Skip to main contentTorts - Session 01
Transcript
Steve Zand: Hi! Gregor!
Sarah Downs: I think that’s it.
Grigor Kasabyan: Hi, Professor! How are you, sir?
Sarah Downs: I emailed you, maybe about 5 50. I just wanted to know if you received it.
Steve Zand: Yeah, I will explain. About the absence rules in a second. Okay.
Steve Zand: I did get your email, though. Thank you.
Sarah Downs: Okay, but I will be here more.
Steve Zand: Alright! It’s 6 30. We’re gonna do roll.
Steve Zand: and if you are not here you are absent.
Steve Zand: We are missing about 8 students.
Steve Zand: Alright.
Steve Zand: all right.
Steve Zand: We do start class at 6 30. So if you’re not here, you’re absent.
Steve Zand: Those are the rules. We don’t start at 6 31. We don’t start at 6, 32, we start at 6, 30 sharp.
Steve Zand: And I take role at 6 30. So that’s how that goes.
Steve Zand: have a chat. Okay.
Steve Zand: I guess, since today is the 1st day of class.
Steve Zand: we will be a little bit more more liberal. With that.
Steve Zand: Alright I will do. Roll again.
Steve Zand: Alright. Oh, we had one more person joining. So let’s get that to
Steve Zand: all right.
Steve Zand: Jude. Are you related to to Lilith?
jude seleck: Yes, she’s my wife.
Steve Zand: Wow!
Steve Zand: Huh!
Steve Zand: How nice!
Steve Zand: Okay, well, welcome. Welcome everybody to Uwla.
Steve Zand: Welcome to law school. I know some of you may have had some prior law school experience.
Steve Zand: I get that and
Steve Zand: we are. But I’m starting with the assumption that you have had 0 law school experience. Some of you have gone through the Intro program, which is helpful. But we’re gonna start from the basics. Okay?
Steve Zand: so few couple of rules. Please have your entire name on your zoom.
Steve Zand: Okay? So Nikon’s iphone. Could you please give me a full name, please.
Steve Zand: and don’t think that I am being difficult.
Steve Zand: These are California State bar rules.
Steve Zand: If you are not on camera like Zahra. I don’t have her on camera. I don’t have on camera. So as far as I’m concerned, you guys are absent.
Steve Zand: Okay, so please understand, it’s not me. I am not being difficult. Okay, this is simply
Steve Zand: a California state bar rule.
Steve Zand: I know, Nikon, how are ya?
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And and okay, we just had one other person join.
Steve Zand: Alright, let me do roll again.
Steve Zand: These are the rules that everybody at Uwla has to enforce.
Steve Zand: I’m the associate, Dean. I come to all your classes, and I make sure that all your professors are enforcing these rules.
Steve Zand: not out of some
Steve Zand: desire to be difficult. But these are California State bar rules. You need to be on camera.
Steve Zand: Your face must be visible.
Steve Zand: If your face is dark and not visible, it does not count. If I’m just seeing the top of your head, it does not count.
Steve Zand: Okay. So, Nina, you had a question.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Yes, thank you. Related to that in with other professors and in the past.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: If we ha! If someone has to use the restroom. I just put it in the chat I have to use the restroom, and I’ll be off camera, or my camera will be off temporarily.
Steve Zand: Not a problem. Look I I get all that all right.
Steve Zand: and you know some of you may have to step away. But
Steve Zand: there is this tendency that students have used that privilege. Okay, so please, we start at 6 30. I do roll at 6, 30, not at 6 31. So I really do need you here at 6
Steve Zand: they, my clock said 6 30 when I logged in.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Yeah.
Steve Zand: Good. Okay. Today. 1st day, not a problem. Okay. I’ve got everybody, you know. I just did a new one. And you see, I keep. You see the count on the bottom.
Steve Zand: So whenever I see that count change, I do roll again to see who left class all right.
Steve Zand: That’s how it works. And I need you on camera. So right now, I don’t have tomorrow.
Steve Zand: Okay, so tomorrow, by the Sarian, I need you.
Tamara Baghdasaryan: I do apologize. I’m just getting home with my child. I’ll be on the camera.
Steve Zand: All right.
Tamara Baghdasaryan: Right now.
Steve Zand: Okay? And I want you to understand the reasoning that the State bar is so difficult. With this
Steve Zand: you are allowed 3 absences per semester.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: Beyond that, you are no longer in the class.
Steve Zand: This is a State bar rule. It’s not my rule. Okay. So some people send me emails saying, and it’s really, you know, sad stories. I am intensive care unit. I’m having brain surgery.
Steve Zand: I my heart goes out to you. But California State bar does not allow us to give excused absences.
Steve Zand: It’s not up to me, you see, it’s not up to Uwla
Steve Zand: to say, Oh, yeah. Well, you have a legitimate reason for not being here. So therefore you can have an absence. You are allowed 3 absences.
Steve Zand: You’re not here. One absence, no big deal.
Steve Zand: Okay? So that’s how it works. So please don’t get mad at me.
Steve Zand: Don’t get mad at your professors.
Steve Zand: This is California State bar rules, and we have to enforce it. And just just the way it is.
Steve Zand: As I said, I’ll come to all your classes. I’ll make sure that all your professors are enforcing this rule. Okay, so
Steve Zand: that’s as far as the video policy is concerned.
Steve Zand: as far as. And I just want to get to, you know, get your feelings for this I teach 3 sections of this class. I teach it tomorrow from 1, 30 to 4, 30, and I teach it again from 6, 30 to 9 30, do any of you?
Steve Zand: How many of you want to come to campus? Because I’m willing to come to campus if some of you would like, okay, I’ve got one, all right. So if that’s it, then okay, I’ve got Ariel. That’s 2. Okay, I am happy
Steve Zand: to, you know. Come to campus if there is enough of a demand. And we can, you know, do the hybrid, like the other classes? Campus and online? Yes, Sarah.
