Real Lawyer Reacts to Legally Blonde | LegalEagle

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

I really didn't like when he said that malum in se and malum prohibitum were obscure Latin phrases. I learned the definition of those when I took Intro to Legal Studies as an undergraduate. These are not "obscure Latin phrases." I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer and didn't go to law school, yet I still know the definition of those phrases.

👍︎︎ 1 👤︎︎ u/locks_are_paranoid 📅︎︎ Jul 21 2020 🗫︎ replies
Captions
- [James] Thanks to Bluepring LSAT for helping me get into my dream law school and supporting the channel. - [Warner] I was thinking maybe we could go out sometime. - [Elle] No, you're a dork. - [Warner] I'm in law school. - Oh boy, I'm in law school is a terrible pickup line. At least I don't think it's a good pickup line. Is it a good pickup line? Have I wasted my life? - Now you're thinking like a lawyer. (happy bouncy music) - Hey Legal Eagles, it's time to think like a lawyer because today we have a special treat. We are covering perhaps the most highly requested legal movie of all time on this channel, "Legally Blonde." - I've waited so long to hear you say that. - I have a special connection to this movie and I was saving it for something special, and that time has arrived. LegalEagle has one million subscribers which is just incredible. A lot of laws have been broken along the way and a lot of #NotLegalAdvice has been handed out. So without further ado, let's dig in to "Legally Blonde." Put on your pinkest tie. - This is gonna be just like senior year, except for funner. - Find your fluffiest dog. (dogs barking) And let's get in to "Legally Blonde." - I plan on running for office some day. - And I fully support that, Warner. You know that, right? - Absolutely. - Okay. - But the thing is, if I'm gonna be a senator by the time I'm 30, I need to stop (beeps) around. - Yeah, so the U.S. Constitution says that to be a senator, you have to be at least 30-years-old so he literally cannot be a senator before he turns 30. This guy is kind of a dumb-dumb. - You have no idea the pressure that I am under. My family has five generations of senators. My brother's in the top three at Yale Law. - So that would be a big deal if one's brother was in the top three at Yale Law School, because although Harvard is probably the most well-known law school in the country, Yale is continually ranked the best law school in the U.S. Yale sends more people to the Supreme Court, more people clerk for the Supreme Court, Yale is generally considered slightly more prestigious than Harvard even though Harvard is probably better known. So yeah, that would be a big deal. - So you're breaking up with me because you're afraid your family won't like me? Everybody likes me. - Well, East Coast people are different. - East Coast people are different, true that. - Harvard Law School? - That's right. - But that's a top-three school. - Oh, I have a 4.0. - Yes. But your major is fashion merchandising. - Okay, so this is a pretty common misconception that to go to law school you need to have some pre-law major or you have to be a poli sci major. Law schools, in my experience, really don't care that much about what your undergrad major is because none of those majors really prepare you for either law school or becoming a practicing attorney. So the fact that Elle has a degree in fashion merchandising probably won't matter that much all. In fact, it seems like she went to a good school, the same school that her boyfriend went to. So I doubt that her particular major is gonna have much of an effect. On the other hand, it could actually help her. Law schools are inundated with people who have a political science degree, or English majors, or history majors. So if you have a degree that is interesting and stands out or shows you wanna go into a particular legal specialty, then that can actually help you get into law school. But for the most part, your undergrad major has no effect whatsoever. - What are your backups? - I don't need backups. I'm going to Harvard. - Well, then. You'll need excellent recommendations from your professors. - Okay. - And a heck of an admissions essay. - All right, so that part is true. In order to apply to law school, almost everyone uses the same online system and in order to complete your application for most schools, you have to attach at least two letters of recommendation. And using that same online system, almost every law school requires a personal statement, which is an essay that you will submit to those law schools. - Right. - And at least a 175 on your LSATs. - Yeah, so a 175 on the LSAT is a very, very high score and that is exactly the kind of score that you need to get into that school. Now the LSAT is judged on a score from 120 at the bottom to 180 at the high end, I have no idea why they chose those particular ranges, why it doesn't go from zero to 100, but it's 120 to 180. And if you're anywhere above 170 out of 180, then you are in the 99th percentile of all LSAT test-takers. So your chances of getting into Harvard at that point are pretty good. - You're gonna need this. - Your scrunchie? - My lucky scrunchie. It helped me pass Spanish. - You passed Spanish because you gave Professor Montoya a lap dance after the final. - Yeah, luckily. - Oof, that does not age well. (upbeat music) - Oh, hi. My name is Elle Woods, and for my admissions essay, I'm gonna tell all of you at Harvard why I'm gonna make an amazing lawyer. - All right, I'm