that afternoon the Dean agrees, dubbing it "a splen-did idea."]1:30 - 1:45 p.m.Office minutes.Chat with students disturbed that they are required to read Mar-bury v. Madison, an obscure case from 1803. Students inquire asto when we get to "the practical stuff."Conference with student from last semester to review and explainfinal examination grade. Student complains that grade in mycourse was her lowest of semester. Assure her how deeply sorryIam.Visit from student seeking letter of recommendation for federaljudicial clerkship. Advise student that, given that he failed two ofthe three courses taken from me and was caught cheating on theexamination for the other, recommendation may not do justice tohis legal skills.2:00 - 4:10 p.m.Back nine with local judges. While waiting at the fourteenth tee,mention names of some students who would be good law clerks.Immediately thereafter, make notation to write off greens andcart fees, gas, and new set of Pings as unreimbursed employeebusiness expenses. Gently break it to Judge Alzheimer that, yes,the law school has managed to survive the influx of "lady" stu-dents.[Vol. 45:13319951 ONE FINE DAY 1374:20 - 4:30 p.m.Interview with local reporter concerning allegations about theshirt, hat, and shoe sizes of Stephen Breyer and how such sizesare likely to affect his views of Roe v. Wade and the constitu-tional status of abortion rights.4:35 - 4:45 p.m.Telephone call from former student inquiring whether any rule ofprofessional conduct would be implicated were he to divert set-tlement funds intended to be passed along to his client in orderto upgrade the furniture and computer equipment in his lawoffice.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3292&amp;context=dlj

One Fine Day

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Duke Law Scholarship Repository