Sarah Downs: No! I was raising my hand.
Steve Zand: Sure. Oh, you wanted to come campus. Well, look, I’ve been teaching this course for 28 years.
Steve Zand: Okay, at 3 different law schools.
Steve Zand: And I can assure you that being on campus is a huge advantage.
Steve Zand: You see, Nikon over here is nodding his head, because you know I see him on campus all the time when you’re on campus. You see, I’ve gotten to know him already.
Steve Zand: Right? You see, you start developing connections. You start getting to know each other. Okay? So you know,
Steve Zand: I just lost somebody.
Steve Zand: Oh.
Steve Zand: like, you know, Nikon gets to meet liana.
Steve Zand: Liana gets to meet Nikon, and you may say, Well, what’s the big deal? I promise you? It’s a big deal
Steve Zand: when you graduate law school and you start practicing law.
Steve Zand: Where do you think you’re going to get your cases from.
Grigor Kasabyan: From referrals.
Steve Zand: From your network, this group of people that you have connected with.
Steve Zand: You know I went to law school now nearly 40 years ago. Most of you were not even born. Okay. I am still best friends with my law school buddies.
Steve Zand: because we went through that experience together. It’s like going through war together, you bond in ways that you cannot even imagine.
Steve Zand: Okay, is that you see, at my age, if somebody comes up to me and says, I want to be your friend. You know what my reaction is. Why.
Steve Zand: right?
Steve Zand: But when you’re going through law school, look, you know.
Steve Zand: nobody wants anything from another person. It’s just camaraderie, it is developing a study group. Did you get that note? You know what is your opinion about this? That’s all it is network with each other, and when you’re in person
Steve Zand: it is natural to pay more attention.
Steve Zand: It’s very difficult to stay present when you’re on zoom for 3 HI get that.
Steve Zand: Okay. It’s very difficult. I highly encourage you to come to campus.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And you know it’s just
Steve Zand: by far a better experience. You get to meet your colleagues. You get to network with them. You get to bond with them.
Steve Zand: Okay? And we had a great time in law school. You know we would go to lunch together. We would go to movies, you know we would just.
Steve Zand: And we’re still great friends, all right.
Steve Zand: And so I don’t want you to. I don’t want this zoom to deny you that experience.
Steve Zand: Yes, Ara.
Aram Harutyunyan: Hi, Professor, I was just wondering which campuses today’s class if we were to come in person, would you.
Steve Zand: When I come in person this would be woodland hills, campus.
Aram Harutyunyan: Well, okay.
Steve Zand: Right and
Steve Zand: That’s where it would be, because there is a tourist class at the Lax campus
Steve Zand: and our woodland hills. Campus is by far a nicer campus. Okay?
Steve Zand: what if we have children? Can we bring them? Well, that’s a tough question, because I get how difficult that is. But, on the other hand,
Steve Zand: children may interrupt class.
Steve Zand: Okay, so that’s an issue. But if you, even if you’re taking your children or with you, and you’re trying to do 3 h of tours and contracts. That’s a very difficult undertaking as well, because they’re drawing from your focus.
Steve Zand: And that’s just also difficult.
Steve Zand: Okay? And I’m not insensitive to that. And I know how difficult it is. But that’s just also reality
Steve Zand: of so what else can I tell you? There is a question here.
Steve Zand: Okay, that’s that question.
Steve Zand: We’re gonna be together for a whole year
Steve Zand: towards one towards contracts. Constitutional law, real property evidence
Steve Zand: are one year full 2 semester, one year courses.
Steve Zand: They are the core of practice of law and the California State Bar.
Steve Zand: And I just want you to all focus on. Why you are here.
Steve Zand: You’re here single, dimensionally, for one purpose
Steve Zand: to pass the California State bar on the 1st trial.
Steve Zand: Okay, you’re not here for your health health.
Steve Zand: You want to pass the California State bar on the 1st try. Become a lawyer, and.
Steve Zand: you know, bring misery to the rest of the population.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: But after 28 years of being full-time faculty.
Steve Zand: one thing I can assure you, I promise you this, you will never look back
Steve Zand: and say I wasted 3 or 4 years of my life becoming a lawyer.
Steve Zand: That will simply not happen.
Steve Zand: This is by far the best investment of your time.
Steve Zand: Okay, some of you know. I told you this
Steve Zand: when I came to your contrast. Class. Sarah, could you please go on mute.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Oh, sorry!
Steve Zand: That’s all right. So look.
Steve Zand: I highly recommend becoming a lawyer.
Steve Zand: I do not recommend practicing law.
Steve Zand: You see the distinction, because look reality. And you know I really hate confessing this
Steve Zand: the most valuable license out there is a medical license.
Steve Zand: I say that with consternation.
Steve Zand: Okay, the second most valuable license out. There is a law license.
Steve Zand: but the reality is for you to get a medical license. You’re looking at 4 years of medical school. You’re dealing with one year of internship, 3 years of fellowship.
Steve Zand: It’s an 8 year gig, all right. It’s it’s a heck of an investment of time and money.
Steve Zand: Do I suggest it absolutely.
Steve Zand: But if you don’t want to do that, okay.
Steve Zand: law license is the second best thing.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: you see, right. I already know that I lost one person, because, you see, the count dropped from 26 to 27 to 26, so I will do roll again.
Steve Zand: and that would be the role for the day.
Steve Zand: And if you need to step away, don’t disconnect.
Steve Zand: just disconnect your phone. Look, it’s easy. Look, you see what happens.
Steve Zand: So I know you’re there.
Steve Zand: If I disconnect, then they count just like, now somebody left the class.
Steve Zand: I have no idea who left the class. I’m gonna you know, I just take a photo of the participants, and I go by my last photo. And the person who left
Steve Zand: gets an absence. And that’s how it goes.