sure I don't need to tell you that it's not appropriate to send a video version of your admissions essay. In fact, there's no way to upload that onto the law school application system and if you did mail that in, they would probably throw it directly into the trash. There's a time and a place for thinking outside the box, but your admissions essay is not that time and it's not that place. (gavel bangs) - A, neither type of opera or neither type of rap is on sale. B, neither type of jazz, neither type of opera is on sale. - So what they're hinting at here with this dialogue is a specific type of question that actually does show up on the LSAT. It's called a logic game. Generally you're given a fact pattern with a bunch of logical variables and you have to use logic and other tools to find out the correct answer based on different things that happen in the fact pattern. And these are the kinds of questions that people tend to have the hardest time with because they require a problem-solving mentality and certain problem-solving tools that people just don't necessarily know intuitively. So you have to learn that within the LSAT class and there's a whole cottage industry of people that try and teach you how to do well on the LSAT because it's such a counterintuitive test. - Get set, and go! - [Girl] And six, seven, eight, and push. - This is actually a pretty good scene. It's showing that she's taking practice LSAT exams before she takes the actual LSAT. And what's even better is that she's not just taking her practice exam in a deadly silent room, but she's taking it in a room with a bunch of distractions which I think is actually a habit that can really help in most kinds of tests. When you're taking the LSAT or any test for that matter, you're not taking it under ideal circumstances, things aren't going to be perfectly silent which is often the way that we study for exams and the way that we take practice exams. So you're likely to do better if you practice in an environment that it is not conducive to actually doing well. - Tell us! - What is it? - 179! (all cheering) (triumphant music) - A 179 on the LSAT would be an extraordinarily high number. Basically a perfect test, it means out of the 100 or 101 questions, she might have missed one or maybe two questions in the entire exam. Of course this was recorded before the LSAT required a written portion of the exam as well. At the time, it was all multiple choice. So good job, Elle Woods, that's very impressive. Of course she could've made it easier on herself by using Blueprint LSAT like I did. But no, no, I'll wait till the end, I'll tell you my story at the end of this video. - Wait a second, my social events calendar is missing. - Your what? - Social events. You know, mixers, formals, clambakes, trips to the Cape. - Yeah, so they're making the joke about law school that there's a lack of social events because that's largely true, especially in your first year of law school. One Ls who are first year law students are under so much stress that there's really not that much time for social activity. Sometimes you do what's called bar review which is usually on Thursday night which is not actually reviewing things for the bar, you're just going to a bar to drink. So if anyone says you're going to bar review, that's what they're talking about. That being said, as a two and three L, your schedule does opens up a bit so you have more time for recreation and there things like law school formals and dances and get togethers, and you know, still more bar review for drinking 'cause it's law school. But there are actual social directors and things like that. So, it's not crazy for her to have assumed that there would be actual social activities even as a one L. - This is the part where we go around in a circle and everyone says a little bit about themselves. - Hey, how you doing, I'm Enid Wexler, got a PhD from Berkeley in women's studies, emphasis in the history of combat. And last year I single-handedly organized the march for lesbians against drunk driving. - Killer. - Thanks, good times. - Yeah, so there you have yet another person who doesn't have the standard pre-law degree or poli sci degree. Law schools love to have a diversity of thought and a diverse student body. So that's a great example of someone who's not your run-of-the-mill law student and yet they're theoretically going to Harvard. - A legal education means you will learn to speak in a new language. You will be taught to achieve insight into the world around you. And to sharply question what you know. - That is very true. I would say that one of the most important takeaways I had from law school was just to dig deep, to be skeptical and to make sure that you check out all your premises before you jump to a conclusion. So in that respect, this law school professor seems to have a handle on things. - Does anyone know who spoke those immortal words? Yes. - Aristotle. - Are you sure? - Yes. - Would you be willing to stake your life on it? - I think so. - What about... - Ow! - His life? - Ugh, God, I hate this style of teaching but I've also had professors who had a similar teaching style that was very aggressive, very much about breaking the student down before building them back up again. I happen to think that is a terrible way to be a professor, but unfortunately, this style of teaching does exist, so I can say that this repartee is not completely unrealistic. It has happened in front of me before. - Now I assume all of you have read pages one through 48 and are now well-versed in subject matter jurisdiction. Who can tell us about Gordon v. Steele? - Oh my God, the Socratic method of teaching, I'm getting PTSD just thinking about it. So in a nutshell, the Socratic method is based on Socrates who went around not so much pontificating but asking questions of his students until he revealed so called deeper truths through these questions that went far below the surface. This is a style of teaching that you'll find in most law schools. I don't know why but law schools tend to be the last bastion of educational places that use the Socratic method. Nobody seems to do it, it's really a terrible teaching style. Number one, stresses the students out because they're on the hot seat, and they can be peppered with questions that they may or may not know the answer to. But on top of it, when you're the one that is being asked those questions, your brain tends to shut down and you don't really remember the actual exchange. And the craziest thing is that most law schools don't give any classroom points for participation or if they do, they give a very small amount for class participation. So all the stress that the Socratic method causes doesn't actually count for anything when you're in class, it's insane. - In addition to competing against each other for the top grade in this class, you will also be competing for one of my firm's highly-coveted four internship spots next year, where you will get to assist on actual cases. - I've never heard of a full professor at Harvard or any other law school for that matter, also being a full-time partner in a law firm at the same time, or at least I hadn't until I reviewed "How to Get Away with Murder" which has a similar conceit. And it's similarly insanely ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to be offering an internship to one of his students based on the best grade. What you will see is that a professor will give a TA Award to one of the highest performing students in his or her class. In other words, if you do really well in that class, you can come back the next semester or the next year and be a TA for that particular class which is a highly coveted award and kind of a mark of distinction. And having a job your first year summer in law school is really important because when you come back from the summer, that's when you tend to do interviews with the top law firms. So while this particular award seems very ethically dubious, the general concept is accurate in that you're trying to compete for one L summer jobs and to get a TA Award and be a TA for a professor. - Ms. Woods. Would you rather have a client who committed a crime malum in se or malum prohibitum? - Neither. - And why is that? - I would rather have a client who's innocent. (class laughing) - I hate using legalese and Latin. It's a common misconception that lawyers are going around spouting Latin all over the place. In reality, you really wanna minimize the amount of legalese that you're using because you don't wanna use overly complicated words and phrases. You want to be as persuasive as possible and really as down to Earth as possible. So whether you are drafting something to a judge or talking to a jury, it's actually very rare that you're going to use obscure Latin phrases like this friggin' nonsense. This is kind of a dumb question. - What's with the costume? - Oh I just decided to dress up. - Really? - You know, I feel like we barely get to see each other since we've been here. - Oh I know, I'm so busy with these case studies and hypos. - So this is actually kind of an accurate depiction of the stuff that first year students have to go through. You're inundated with cases that you have to read, because law school uses what's called the case method. So law students tend to brief every one of those cases before class and at the end of the year, when you're given your final exam or in your midterm, you're given what are called hypos and hypos refers to the type of essay questions that you tend to get on your final exam. For the most part in law school, you're tested based on a hypothetical set of facts. You're given a huge fact pattern and then you have to answer all these questions, like how many crimes are being committed and explain why, basically. So that's a little throwaway line that's accurately describing what most law students go through. - Come on, you're never gonna get the grades to qualify for one of those spots. You're not smart enough, sweetie. - Wait, am I on glue, or did we not get into the same law school, Warner? - So, she's actually making a really excellent point and this is another common misconception about law school which is that people assume that the quote unquote "smartest people" are the ones that are gonna get the best grades in law school as if knowing more law and knowing more facts will translate into better grades at the end of the semester. And in fairness, that is sort of the case in college and high school where memorizing things by rote will generally result in better grades when you regurgitate those facts back to the professor. But this is not the case in law school. Once you get into the same law school, all bets are off. There is no reason to assume that Elle would not be able to get as good a grade or better grades than the rest of her classmates. These kinds of exams are all about application. It's about thinking like a lawyer. Where have I heard that before? (upbeat music) It would be kind of like an engineering exam where you're not asked about formulas or about the