Spring Semester Update

Zoom apathy aside, I haven’t actually talked about my spring classes yet so - better late than never! With only three weeks left in the semester, here are a few fun tidbits* about each one.

*As always, this is not legal advice of any kind! Just a little fun information.*

TRUSTS & ESTATES

T&E is all about figuring out what happens to people’s stuff when they die, which is FAR more complicated than I imagined. American trusts & estate law rests on the “freedom of disposition,” or the idea that people should have total control over how their stuff is distributed. Therefore, we focus heavily on determining what the decedent intended to do with their stuff - easier said than done in many cases. Freedom of disposition is a very ‘American’ concept - our law is meant to facilitate distribution, not regulate it.

A few relevant terms here. Distribution of assets can happen through a court (“probate”) or automatically, without court intervention (“non-probate”). On the probate side of the house, some decedents die without a will (“intestate”) and some die with a will (“testate”). All states have “intestate laws” which govern who gets what when there’s no will; otherwise, the focus is on what the will says. That can be straightforward (if everyone agrees and takes their share) or very, very complicated (if someone complains and everyone has to fight it out in court).

On the non-probate side of the house, decedents leave tons of money in trusts, brokerage and bank accounts, insurance policies, and pensions. Since those all have designated beneficiaries, they’re pretty straightforward to distribute - unless, again!, someone contests (which happens a lot because people forget to update their beneficiaries all the time).

Bottom line: “trusts” are the new “wills,” there are lots of misconceptions on how to properly execute both of them, and step-situations cause a lotttttttttttt of will contests.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Aka, “PIL” - and talk about c o m p l i c a t e d. We’re in the second part of the course, the part dedicated to the laws of war, but the first half of the class set the necessary groundwork. We talked about the United Nations and its various bodies, including the General Assembly and Security Council; the sources of international law, like treaties and custom; how international law interacts with American domestic law; and the jurisdiction of/dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice.

Last week we discussed the use of force ad bellum (before war) and in bello (during war). We talked about the various types of self-defense (which is the only ‘legal’ way to enter an armed conflict), humanitarian intervention, the Geneva Convention protocols, and specific incidents stemming from various international incidents. Most recently, we discussed who and what constitutes lawful targets during time of war - a fascinating and highly controversial topic. The last few classes are dedicated to human rights, the war on terrorism, and the future of international criminal law.

My PIL professor is amazing - she challenges everyone on principle and her cold calls are fairly pointed and intense. Every professor will stump a student at some point, but most usually re-frame their question or give a nudge in the right direction if someone is really struggling. This professor won’t talk again until the cold-callee says something, which has resulted in some very, very awkward pauses. It’s brutal but effective - most come to class extremely well-prepared. Plus, she told us she’d be very direct from the beginning!

MEDIATION

As predicted, I love the hands-on aspect of this course. For 90 minutes every Tuesday morning, I play the role of client, lawyer, or mediator for that week’s given scenario. So far we’ve seen a few employee-employer disputes, a divorce case, a sibling fight, and a landlord-tenant disagreement. Playing a disgruntled party is VERY fun, but I always learn a ton in the other two roles.

A basic mediation is either voluntary or court-ordered after a lawsuit has been filed. Both parties and their attorneys show up at a designated place and time, where they’ll work with one or two mediators to resolve their problem. The parties begin by meeting together to go over ground rules and give their consent to the process. Each party is given a chance to voice “their side of the story” - attorneys chime in as needed - before the mediators split them up and meet in separate “caucuses.” Some mediations are conducted almost solely in private sessions, and the parties rarely see one another; others include multiple group sessions and lots of face time between the opposing groups. Either way, it’s the mediator’s job to ensure both parties’ needs are met throughout the process and both are satisfied if they reach a resolution.

Long story short: no matter how much planning you do, mediations always go in a direction you don’t expect. My favorite part is brainstorming solutions for both sides - the possibilities are truly endless, and usually involve some kind of emotional resolution that court proceedings don’t have!

NATIONAL SECURITY LAW

This is my “fun class” for the semester, and we only meet for six two-hour sessions; of the five so far, they’ve all been fantastic! We started by exploring the role of a national security lawyer as threats and technology change, then dove into government surveillance after 9/11; bulk data collection and issues with tech encryption; the AUMF and drone strikes; and finally (this week) the future of cyber threats. I personally found “drone week” the most interesting - it’s an area where international and domestic law collide, and different administrations have VERY different takes on the legal limits involved. President Biden recently limited counterterrorism strikes outside of war zones while his team reviews US targeting policies, so we may see changes in the near future.

We read a lot for this course but it’s from a fascinating variety of books, legal articles, case law, and speeches. I also like the class itself, which is very discussion-based. We meander through the reading materials and examine different perspectives, points of weakness in the law or its interpretation, and throw out proposals for balancing the privacy and security of American citizens. My professor always has great insight based on his own (very unique) career path. He started as a federal homicide prosecutor in D.C. and counsel to the Director of the FBI. From there, he transitioned to the Justice Department in a variety of positions (notably leading the Guantanamo Review Task Force, which examined the continued detention of individual prisoners) before serving as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center for three years under President Obama. Now he’s shifted again to the Chief Security Officer at Uber (!!) which gives me great optimism about the many paths possible from my own start as a JAG.

OVERALL…

I’m such a fan of these four classes, it’s a real bummer that they’re online. The professors have done a great job with the transition and acknowledging the tough nature of Zoom Law, but I’d love to meet with them in person. Also, they’re definitely not letting up on us - I have no doubt our finals will be just as hard as the in-person versions. But I have no regrets re: my choice of classes or professors, and for that - I’m grateful!!