Steve Zand: so you will never, ever regret becoming a lawyer.
Steve Zand: So many doors open up to you.
Steve Zand: All right. You don’t have to practice law, my neighbor across the street.
Steve Zand: She’s an attorney. She works for Kaiser.
Steve Zand: Okay, you can go into banking. You can go into real estate. You can go into insurance. You can go into government, you can go into my favorite profession. You can go into law enforcement. Okay? And go down that route.
Steve Zand: Okay? I mean, there are so many doors open up to you when you’re a licensed attorney.
Steve Zand: Practicing law is just one of them.
Steve Zand: Don’t ever think that you’re stuck with. You know I’m going to have to practice law. No, you don’t. You can get jobs, you know, with a law license every door opens up to you.
Steve Zand: So rest assured that you are making the best investment of your time.
Steve Zand: Now, whether you do this in 3 years or 4 years, the reality is
Steve Zand: that California State Bar is a memorization. Exam.
Steve Zand: okay, whether you like it. You don’t like it. It’s a memorization exam.
Steve Zand: we have open book finals. So you know, people have gone soft and they are not memorizing.
Steve Zand: You are doing so at your own peril, because California State Bar
Steve Zand: is a memorization. Exam I grade California State bar exams.
Steve Zand: So I think I know what I’m talking about. I actually graded for the Board of Legal Specialization, which is the next tier of licensing that you can get.
Steve Zand: Wow!
Steve Zand: And they train us on how to grade.
Steve Zand: And there is a great deal of emphasis on the correct statement of law.
Steve Zand: The 1st piece of law that we’re going to learn is a definition.
Steve Zand: 4.
Steve Zand: Battery.
Steve Zand: Okay? And you’re going to learn that battery is an intentional act that causes a harmful, offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person. I’m saying it quickly, because we’re going to go back to it later. But right there, you see what just happened. You need to memorize that piece of black letter law
Steve Zand: because you need to write it for the California State Bar.
Steve Zand: I will give you all the black letter law that you need to know.
Steve Zand: All right. It’s my job.
Steve Zand: You don’t need to go buy any study guys. You don’t need to do anything. I give it all to you, and I do it slowly.
Steve Zand: and you may say, Well, why don’t you just pdf it and give it to me?
Steve Zand: And there’s a reason for that.
Steve Zand: You see, we just lost another student. So let me see, here we go
Steve Zand: alright. The reason for that is, studies have shown
Steve Zand: that when you are given a Pdf of something it tends to go sit on a shelf.
Steve Zand: When I make you write it down it helps with memorization.
Steve Zand: the act of writing or typing. It helps with memorization.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And so trust me on this.
Steve Zand: Okay, don’t be mad at me.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s easy for me to Pdf. All the black letter law to you. But when I make aurum over there, write down battery is an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person.
Steve Zand: Trust me, the act of him writing it helps with memorization.
Steve Zand: and the California State bar is a timed exam.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And if you have to sit there and think to yourself, what did this Zen Guy say about battery?
Steve Zand: It’s game over all right.
Steve Zand: Multiple choice questions.
Steve Zand: You have a hundred questions for 3 h.
Steve Zand: You’ve got to be able to retrieve this and answer the question quickly. That’s why memorization is so important.
Steve Zand: and I don’t care how smart you are. If you think 2 months before the bar, you’re going to start saying, Okay, now, I’m going to memorize 11 different subjects
Steve Zand: on which planet does that happen?
Steve Zand: Okay, this is one of those you know. You need to be honest with thyself.
Steve Zand: You need to memorize as you go.
Steve Zand: And aurum over there.
Steve Zand: He may memorize battery right now, but 3 years from now, when he is taking the California State Board. Do you think he’s gonna remember it? No, but I assure you the following.
Steve Zand: when it comes to studying for the bar, if he has memorized it today, it’s gonna come back to him much faster than if he’s looking at it for the 1st time.
Steve Zand: All right. This is how you pass the bar.
Steve Zand: You’re not here to get a good grade from me. Who cares graduating? Getting a Jd degree?
Steve Zand: Who cares?
Steve Zand: Okay, pass the bar.
Steve Zand: That’s how you increase your earning capacity.
Steve Zand: Okay, this is about your earning, increasing your earning capacity.
Steve Zand: All right, please be selfish. I am here to serve you.
Steve Zand: Okay, so.
Steve Zand: And, by the way, in case you did not know this we have.
Steve Zand: Our grading is anonymous.
Steve Zand: Okay, when I am grading an exam.
Steve Zand: I have no idea whose exam it is. We go by student ids.
Steve Zand: and I promise you I don’t want to know.
Steve Zand: Can you imagine?
Steve Zand: I say to myself, George, I really like George. But, Gregor over there, I don’t like Gregor, you see. And I’m thinking to myself, is that impacting my
Steve Zand: judgment of the great? You see, it’s gonna drive me nuts, you know.
Steve Zand: And the reason I said that about Gregor is because I know Gregor. So I feel comfortable saying that to him, okay, I do like him very much. Okay. But do you see that
Steve Zand: I’m just looking at an exam with a student Id, and I am not worried about oh, is my impression of somebody impact influencing or impacting my grade. George has been always so good in class, always so prepared, always so on top of things. Oh, so this you know, you see what it does to you
Steve Zand: when you’re grading it. Is that
Steve Zand: so? It is anonymous, and we don’t want it to be any other way.
Steve Zand: Okay, I don’t want to know whose paper I’m grading alright. So all good. There, all right.
Steve Zand: we do have. And please listen to me. We have Friday academic support classes.
Steve Zand: If you are not taking it for units, it is free to you.
Steve Zand: We don’t charge you.
Steve Zand: You see, George, you can go. Do essay writing academic support. Okay, exam writing. You can do mbe,
Steve Zand: questions practice.
Steve Zand: And if you’re not doing it for units, you can just go for free.