history of engineering, you're asked in your final exam to build a car from scratch. That's kind of what you're doing but from a legal perspective. So people often screw this up and the people who get the best grades are generally not who you think they are. - You've filed a claim. ♪ Ooh ♪ - What next? ♪ Oh yeah yeah, oh yeah yeah ♪ - Ms. Woods? - Don't you need to have evidence? - [Professor] Meaning? - Meaning you need reasonable belief that your claim should have, like, evidentiary support? - That was a stupid question and a nonsensical answer. - I completely agree. - This is not a good example of a dialogue between a professor and a student at this point in the semester. - And the purpose of diminished capacity is? ♪ I'm taking over ♪ ♪ So watch me shine ♪ - To negate mens rea? ♪ Better watch out, going for the knock out ♪ - Okay, that is a reasonable question to ask, assuming this is a criminal law class, and that was a reasonable answer. There's a concept in criminal law called mens rea. It means to be guilty of a criminal offense, and you have to have the mental capacity to have done the crime itself. Sometimes committing the same action is a crime and sometimes it's not a crime, it depends on the mental state. So when she's saying that the diminished capacity negates mens rea, that's sort of correct. That would mean that the affirmative defense of diminished capacity might negate the mental state required to be guilty of the criminal offense. - I was, I... - Dewey Newcombe? - Who's asking? - I'm Elle Woods, Ms. Bonafonte's attorney. - Oh no, Elle, don't do that, that is bad news. Do not do that. - Come again? - Do you understand what subject matter jurisdiction is? - No. - I didn't think so. Well, due to habeas corpus. - Which means produce the body, that's absolute nonsense in this context. - You and Ms. Bonafonte had a common law marriage which heretofore entitles her to what is legally referred to as equitable division of the assets. - Yeah, I mean, that's a real phrase that gets used in divorce proceedings but that probably doesn't apply here. This is insane. - Come again? - Due to the fact that you've retained this residence, Ms. Bonafonte is entitled to full canine property ownership and will be enforcing said ownership right now. - Oh boy, okay. So what Elle has done here is she has pretended to be an attorney. She hasn't finished law school, she never passed the bar and she has absolutely no right to call herself an attorney. And when you do that, that's called the unauthorized practice of law. She has held herself out as an attorney, she's essentially committed a fraud against this other person and as a result, she's committed a huge ethical violation. So if anyone ever finds out that she committed this unauthorized practice of law while she was at Harvard Law School, she would probably be barred from entering the bar in virtually any state in the United States. I hate to see this both for the ethical lapse of judgment and as just someone bullying a layperson. - 10 people saw her downing Cosmopolitans at the Caribou Club. - All I know is it's not Brooke. - That's touching, Elle, but we need an alibi. - All right, I think they're confusing alibi with an alternate suspect. An alibi is something that you have to show you were not the one responsible or could not have done the crime that was committed; an alternate suspect is someone else who could have committed this crime. And they wanna have both but they already know their client doesn't have an alibi because she was the one that found the body so they're gonna have to do their best to come up with an alternate narrative. But it's important to note here that while an alibi or another suspect might be nice to have, it's not necessary for a criminal defendant to be acquitted. You might want to have it but again, the defense doesn't have the burden here. They don't have to prove anything, it's the prosecution that has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest burden in all of criminal law. - We got two interviews tomorrow, Gerard and Bobby, you're gonna handle the ex-wife in an hour and according to this communique from the prison, our client apparently had a visit from her sister, a Miss Delta Nu. - How much time are these law students spending on this murder trial? They're in the middle of their first semester at Harvard Law School. Harvard is not like Yale in that they've done away with letter grades. If anything, letter grades are bigger and badder in Harvard than anywhere else. So how are they spending hundreds of hours a week on this murder trial team as an intern while ignoring their law school and their law school grades. They're gonna get terrible grades, they're gonna fall behind in their reading in all the rest of their classes. This is not smart if they actually want passing grades in the classes that they're already in. - Did you ever take Mrs. Windham on a date? - Yes. - Where? - A restaurant in Concord where no one could recognize us. - And how long have you been sleeping with Mrs. Windham? - Three months. - And your boyfriend's name is-- - Chuck. - Right. - All right, all right, so this is a little ridiculous but what this attorney has done is employ a tactic that is actually used by actual trial attorneys and that tactic is to get the witness in a habit of agreeing with you. You ask a string of questions and it doesn't have to be as rapid-fire as here but you ask unobjectionable questions that you know the answer to and you know the witness is going to answer yes or no. And it's only at the end after you've trained the witness do you ask the question you really care about and by then it's too late. So it actually can work like that. A little bit, sort of. - Silence, silence! - Pardon me, pardon me. - Yes, Mr. Salvatore. - I was confused. You see I thought you said friend, Chuck is just a friend. - Oh okay. - You (beep). - Chuck wait! - Silence in my court! - All right, the judge has to keep control over her courtroom otherwise it's prejudicial to the defendant. But what happened outside of that witness's testimony is not evidence. The jury should not be able to take that into account. The defendants really, really should call that man Chuck to the stand and ask him questions about his relationship with a prior witness. I have a feeling they're not going to do that which is basically malpractice but that guy should be on the stand so you can get his reaction to the testimony and establish that the other witness has perjured himself. - I think it's time to discuss your career path. Have you thought about where you might be a summer associate? - Oh this is not good. - Not really. I know it's very competitive. - Well you know what competition is really about, don't you? It's about ferocity, carnage, balancing human intelligence with animal diligence. - I don't like the focus on the animals. - Knowing exactly what you want and how far you're gonna get it. How far will Elle go? - Oh God, all right, I called it. What a creep, what a creep. As we've seen in things like "Suits," this is an example of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Now the professor wasn't quite as explicit as the episode of "Suits" that we reviewed, but unfortunately what he's done here is implied that she could get a summer associate position and potentially take a full-time position with his firm if she agrees to his sexual advances. That is classic quid pro quo sexual harassment, it's super gross and I hope she sues his (beep) because that guy's a jerk and (beep). (playful bouncy music) All right so now it is time to give "Legally Blonde" a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) On the one hand, there are some accurate depictions of law school: studying hard for the LSAT and getting a good grade that would get you in, and lots and lots of case reading. On the other hand, lots of legal tropes that make absolutely no sense, complete gibberish when it comes to legal discussions and absolute malpractice in the middle of a trial. So I will give "Legally Blonde" a very, very gracious B minus. - I object. - On the other hand, one of the accurate things about "Legally Blonde" is that Elle Woods studied her ass off for the LSAT, got a good score and got into one of the top law schools in the country which is a very similar story to my own. In fact, the guys who started Blueprint LSAT were actually my personal LSAT tutors. I was actually able to raise my LSAT score 15 points by studying and learning the tricks of the trade and that's how I was able to get into one of the top law schools in the country. Getting a good score on the LSAT is by far the most important thing to getting into a good law school. It's more important than your grades, it's more important than your college, it's more important than your extracurriculars. Blueprint helped me learn the tricks of the trade when it came to logic games and reading comprehension, their methods are top-notch, you can take a live class, you can take an online class. You'll have fun while preparing for the LSAT but more importantly, you're guaranteed to raise your LSAT score or your money back. Blueprint LSAT students raise their LSAT scores by an average of 11 points and in fact, Blueprint students are six times more likely to score a 170 or above than average LSAT takers. And Blueprint has branched out not just from LSATs but to the MCAT too. So whether you're thinking about law school or you're thinking about medical school, Blueprint has you covered and LegalEagles get access to a huge special discount. You get 33% off of Blueprint's online courses when you sign up for six months which is probably how much you should be studying for the LSAT anyway. So if you're studying for the LSAT or the MCAT this summer and you want a special discount, just go to the link in the description or go to blueprintlsat.com/legaleagle and you'll get a discount you can't find anywhere else. Again that is blueprintlsat.com/legaleagle or just click on the link in the description. Clicking on that link really helps out this channel and I appreciate it. So do you agree with my grade for "Legally Blonde"? Leave your objections in the comments which I will either sustain or overrule and check out this playlist over here with all of my other legal reactions including "Suits" and "How to Get Away with Murder" and "Better Call Saul." So just click on this playlist and I'll see you in court.
Info
Channel: LegalEagle
Views: 2,174,784
Rating: 4.9454288 out of 5
Keywords: Legaleagle, legal eagle, legal analysis, big law, lsat, personal injury lawyer, supreme court, law firm, law school, law and order, lawyers, lawyer reacts, ace attorney, lawyer, attorney, trial, court, fair use, reaction, law, legal, judge, suits, objection, breakdown, real lawyer, legally blonde, elle woods, reese witherspoon, comedy, selma blair, harvard, blueprint lsat, blueprint
Id: dGpJRvawgNI
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 25min 29sec (1529 seconds)
Published: Fri Jul 03 2020
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.