Laura Keeley moving on to Columbia Law School

[MartyClark]

I won't lie -- I calculated how many questions I could get wrong to pass the bar exam, calculated how many questions about the rules agains perpetuity could really be on the exam, figured how many folks would know the answers as opposed to guessing -- and figured I would nor worry about it.

Passed the bar, and have practiced now for a quarter century.
Still not relevant to anything I do.

I passed the bar 39 years ago. Another state bar 5 years later. I found I could cram a few facts about this into my mind for a brief period of time, enough gain confidence to take a bar exam.

About 10 years ago, I had a complicated commercial case involving an oil well. I was stunned, and baffled, when my opponent began talking about the Rule Perpetuities. I think the judge was more stunned and quickly shut it down. Thank goodness.

[Jim3k]

California loves irself some DRR. It was on the exam in February 1987 when I took it. I've never heard of there being a DRR question in any other state.

Arizona in 1967 and later in Washington state (1972). DRR was there for both. I passed those on the first try. California took me three in the early eighties* (Seventeen years out of law school.) But each of the California exams had it (one was a fake-out and one was on the multi-state).
--------------
* Putting me in good company: Gov.& A.G. Jerry Brown, Gov. Pete Wilson, Antonio Villaraigosa (who never passed) and Kathleen Sullivan (Stanford Law Dean.)

[OldPhiKap]

I passed the bar 39 years ago. Another state bar 5 years later. I found I could cram a few facts about this into my mind for a brief period of time, enough gain confidence to take a bar exam.

About 10 years ago, I had a complicated commercial case involving an oil well. I was stunned, and baffled, when my opponent began talking about the Rule Perpetuities. I think the judge was more stunned and quickly shut it down. Thank goodness.

My first case in our state Supreme Court was a cry pres doctrine case. Had no idea what that was before I took the case.

[Merlindevildog91]

California loves irself some DRR. It was on the exam in February 1987 when I took it. I've never heard of there being a DRR question in any other state.

Virginia didn't have one in 1991. Had a lot of other gibberish, though.

[hallcity]

Laura Keely talks about the reasons why she's leaving reporting for law school.

I think she underestimates the demands of law school and law practice. It really is a jealous mistress.

[cato]

Laura Keely talks about the reasons why she's leaving reporting for law school.

I think she underestimates the demands of law school and law practice. It really is a jealous mistress.

She should be able to handle the demands of law school. She's had a real job for many years, and she is good at it. I assume she has a good work ethic, I know she can write well, and she will be taking school seriously. She will be up for the task.

Practicing law is much more challenging. Did she say if she wants to pursue being an agent? One of my friends is an agent, and it's interesting, but very demanding in its own right.

[westwall]

Passed the bar, and have practiced now for a quarter century. Still not relevant to anything I do.

OTOH, took and passed the DC bar in 1962 -- largely due to a recent decision we had studied in my Federal Jurisdiction course that appeared , and I remembered, on the exam. Then practiced 'big case' patent lit in Federal Courts for 50 yrs, but found that one course was very relevant to much that I did. Whew!

[luburch]

Here's more on Keeley leaving the Duke beat and some information on the sit-down she had with Duke officials after the K/Woj article http://raleighco.com/media-circus/ke...or-law-school/

[cato]

Here's more on Keeley leaving the Duke beat and some information on the sit-down she had with Duke officials after the K/Woj article http://raleighco.com/media-circus/ke...or-law-school/

Excellent link, luburch. I was disappointed to see the weak sauce from Jon Jackson, the guy in the AD's office who snubbed Laura during the sit down after her article on Woj's hit piece. He "declined to comment," but went on to say that he didn't want to make public any details from a "meeting that was intended to be private among professional colleagues."

Jon, if you don't want to comment, don't comment. Taking a little backhanded slap at the woman who called you out does not make you look any better.

I will miss Laura.

[killerleft]

Excellent link, luburch. I was disappointed to see the weak sauce from Jon Jackson, the guy in the AD's office who snubbed Laura during the sit down after her article on Woj's hit piece. He "declined to comment," but went on to say that he didn't want to make public any details from a "meeting that was intended to be private among professional colleagues."

Jon, if you don't want to comment, don't comment. Taking a little backhanded slap at the woman who called you out does not make you look any better.

I will miss Laura.

Yep. Not Duke's finest hour. Not Laura's best piece, by any means, but calling her and her editor on the carpet was bush league.

[Reisen]

Great link. I actually found the most interesting part about the competition from in-house media.