Steve Zand: You can submit essays. They will grade it, they’ll give it back to you.
Steve Zand: Okay, I have 88 Torts students. This semester.
Steve Zand: Okay, if each of you just give me one exam.
Steve Zand: You see what happens to me.
Steve Zand: I am. I am fried. It’s impossible. So in recognition of all of that
Steve Zand: is Friday sessions online, ma’am. Yes, ma’am, okay, you like that, Gregor.
Steve Zand: You see, in our business. That’s how we talk, sir. Yes, sir, ma’am. Yes, ma’am. Okay, so
Steve Zand: And some people think I’m being formal. No, it’s just.
Steve Zand: you know. This is just the way
Steve Zand: ingrained in in your Psyche. So
Steve Zand: yes, I will. I will try to learn your names. I’ll do my best. But please do understand. I teach every single day. I have 88 tort students that doesn’t count my other students
Steve Zand: alright. So you can see it’s really difficult to remember all the names.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: Yes, I do keep tabs.
Steve Zand: I have close to 1,900 students who are now lawyers.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And yeah, I’m going to put that on my tombstone. Okay, come, visit okay?
Steve Zand: And you know, one of the greatest pleasures of my life is when I go to court.
Steve Zand: because I see all my ex students coming up and say, Hey, you know I am the lead counsel on a class action case against Philip Morris.
Steve Zand: Okay, it makes me feel like I lived a worthwhile life because I was a small stepping stone on your path towards success. It gives my life meaning
Steve Zand: all right. So your success is my success, and I will always be there for you. Once you graduate. Okay, you have questions, you know you. You need to run something by somebody, you know. I do not abandon you just because you became a lawyer and my deal with all my law students is yes, I am very formal. I am very politically correct.
Steve Zand: But once you once George over there passes the bar, and this is my offer to all my students. You get to call me, and I’ll take you out to lunch as a colleague.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: and that’s my honor and my pleasure. And no, I don’t take you to some, you know. Dump. I take you to Davenport’s, which is the restaurant underneath my office. Okay, and it’s the nicest restaurant in the valley. Okay? So we go for a nice lunch and we get to know each other at a personal level, all right.
Steve Zand: And so that’s what I look forward to. And every time the bar results come out I am taking people out to lunch, you know, every single day. So
Steve Zand: that’s how that works.
Steve Zand: What else can I tell you about law school?
Steve Zand: Don’t let anybody intimidate you about law school.
Steve Zand: Nonsense!
Steve Zand: If you are sitting here.
Steve Zand: That means I was one of the persons who approved your admissions. Application. Okay, so I am saying, you are qualified to become an attorney.
Steve Zand: All right. I’m not pretending like you can sit here. You know, I had some guy sit on his bed, smoke a hookah.
Steve Zand: Okay in class. All right.
Steve Zand: Listen.
Steve Zand: You get out of this what you put in it.
Steve Zand: Okay, you want to be disconnected. You want to be, you know, watching
Steve Zand: you know, looking at Facebook during your class.
Steve Zand: I’m not your, you know, high school teacher. Okay, I’m here to serve you. I’m here to do my best for you. You know you wanna you don’t wanna put any into it. It’s your life.
Steve Zand: Okay? So it’s not about that.
Steve Zand: But no, don’t let anybody
Steve Zand: intimidate you by law school. If you are here. That means you can pass the bar, and you can be a good attorney.
Steve Zand: Does it require investment of your time? Yes, it does.
Steve Zand: But is it beyond you? Absolutely not nonsense.
Steve Zand: Okay, I great for the California State bar. I’m telling you it’s not that difficult.
Steve Zand: Okay? And my exhibit one in support of the fact that, being an attorney is not difficult. Look at all these knuckle dragging Neanderthals out there who are attorneys.
Steve Zand: They passed the bar. They can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. If they come to court one day they’ll be shredded
Steve Zand: in 2 seconds.
Steve Zand: Okay, becoming an attorney is easy becoming a good attorney is exceedingly difficult.
Steve Zand: I am a student of law just like you. The only difference between us. I’m old.
Steve Zand: That’s the only difference between us. I am just a student of law. I study like a dog.
Steve Zand: I study more than all you guys because
Steve Zand: I’m a little bit paranoid. The thought that some other lawyer. I’m a divorce lawyer by profession. I’m a board certified family law specialist. Okay, 37 years of doing it.
Steve Zand: I am just paranoid of somebody learning something that I don’t know. Oh, wow.
Steve Zand: okay, I mean, I could not go to
Steve Zand: sleep thinking that. So yeah, I invest in my own skill set constantly this idea that George? Oh, yeah, he became a lawyer. He’s done.
Steve Zand: That’s just the beginning of your studies.
Steve Zand: Okay, like a lot of these doctors out there they become a doctor, and they think they’re done.
Steve Zand: and their education is 30 years old.
Steve Zand: They still don’t know anything about modern medicine.
Steve Zand: because they stopped investing in themselves.
Steve Zand: You need to constantly have that student mindset.
Steve Zand: Don’t ever give up that student mindset.
Steve Zand: We’re all students just different points on the curve.
Steve Zand: Okay, no, absolutely no other difference.
Steve Zand: So yeah, we’re going to study.
Steve Zand: Difficult. No doable, absolutely alright. But you got to invest some time into this thing.
Steve Zand: and you got torts. You got contracts.
Steve Zand: you know. Some of you have a couple of other electives.
Steve Zand: Gervork, where do I know you from.
gevorg kulikyan: I was in your last class. The bridging, the gap.
Steve Zand: I hope you liked it.
gevorg kulikyan: I did.
Steve Zand: Okay, you’re in the current semester’s class, right?
Steve Zand: Or less of it.
gevorg kulikyan: Last spring.
Steve Zand: Last spring with Judge Chang.
gevorg kulikyan: Correct.
Steve Zand: Is she a genius, or what.
gevorg kulikyan: Very much, so.
Steve Zand: Yeah. I teach that class with a judge. And, by the way, so you know, I’m very proud of this. We have 16 Superior Court judges teaching at Uw.
Steve Zand: okay, 16 of them.
Steve Zand: Okay. And one of them is Judge Yang is about to become a justice of the California Court of appeals.
Steve Zand: Okay? So you will have a lot of sitting judges, not retired judges. We don’t have a single retired judge. They’re all current judges teaching at Uwla.
Steve Zand: and it is.
Steve Zand: You have no idea what a luxury it is. Do you ever, I mean hearing Judge Chang?
Steve Zand: Didn’t that give you insight into judicial thinking?
gevorg kulikyan: Definitely.
Steve Zand: You see something I never had as a lawyer.
Steve Zand: You see, us lawyers, you know how we learned we would file a motion. The motion would get denied, and then we would say, Oh, so that’s not the way to do it. We need to do it another way. You guys get to ask questions from real judges.
Steve Zand: That’s the luxury I never had. That’s the luxury that none of these judges ever had.
Steve Zand: Okay, and there are no other law schools that even come close to our numbers.
Steve Zand: Okay, I’ve got 3 judges sitting on the bench
Steve Zand: wanting to teach, and I don’t have a course for them.
Steve Zand: Okay, this is how much they like to teach here.
Steve Zand: So take courses with judges. Don’t be afraid.
Steve Zand: Okay, don’t go asking around. Okay. So who’s the professor, who is easy and a good, easy grader. Why.
Steve Zand: you’re not serving yourselves.
Steve Zand: Okay. How is that helpful to you?
Steve Zand: Okay, put yourself in a situation. It’s like you, George. Do you want a demanding trainer at your gym, or it’s just somebody who’s sitting there drinking coffee and eating donuts and telling you well, you know. Do whatever you want to do.
George Diaz: Demanding.
Steve Zand: Right. You want somebody to push you. You want to walk out of the gym, not be able to walk straight
Steve Zand: because you are just your muscles are so fatigued you can’t do it, hey? Jason? Looks like he works out. Okay. He knows what I’m talking about. Okay.
Steve Zand: you know about muscle, fatigue. Jason, you know what I’m talking about.
Jason Azizi: Little bit. I just eat cheeseburgers, and I look like this, or I’ll take.
Steve Zand: All right. So you know, that’s what muscle fatigue is. You keep repeating until you cannot do it anymore. And that’s where your muscle tissue breaks down. When you rebuild, you build muscle.
Steve Zand: Life is found at the edges.
Steve Zand: Okay, push yourselves and look. Discipline is key to success in law school.
Steve Zand: and you’re thinking, when is this guy going to start teaching law?
Steve Zand: Don’t worry. I know what I’m doing.
Steve Zand: I’ve got to get your mind straight first.st
Steve Zand: Okay, so you’re going in with the right mindset. If I get that right, the law part is easy.
Steve Zand: is it?
Steve Zand: I just keep telling Auram auram battery is an intentional act that causes a harmful, offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person. All right. See you next week. Okay. You see.
Steve Zand: I haven’t taught you anything is all about our perspective intelligence.
Steve Zand: This is my my copyrighted saying, intelligence is for idiots.
Steve Zand: Okay, truly, intelligence is for idiots. You think you’re intelligent. So what
Steve Zand: there are so many people sleeping under the bridge underneath these bridge overpasses that are smarter than all of us put together.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: just don’t. Don’t think intelligence means anything.
Steve Zand: The key to success in life is hard work and perseverance.
Steve Zand: That’s how you succeed in life. Intelligence plays a very small roll.
Steve Zand: George. I don’t care how intelligent you are!
Steve Zand: You know what I care about how focused you are, how dedicated you are.
Steve Zand: and what is your level of perseverance?
Steve Zand: What is your pain, tolerance.
Steve Zand: Those are the keys to success in life, people think. Oh, I’m so smart, you know.
Steve Zand: I don’t need to do anything, you know.
Steve Zand: somebody said, what happens when you come across your law students who are now lawyers as your opposing lawyer. I say I’m petrified.
Steve Zand: because if George over there is more prepared than I am. When we go to court. I’m roadkill right?
Steve Zand: Who cares how many years I’ve been in practice? It means nothing. If he’s more prepared than I am. He’s just gonna bulldozer over me.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s got nothing to do with that stuff.
Steve Zand: Law and lawyering is about hard work and perseverance and dedication preparation. Who? I saw somebody who had a realtor in front of their name. Nina. Okay, you know, in your business, Nina, what they say about real estate. The 3 most important things in real estate location, location, location, right.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Yeah. And also buyers are liars and sellers are worse.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Okay?
Steve Zand: But and do, please next time remove realtor, because then everybody is gonna say, you know, I am a dentist. I am a Cpa.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: No, this this is, it’s actually because it’s for my business. I have that because I use zoom for my business. So.
Steve Zand: But it’s easy to edit. Okay.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Yeah, I’d have to change it every single time.
Steve Zand: It takes about 6 seconds, anyway.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: What is.
Steve Zand: Alright, not a not a big deal. Okay. So
Steve Zand: in in her business is location, location, location. You know, Nina, what’s in our business?
Steve Zand: Preparation, preparation, preparation.
Steve Zand: This is why I’m saying George is, Gonna make Ropekill out of me.
Steve Zand: If he outprepares me.
Steve Zand: Okay, put your arrogance away. Arrogance is for idiots.
Steve Zand: Hard work and perseverance is what’s going to make you succeed in life.
Steve Zand: Okay, that’s why I say study like a dog.
Steve Zand: I study nonstop.
Steve Zand: Okay? Because I don’t want to ever fall behind.
Steve Zand: We’re all students.
Steve Zand: Alright.
Steve Zand: So you’re all going to become lawyers. Don’t let anybody intimidate you. It’s
Steve Zand: you can all pass the bar. You can all go through law school. It’s nothing beyond you. Do you have to study? Yes. Is it
Steve Zand: impossible? By no means. Is it impossible?
Steve Zand: Okay, so have that, you know in your back pocket, you will do just great.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: So now let’s talk about law a little bit.
Steve Zand: Has anybody ever thought what law is.
Grigor Kasabyan: It’s the definition and the rules of the way we live in America. In my opinion.
Steve Zand: Sure, but to me law is humanity’s feeble attempt to put into words
Steve Zand: our notion of justice and equity.
Steve Zand: It’s nothing more than that.
Steve Zand: What is the primary source of law?
Steve Zand: It’s in our civilization, the code of Hammurabi, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Magna Carta.
Steve Zand: United States Constitution.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: I highly suggest to you all to take a minute and read the preamble to the United States Constitution.
Steve Zand: I don’t care how many times I read it. It still moves me.
Steve Zand: I don’t want to be Corny and say to tears, but it really is a movie document, all right.
Steve Zand: And just to break the thing with a joke, you know, when we were in Afghanistan, somebody says, you know, we should write a constitution for Afghanistan, the guy said. Why
Steve Zand: give him ours. We’re not using it.
Steve Zand: So. You know, it’s it’s sacrosanct.
Steve Zand: And I want you to understand that our judicial system is a Judeo-christian judicial system.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: It is a mainly a Jewish legal system.
Steve Zand: Anybody who thinks otherwise they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: And we inherited this, all of it from Judaism. Christianity changed it. Obviously, modern law changed it a little bit. But I’m going to prove it to you because people don’t really understand the impact of Old Testament on our judicial system.
Steve Zand: Alright!
Steve Zand: Our court system.
Steve Zand: Here we go.
Steve Zand: Most of you have seen inside the courtroom.
Steve Zand: All right. Yuria walked inside of a courtroom.
Steve Zand: Gregor ever worked a court.
Grigor Kasabyan: I have a subpoena. Oh, work! Yes, as bailiff. Yes.
Steve Zand: Yeah, you did.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, I have a subpoena tomorrow morning.
Steve Zand: Oh, how nice!
Grigor Kasabyan: Lyx.
Steve Zand: We both work for the sheriff’s department. So that’s why. There, you see the connection there. Okay, I’m just old. He’s young. That’s the only difference. Okay, no, I’m a reserve. He’s a full time. That’s another big difference. Okay? But
Steve Zand: we have a lot of deputies, you know.
Steve Zand: We have Lapd at Uwla, and I’m encouraging them to come and become lawyers.
Steve Zand: So let me show you the courtroom, so you can understand the Judeo-christian heritage that we have.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: I have a question.
Steve Zand: Yeah.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: You had asked. You know what is law? I’m curious, because I know that the American legal system is based on English common law.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: And that’s where we have that Judeo-christian ideology. But doesn’t it really begin all the way back because you mentioned humanity doesn’t really begin all the way back with
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Aristotle and the philosophers, and the idea of
Nina Grayson, Realtor: the what is right, what is wrong? The moral and ethical imperative of humanity.
Steve Zand: Look. Without a doubt Greek philosophers have contributed. Okay, but
Steve Zand: the reality is, it is that it is a
Steve Zand: Let me. Just excuse me one second. Let me open this up for a second.
Steve Zand: Huh!
Steve Zand: I guess I lost it
Steve Zand: all right.
Steve Zand: Oh, I will try it again. So. Nina, was that you right.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Yes.
Steve Zand: Look.
Steve Zand: Hmm!
Steve Zand: Don’t forget that laws have been evolving through the millennia.
Steve Zand: and there have been contributions to it through religion.
Steve Zand: Okay, you know. Now we can say, we affirm.
Steve Zand: okay, when we want to take the oath.
Steve Zand: Okay, as as a witness. In the old days, you know, you would put your hand on the Bible.
Steve Zand: Think about that for a second.
Steve Zand: Is that religious? Or is that religious.
Steve Zand: Okay, we. It is as Judeo Christian system.
Steve Zand: all right. And he has been has contributions from
Steve Zand: throughout time. Okay? But common law is
Steve Zand: about maximum 700 years old, the English common law.
Steve Zand: All right. We will talk about English common law in a second. But you see, so that, yes, is the American jurisprudence. English common law absolutely.
Steve Zand: Okay. But where is common law coming from.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: The philosophers.
Steve Zand: Well, Magna choir.
Steve Zand: Okay. You see, of course, I don’t want to dismiss the Greek philosophers. Okay, that have influenced everything but religion. Look at the 10 Commandments.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Oh, yeah, religion is definitely permeated, much more.
Steve Zand: And you know, I was just talking about primary sources of law.
Steve Zand: Okay? And English common law is new, you know.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Relative to that idea of how old humanity is 700 years. Isn’t that long.
Steve Zand: Right so
Steve Zand: question, how many commandments in the Bible?
Steve Zand: Wrong?
Steve Zand: New phone.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Pen.
Steve Zand: Somebody.
John Chern: And.
Grigor Kasabyan: 13 or 10, No. 13.
George Diaz: I remember 10.
Steve Zand: 613 commandments.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And we only think of 10. But it’s 6, 13.
Steve Zand: You can. Fact. Check me. I’m not wrong. Okay.
Steve Zand: I spent all my free time
Steve Zand: studying early Christian history. Trust me, that’s
Steve Zand: all. My free time goes there. So check fact. Check me. There are 613 Commandments.
Grigor Kasabyan: That is correct. 613 is the number.
Grigor Kasabyan: and it’s in 3 3 categories, laws, testimonies, and decrees.
Steve Zand: Yep.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: So learn everything about everything.
Steve Zand: It will help you in your lives. It will help you in your careers, you know. Don’t ever say to yourself.
Steve Zand: Jason says, listen. What do I care about physics?
Steve Zand: You know you’ll be surprised. Jason
Steve Zand: High will serve you one day.
Steve Zand: All right. So let’s look at the outline of a courtroom.
Steve Zand: Okay, it doesn’t want to cooperate fine.
Steve Zand: We’ll do it another way.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: Hey? Courtroom.
Steve Zand: This is a basic outlay of a courtroom. Are you guys all seeing it?
Steve Zand: You enter the courtroom to your left and to your right is where the public sits.
Steve Zand: You do understand. All of our courts are open to the public.
Steve Zand: which courtrooms are closed to the public, those involved involving juveniles.
Steve Zand: Okay, dependency, court, juvenile criminal proceedings. Those are closed to the public. Outside of that every courtroom is open
Steve Zand: to the public. You can just go and sit, and nobody can say You know anything.
Steve Zand: Do you see this thing here?
Steve Zand: This is about a 3 foot.
Steve Zand: is about a 3 foot. I just got a email from Robert.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: all right, let’s go back here. This is about a 3 foot high, maybe 2 and a half foot high. Okay.
Steve Zand: barrier.
Steve Zand: We call that the bar.
Steve Zand: Okay. So Jason, after 3 or 4 years of your life
Steve Zand: and a hundred $1,000 get.
Steve Zand: Do you know what you get to do?
Steve Zand: You need to push this little swing door open and go past it.
Steve Zand: And now you see where the term passing the bar comes from.
Steve Zand: Only lawyers can go past this point.
Steve Zand: Why? Because they have passed the bar.
Steve Zand: Just be careful when you let go of this door, because it swings back really hard and it can hit somebody.
Steve Zand: Okay. So congratulations. You get to go past this squeaky little door, and now means you are a lawyer, so only lawyers can go past this.
Grigor Kasabyan: And bailiffs.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: It’s your courtroom deputy.
Steve Zand: Okay, you own it. Okay, this is yours, this whole thing. Okay?
Steve Zand: So when you go in right in front of you. There are usually some chairs here. Okay.
Steve Zand: that’s where lawyers just sit, and when the court calls their case
Steve Zand: they come and sit at council table. There are 2 of them.
Steve Zand: One is for plaintiff, one is for defendant.
Steve Zand: So who am I going to ask?
Steve Zand: I’m going to ask Vahe my
Steve Zand: does play. And this here is the jewelry box.
Steve Zand: You with me, guys.
Steve Zand: sometimes the jury box could be here. It makes no difference. Okay, it just depends on that particular courtroom. So, but vahe
Steve Zand: does plaintiff get to sit closer to the jury or the defendant.
Vahe Baghdasaryan: Plaintiff.
Steve Zand: Why?
Vahe Baghdasaryan: Because they keep the defendant as far as away from the jury as they can, so they don’t make eye contact with the jury.
Steve Zand: Hmm!
Steve Zand: Think this thing through? Who knows the answer to that question, where does?
Steve Zand: Where does plaintiff? Does plaintiff’s lawyer and plaintiff get to sit closer to the jury or defendant and his or her lawyer.
Steve Zand: It’s not a security reason. No.
Steve Zand: we’ve got deputies in the courtroom to take care of that, and they carry guns. Okay, Aura
Steve Zand: Nikon, you should be able to answer this question.
Nickon Razi: I have an answer. But I I feel like it’s it’s not right.
Nickon Razi: It’s that. It depends because you said that the jury box could be on the closer.
Steve Zand: So who gets to sit closer to it? So if it’s on the right? Who who’s who gets to sit closer to it? If it’s on the left who gets to sit closer to it.
Nickon Razi: If it’s on the right, the defense gets to sit closer to it, and if it’s on the left, the plaintiff gets to sit closer to it.
Nickon Razi: Okay.
Steve Zand: All right, we’re gonna talk.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Is the defense, isn’t it?
Steve Zand: No.
Grigor Kasabyan: The plaintiff sits on the right, and the defense.
Steve Zand: No more guessing.
gevorg kulikyan: Whoever has the burden of proof. Right, Professor.
Steve Zand: There? Who said that.
gevorg kulikyan: Those men.
Steve Zand: Game work, you see, gave work. Got to take bridging the gap with me. He knows everything. Now. Okay, what an advantage you have! Okay. Bridging the gap between law school and the practice of law to me is the best.
Steve Zand: course in law school, because what we do in that course we teach you how to become a lawyer.
Steve Zand: You see, law schools teach you how to pass the bar. They don’t care about anything else.
Steve Zand: All they care about is how Mahi is. Gonna pass the bar.
Steve Zand: Okay. Harvard does not care about whether he’s going to be a good practicing lawyer or not.
Steve Zand: This that’s his problem.
Steve Zand: As long as he passes the bar. That’s the law schools
Steve Zand: aim and projection. You guys get that.
Steve Zand: That’s why I designed that course
Steve Zand: to help you guys make the transition and start learning how to become a practicing lawyer.
Steve Zand: And I teach it with a judge.
Steve Zand: Okay, I teach it with Judge short
Steve Zand: and we teach it together. And you get to hear from 2
Steve Zand: different perspectives. I’m a trial lawyer, that’s all. I do. Trials. Okay, you get to hear my issues.
Steve Zand: Okay, the things that I struggle with my perspective and you get to hear it from a sitting judge.
Steve Zand: Her likes her dislikes.
Steve Zand: Okay, so this is how you learn how to practice. And we take you to court.
Steve Zand: Okay? And actually, we take you somewhere, which will, you will never, ever be able to see but for this course, and that’s the sheriff’s custody facility in Chatsworth Courthouse
Steve Zand: you as a lawyer as any Nope. Never, ever would you be able to see inside of it unless you’re in cuffs, and you’re in custody. So God forbid! That would never happen. Outside of that you never get to see it, and I’ll take you inside.
