Dear Editor,
In the fifth issue of the Columbia Law Verdict, a reader wrote in to the Advisory Opinion asking for advice about their flubbed cold call. “I just flubbed a cold call!” they said. “How am I expected to go on living? Is there any coming back from this awful experience?” This was exaggeration, no doubt, and many of us in the law school know the feeling that inspired this message all too well.
To start, let me be clear that I absolutely agree with most of the Columnist’s response. Absolutely, Reader will get over this academic hiccup. Absolutely, Reader is not the main character of CLS. And almost absolutely, Reader’s professor has seen worse. However, as part of her response to Reader’s question, the Columnist says, “No one else will remember your flubby cold call.”
Without knowing more about Reader’s section and how flubby their cold call actually was, it may well be the case that no one else will remember. But! If it was flubby enough, I’m sure that at least someone will remember your cold call.
What is the basis of this assertion?
Well, because I remember those bad cold calls. At night, I think back to my 1L year and cackle uncontrollably at the excruciatingly embarrassing cold calls of my classmates. (Totally unrelatedly, I’ve never looked back to my own embarrassing civil procedure cold call where I said that there were seven justices on the Supreme Court because if I give that memory more than a fleeting thought I would implode.) Sometimes, when I’m with my old classmates reminiscing on the days before we secured our 2L summer jobs, we would even bring up one another’s egg-on-face cold call moments… In the spirit of camaraderie and collegiality, of course.
And how better could I demonstrate the memorability of these cold calls than by setting the scene and telling you exactly how they played out? Reader and Columnist, let me describe to you some of the cold calls that stick out in my memory as some of the most entertaining to watch back in my head-cinema:
1. Ploof v. Putnam, 71 A. 188 (Vt. 1908)
Professor: Okay, so Ploof said that it was necessary for him to dock his boat on Putnam’s island. What if there were other people on the lake that day, and they were like “this is fine! Ploof is just being a baby.” But Ploof really thought he couldn’t handle the storm. Do you think that would have made a difference?
Student: If… Uhh… If Ploof were just… just… a baby?
2. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975)
Professor: Mr. Student, in this case, does the plaintiff have a private right of action under Rule 10b-5?
Student: No, he doesn’t.
Professor: No, the other one.
Student: He might, depending on the facts?
Professor: The other, other one.
Student: Oh. Yes he does.
3. Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Association, 200 A. 646 (Pa. 1938)
Professor: Student, can you recap from last time the two types of easements?
Student: Yeah; they’re easements of pertinence and easements in gross.
Professor: Which one benefits people and which one benefits land?
Student: Easements of pertinence run with the land, and easements in gross are given to people.
Professor: And what are the rules for transferability?
Student: Easements of pertinence-
Professor: Are you saying “easements of pertinence”?
4. SEC v. Chenery Corp, 332 U.S. 194 (1947) (“Chenery II”)
Professor: Who’s next on my call list… Ah! Student. Here’s an easy one: Chenery Corp. shows up in your office, you’re the SEC, and they ask for your advice about how to proceed. What do you tell them? What’s the nature of the advice you give them?
Student: I would’ve given them legal advice?
Professor: Yes, exactly.
5 seconds pass.
Professor: Student?
Student: Huh? Oh, I’m sorry, I might’ve misheard your question, but I said I’d give Chenery legal advice.
Professor: What?
5. United States v. Blaszczak, No. 18-2825 (2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2022) (“Blaszczak II”)
Professor: What were the facts of United States v. Blaszczak? Actually, let me speak briefly about the pronunciation. I think it’s a Polish name, and it’s actually pronounced “Bwahsh-Chuk.” I say “Blay-Zak,” but some people say “Blaz-Kack,” and those people are more wrong than I am. Anyway, what were the facts, Student?
Student: Oh shit. Uh…
6. Bird v. Holbrook, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (1825)
Professor: Student, what were the facts of this case?
Student: Yeah, so this guy set up a spring loaded gun in his garden to prevent thieves from entering. This other guy is chasing a peafowl or a pheasant or something into the garden, and then the spring loaded gun goes off.
Professor: Yes, very good. Holbrook set up the spring loaded gun to protect his tulip bulbs. Does anything strike you as funny about this case?
Student: Well, I get that the bird was shot by the spring-loaded gun, but I didn’t know that you could bring a lawsuit on behalf of an animal.
I assert, without citation, that much electronic ink has been spilled criticizing cold calling and the Socratic method generally. The argument goes something like this: “Too much stress! Not graded anyway! Slows down lectures and interrupts the professor’s genius!” The opposing view responds by saying “Incentive to be prepared! Quick thinking like you’re before a judge! More interactive than boring lectures! ”
(Though these may seem like weak, unconvincing arguments, they are the best ones that ChatGPT could give me. Bearing in mind how large language models work, I take this as a sign that these are actual arguments that have been advanced by real people, some of whom might even be lawyers.)
Ultimately, while I’m sure some compelling arguments exist out there in favor of or against cold calling and the Socratic method, I espouse neither view: I have an aggressively neutral stance on cold calls as a pedagogical tool. On one hand, a terribly embarrassing cold call in Legislation and Regulation halfway through the semester did force me to read (yuck) for the remainder of the term. But on the other hand, cold calls really make me feel like a real-life, big boy law student in The Paper Chase who’s going to be working for a Suits-style firm.
I have no advice to offer Reader.
Rawit is a 3L at CLS. No CLS students were harmed in the collection of these cold calls.