- [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.