Duke has a unique advantage there in the quality of the school, and the talent it attracts. Guys like Scheyer, who was given as an example in the article. They're likely smart enough, and well educated enough, to contribute both directly to the basketball program, and also indirectly to the basketball brand through media.

That has to be hard for the N&O when the University itself is putting out high quality content.

[johnb]

Great link. I actually found the most interesting part about the competition from in-house media.

Duke has a unique advantage there in the quality of the school, and the talent it attracts. Guys like Scheyer, who was given as an example in the article. They're likely smart enough, and well educated enough, to contribute both directly to the basketball program, and also indirectly to the basketball brand through media.

That has to be hard for the N&O when the University itself is putting out high quality content.

Congrats to Ms. Keeley. She's sharp, insightful and writes well and quickly; she has the makings of an excellent lawyer.

I trust her perspective on the Duke meeting (sounds like bullying, and I have no reason to think that bullying wasn't Jackson's intention).

She makes an excellent point about the in-house competition, which is only going to intensify with an ACC network. Why give away the milk for free when you plan to skin the cow? Or something like that.

The USA basketball marketing issue is also interesting, and most interesting issues in the world are overdetermined and complicated. I assume K's involvement with USA is no different. K is the perfect coach for the national team: West Point, etc. It's a great challenge to coach the best players in the world, and he'd already mastered the basic job of running a college program. At the same time, K is obviously interested in recruiting the Okafors and Giles type players to Duke and is very interested in extending his personal records and enhancing his own bank account. He was not a good loser early in his career, and, while he is more tactful these days after a loss, it's not hard to see that his competitive fires burn brightly. Including winning in the court of public opinion.

I'm a fan, and I don't like to hear or read Duke sniping, especially if it's a little over the top and a little unfair. Keeley is/was a journalist, however, and is/was paid to provide insights. It's useful to be reminded that that she had to peel back her insights in order to gain further access and that the program inevitably has its own agenda--and that the program has a publicity machine that is better funded than than the newspaper that employed her.

[OldPhiKap]

Great link. I actually found the most interesting part about the competition from in-house media.

Duke has a unique advantage there in the quality of the school, and the talent it attracts. Guys like Scheyer, who was given as an example in the article. They're likely smart enough, and well educated enough, to contribute both directly to the basketball program, and also indirectly to the basketball brand through media.

That has to be hard for the N&O when the University itself is putting out high quality content.

Dave Harding rocks. He has a good future in sports broadcasting I think.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Great link. I actually found the most interesting part about the competition from in-house media.

Duke has a unique advantage there in the quality of the school, and the talent it attracts. Guys like Scheyer, who was given as an example in the article. They're likely smart enough, and well educated enough, to contribute both directly to the basketball program, and also indirectly to the basketball brand through media.

That has to be hard for the N&O when the University itself is putting out high quality content.

Agreed, but it's also biased content. As a fan, I will read every word with a smile, but it's always good to get the point of view from the outside perspective as well. Even though some of it makes me cringe, I will always appreciate an honest critique. Bright side, the internet is a huge place and there is plenty of room for both...fans like us will likely read anything to satiate our hunger. (And casual/non-fans probably don't see the Duke produced pieces as nearly as often as they do those put out by the other media outlets.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

Dave Harding rocks. He has a good future in sports broadcasting I think.

Yes he does! He's been fun to watch as he's progressed from the field to the media.

[RPS]

Laura, a little hint -- Pennoyer v. Neff is not good law anymore. Doesn't mean that you won't spend a month talking about it before your prof tells you that.

You'll thank me later.

At the risk of being overly self-serving, I told a story about the wonderful Duke prof who taught me about Pennoyer v. Neff here.

[Indoor66]

At the risk of being overly self-serving, I told a story about the wonderful Duke prof who taught me about Pennoyer v. Neff here.

There are many of who fondly remember J. Phatty Rascal.

[rasputin]

There are many of who fondly remember J. Phatty Rascal.

I'm one of 'em.

[duke79]

At the risk of being overly self-serving, I told a story about the wonderful Duke prof who taught me about Pennoyer v. Neff here.

LOL....ah yes, Professor Paschal...one of my LEAST favorite professors in law school!!! I had him for "civ pro" first year at Duke Law. IMHO, just a very grumpy and not-very-pleasant human being. LOL. I have vague memories of being called on when I was not fully prepared for class and it was NOT a pleasant experience. LOL.

[RPS]

There are many of who fondly remember J. Phatty Rascal.

As I recall, for the first several classes of the year in Civil Procedure, our esteemed professor asked a number of questions in class, with the correct answer to each being, "He [she/the company] filed a Complaint." We eventually caught on.