« The completely inexplicable | Main | Would some one shut up National Review before I die of embarassment? »

'Exposing oneself' to liability

A fellow blogger at another law school (who shall remain nameless) related to me a very sad story today. Apparently, the wife of one young law student has complained that her husband's workload is reducing her to a state of involuntary chastity.

It strikes me, however, that given the amount of sex there is in the law, this shouldn't be a problem. The young woman should consider threatening suit against her husband's law school. After all, she might get damages for loss of consortium. Or maybe she could tell the gentleman in question that he needs to study the interpretation of acts of Congress. (No points for suggesting 'strict interpretation.') She might even ask him if his current conduct meets the standards required for excusable neglect. After all, nothing says his studying shouldn't be enjoyable.

OK, I've opened up the door, my readers are welcome to make further suggestions. Keep it clean, though.


TrackBack URL for this entry:


I have no solution for the poor Mrs. Overworked Law Student, but if it's any consolation for her she's far from the only law student spouse to so complain. If you go read Scott Turow's One L (which I recommend more for those thinking about going to las school; once I was in law school the book didn't seem quite so good) you'll find a passage where Turow mentions that his wife at least once complained that Turow was more intimate with the law than with her. I suspect it's been a problem for married law students since the coming of Christopher Columbus Langdell, if not earlier.
OK, Len, c'mon, get into the spirit: I wanted a thread on law-school sex puns, here! The serious side is just too easy to contemplate. Work with me, here!
Maybe he should give his wife a little more consideration? If he doesn't, she might withdraw her offer after a reaonable time (how long is it reasonable for your spouse to turn you down for sex?)
Now see, that's what we're talking about. Bonus points for anyone who works in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. :)
FRCP? Well, the guy is required to disclose any pertinent information (re: inability to find time to have sex) found during discovery (re: law school). His silence on the matter can be taken as a violation of law and, thus, will get his side of the case thrown out in court. Judgment for the wife. (Very bad FRCP joke, but I thought I'd try...)
Frustrated, Horny Wife v. Big Law School Plaintiff appeals from summary judgement for Big Law School ("BLS") at trial court. The plaintiff's husband is currently enrolled as a first year student at BLS and has not, according to plaintiff, engaged in sexual activities with her since his first research memo was assigned in the first month of his first semester. Plaintiff argues that BLS negligently assigned her husband too much reading and writing and thus he was either too busy or too tired to "perform". Plaintiff further argues that this was a foreseeable result of the school's actions. Having been 1L's themselves, they should know that overworking their students would cause them to neglect their "bedroom duties." We understand the plaintiff's concerns and our spouses could probably all commiserate with her, however, there is an issue of causation which must be addressed. While the school might foresee the result of too much homework, was this overworking of the 1L the proximate cause of her loss? "A murder at Sarajevo may be the necessary antecedent to an assassination in London twenty years hence. An overturned lantern may burn all of Chicago. We may follow the fire from the shed to the last building. We rightly say the fire started by the lantern caused its destruction. A cause but not the proximate cause" Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99 (NY 1928). Are there not other factors which might affect her husband's sex drive? We do not wish to impugn the husband in this case but there is always the chance that he may be drinking too much or perhaps sleeping with his torts professor. Those things could also be a cause. And does BLS have a duty to the plaintiff to make sure she is sexually satisfied? I should think not although stranger things have happened. Affirmed.
Sorry to disappoint you on not getting into the spirit, but I've been so far removed from law practice that the legal puns don't come dripping from my fingertips like they used to. On the other hand, I suppose she might get her husband interested in a bit more nookie if she'd make an attractive nuisance of herself..... (I'm trying, Anthony... God help me I'm trying...)
'Attractive nuisance.' OK, that was good, Len... :) I myself was thinking she might threaten to invoke FRCP Rule 20, the "Permissive joinder of parties..."
At this point I think she'd be looking more at FRCP Rule 19, particularly (a)(1) "if in the person's absence complete RELIEF cannot be accorded among those already parties."

Post a comment

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students

De Novo
Theory and Practice
Liberal Federalism?
Good News, No Foolin'

Nancy Pelosi covers her head and visits the head of John the Baptist.
Vlogging in from Austin.
Omikase/"American Idol"

Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2007
Happy Passover
Looking for Advice re: LA
Google Books

Stay of Execution
What I've Learned From This Blog, or My Yellow Underpants
The End
Mid Thirties

Legal Theory Blog
Program Announcement: Summer Programs on the Constitution at George Washington
Book Announement: Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy by Whittington
Entry Level Hiring Report

The Volokh Conspiracy
Making the Daily Show:
Civil unions pass New Hampshire House:
Profile of Yale Law Dean Harold Koh:

Crescat Sententia
Hillary II
Politics and Principal/Agents

Law Dork
Election Approaches
Following Lewis
New Jersey High Court: 'Same Rights and Benefits'

Surveying the revival
Birds of paradise

Half the Sins of Mankind
Cheney Has Spoken Religious conservatives who may ...
Does Ahmadinejad Know Christianity Better Than MSN...
Borders as Genocide In discussions of climate chan...

For lovers of garden gnomes...and any China-freaks out there
We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming

Does SOX explain the flight from NY?
More Litvak on SOX effect on cross-listed firms
What did the market learn from internal controls reporting?

The Yin Blog
Iowa City = Riyadh
Jeffrey Rosen's "The Supreme Court"
Geek alert -- who would win between Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise?

Letters of Marque
And there we are

Signing Off

Dark Bilious Vapors
Jim (The Waco Kid): Where you headed, cowboy?
Bart: Nowhere special.
Jim: Nowhere special. I always wanted to go there.
Bart: Come on.
--"Blazing Saddles"

Technical Difficulties... please stand by....
The Onion should have gotten a patent first....

Legal Ethics Forum
Interesting new Expert DQ case
Decency, Due Care, and The Yoo-Delahunty Memorandum
Thinking About the Fired U.S. Attorneys

Ex Post
Student Symposium- Chicago!
More Hmong - Now at Law School
Good Samaritan Laws: Good For America?

Appellate Law & Practice
Those turned over documents
CA1: courts can’t help people acquitted of crimes purge the taint of acquitted conduct
CA1: restrictions on chain liquor stores in Rhode Island are STILL okay

the imbroglio
High schoolers turn in plagiarism screeners for copyright infringement
Paris to offer 20,600 bikes at 1,450 stations to rent by the end of the year

The Republic of T.
The Secret of the Snack Attack
links for 2007-04-04
Where You Link is What You Get

Distractions for stressed law students

The Other Side: Twisted AnimationsSomething Positive, a truly good webcomic

Syndicate This Site



Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot