University of Virginia Law School - Barrister Yearbook (Charlottesville, VA)

Page 92 text:

; i ' Ne , a abstr t SED OTER TE VEVIPSEN CPUS E UU TDTY Vem VITOU NET «| SWNUNT NOY TELUE TE vONTUPONIEN. FomTIT CW Diy Newer? Waren ewer TH SW Yefienvir ys WHUNYTUrl ceniuvreerettiVrt san erry) STUDENT At left, Bottom Row: Church, P. Wentworth, L, Smith, Crosskey, Franklin. Second Row: Grogan, Truitt, Marbusy, White, P. Moyles, Menowitz, R. Montague, Roe, Traub. Third Row: Walker, Rhodes, Rieder, Bresee, Henry, Line- han, C. Montgomery, E. Hughes, Glascock, Vinson, Q. Moyles, Overton. Fourth Row: Faison, Christian, W. Dough- erty, Curtis, Stewart, D. Montague, Cooley, B. Payne, Wright, Ruffin, Conley. Memorandum number 1000 was reached and passed during the current academic year as the Student Legal Research Group entered its 14th year of operation. Under the direction of Lloyd T. Smith, Presi- dent, S.L.R.G. kept its 60 writers busy with the largest number of legal questions ever handled by the group in a single year. Queries from law schools throughout the country regarding the unique Virginia precedent in the field of legal research provided the background as Paul Wentworth, Director, chaired a panel on the opera- tion of a “student legal research group” at the American Bar Association convention in August of last year. Wentworth laid out the “ground rules’ which since have been emulated in the inauguration of research gtoups at North Carolina, Cleveland-Marshall, Leland Stanford, and the University of Toronto’s Osgood Hall. How does a legal question receive its answer once it reaches the office confines on the second floor of Clark Hall? Each writer has ten days in which to research his problem and present an analysis of the legal questions and conclusions. Upon completion, the writer returns the problem to his director. The director then gives the problem to another writer who has three days in which to “‘spade’’ the problem. The problem and the “spade” are then returned to the director, who edits and checks the legal accuracy of the entire proposition, substituting portions of the ‘‘spade’”’ for portions of the original memo where he thinks it necessary. After the director is satisfied he presents the memo to the President and it is once again edited in its entirety. Only when the latter is completely satisfied with its accuracy is it for- warded to the requesting attorney. What are the criteria of a good memorandum? It must be noted that the heart of the memo is impar- tial, unbiased legal analysis. The true purpose of the memo is not to give the lawyer a definite answer, but merely to give him a full insight into all possible aspects of the law on his problem. Any second or third year student in good standing is eligible to try out for S.L.R.G. What is desired good writing style, originality, application of the law to the given problem, correct blue-booking and ability to spade another's memo in a very thorough fashion. Tryouts are held during both the Fall and Spring Terms. or e

Page 91 text:

SHEMET CSP RA ER WE TEED TT) PORTE SOE STUDENT CURRICULUM COMMITTEE . Left: McCamic, Linehan, J. Walker, Crosskey, Sander, Grattan, Hiden, Glascock, M. Purcell, Izlar. Absent: Havens, Thagard. Under the leadership of Bill Izlar, the Student Curriculum Committee has worked closely with the faculty in ascertaining the desires of the student body in regard to the law school curriculum. For the second successive year, examinations for third year students were moved up during the Spring Term so that all bar review obligations could be met. New York Procedure, an annual demand of the student body, provided both the committee and the faculty with many “headaches.” Again, it was impossible to secure a competent instructor so that the planned addition to the curriculum had to be dropped for at least another year. Probably the most important aspect of the committee’s job was to help Assistant Dean Lindsey Cowen work out term schedules with the least possible amount of con- flict. The work of the committee in this area was in large part instrumental for the few number of major course or examination conflicts during the two most recent semesters.

Page 93 text:

Lloyd T. Smith - Randolph W. Church, Jr. John Crosskey Cornell S. Preagklin Q Paul V. Wentworth G. Thomas Battle - Miles Cary, Jr. - Donald J. Danilek - Church (Director) Gerald M. Conley Talmage N. Cooley Clinton J. Curtis David B. Danforth William F. Faison Edward R. Hughes W. Luke Marbury David N. Montague Charles E. Montgomery Philip V. Moyles Dabney Overton, Jr. Bobby S. Payne John O. Peters Edmund S. Ruffin, III Nathan H. Smith Allen H. Soroka Stephen I. Traub Z. Taylor Vinson John L. Walker, Jr. Grover C. Wright, Jr. President Director Director, Fall ’59 Director, Spring ’60 Director .... Administrative Director, Fall ’59 . Administrative Director, Spring 60 ihn ee Assistant Administrative Director GROUPS Crosskey-Franklin (Directors) William G. Christian Patrick F. Crossman Thomas B. Eastman Robert H. Grogan Edward B. Heyd Martin R. Hoffmann Charles B. Hughes David C. Jordan Barry Kantor George J. Ratcliffe Donald H. Rhodes Richard A. Silver Charles F. Stein, III C. Van L. Stewart Marguerite R. Trovato D. Fooks Truitt Paul B. Underkofler, Jr. Joseph W. White Paul A. Wurtzel Wentworth (Director) Thomas M. Bahner James R. Bresee Henry H. H. Clarke Thomas E. Glascock John C. Cooper, III John E. Corette, III William P. B. Dougherty Samuel J. Henry David C. Linehan Henry H. McVey, III Frederick A. Menowitz H. Crane Miller Robert L. Montague, III Quentin F, Moyles John H. Quinn, Jr. B. Michael Rauh Richard E. Rieder John J. Roe, III William E. Somerville, II Charles C. Webb