- [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.
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.