Steve Zand: And you know, sometimes for those who want, they can go in a cell and shut the cell door on you.
Steve Zand: and it is a life altering experience. When that heavy metal gate shuts on you.
Steve Zand: If you tell me it doesn’t impact you. You know, you’ve got nerves of steel.
Steve Zand: Okay, I personally worked in custody for 20 years. Okay, you know. So I know what it’s like.
Steve Zand: And that’s an amazing experience. And then we take you show you the court, and we go to the courtrooms, and the judges talk to you, and we teach you how to navigate the courtroom and do all of this stuff. Things that
Steve Zand: law schools just don’t teach you, you see.
Steve Zand: So get work, knows this
Steve Zand: military is the closest you get to jail. Okay, I buy that. The basic training is very close.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: So yeah. So Gabrock knows
Steve Zand: we will talk shortly about what is called burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Okay, where is Aram? Aram? Is my landlord.
Steve Zand: Are you with me, Aura?
Steve Zand: I didn’t pay you rent.
Steve Zand: What are you gonna do?
Steve Zand: You’re gonna sue me right.
Aram Harutyunyan: Yes.
Steve Zand: Do I have to do anything as a defendant?
Aram Harutyunyan: No, it’s my job to bring up evidence and prove to the jury that you have.
Steve Zand: You know what we call that our
Aram Harutyunyan: The burger, and poof is on.
Steve Zand: Burden of proof.
Steve Zand: You have the burden of proof
Steve Zand: to prove that I owe you money. I don’t have to do anything.
Steve Zand: You guys get that.
Steve Zand: That’s the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Vahe, you are a prosecutor. You’re a deputy district attorney. You are prosecuting me, for I don’t know burglary.
Steve Zand: Do I have to do anything.
Vahe Baghdasaryan: No.
Steve Zand: You see, I can sit, twiddle my thumb, count the holes in the ceiling.
Steve Zand: You, Mr. Deputy district attorney, you have the burden of proving my guilt, and we’re going to learn the different quantums of burden of proof as well. You see that.
Steve Zand: So now my question is, if you have the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Do you rather sit to the jury next to the jury, who has.
Steve Zand: who controls the fate of your client? Or do you want to go sit 3 rooms down the corridor.
Steve Zand: Where is preferential? Sitting closest to the jury, you guys get that, Nikon, are you with me?
Nickon Razi: I’m not I. I’m.
Steve Zand: Ask the question. I don’t charge by the question. I’m not practicing right now.
Nickon Razi: I I feel like I understand, burden of proof, but I’m not understanding how the burden of proof changes where
Nickon Razi: the plaintiff for the defense is sitting.
Steve Zand: Let me ask you this question, Nikon, you’re the plaintiff’s attorney. Do you want to sit closer to the jurors, or do you want to go sit far away from them.
Nickon Razi: And when I say closer to the jurors.
Steve Zand: Why? Because they are the ones who are gonna be deciding
Steve Zand: whether your client wins or lose right.
Nickon Razi: Correct.
Steve Zand: So, sitting closer to those people who are the finders of fact, who are going to award damages to your client is preferential seating.
Nickon Razi: Correct.
Steve Zand: You’re a prosecutor.
Steve Zand: Do you want to sit next to the jurors who are going to be convicting the defendant? Or do you want to go sit far away from them.
Nickon Razi: Close to the jurors.
Steve Zand: So, whoever has the burden of proof, guest preferential seating.
Nickon Razi: I think this is like a basic question I kind of always wanted to ask right? I don’t really think about it. So let’s say it’s a criminal setting, and you have the defendant. Where’s the defendant sitting? Are they sitting with their
Nickon Razi: their council like behind them, to get like we’re.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Nickon Razi: I just I don’t know. I thought you were saying no, sorry. That’s why I stopped speaking.
Steve Zand: No, don’t ever stop speaking. Okay.
Steve Zand: If I can pull this up.
Steve Zand: this whiteboard does not want to cooperate with me.
Steve Zand: Hmm!
Nickon Razi: I was actually in family law court today. So.
Steve Zand: Where.
Nickon Razi: Chatsworth.
Steve Zand: In front of.
Nickon Razi: Judge Diana.
Nickon Razi: Risk.
Steve Zand: Sure.
Nickon Razi: Yes.
Steve Zand: Hopefully. She will be joining our faculty next semester.
Nickon Razi: Wow!
Steve Zand: Everybody on Chatsworth is on our faculty. Judge Short is on our faculty. Commissioner Thomas is on our faculty. Commissioner Cole and Judge Cole is on our faculty.
Steve Zand: So I mean, if you go down the corridor, everybody there is on our faculty.
Nickon Razi: I didn’t know that she was. She was really good, though I really.
Steve Zand: Excellent.
Steve Zand: She is excellent.
Nickon Razi: The stuff that you guys see in family law. It gets pretty pretty grim, to say the least. Like it’s
Steve Zand: Oh, boy.
Steve Zand: I can’t open this thing.
Nickon Razi: As I said it out loud. I kind of understand it. I I think I’m good.
Steve Zand: Silk.
Steve Zand: Unfortunately, this whiteboard does not want to cooperate with me.
Steve Zand: It’s beyond me why, it doesn’t want to cooperate with me, but it just does not
Steve Zand: let me see if there is another way. I can do this.
Nickon Razi: Professor, may I speak?
Steve Zand: Sure.
Nickon Razi: So I kind of wanted to Google it, too. So it’s not just the defendant. But it’s also like in in a courtroom. It is like this that in a civil case the plaintiff’s attorney would be closest to the jury box.
Nickon Razi: and then, in a criminal case the prosecutor is closest to the jury box.
Steve Zand: Because they have the burden of.
Nickon Razi: Proof.
Steve Zand: So I’m gonna try this another way to make it work
Steve Zand: alright. You should be able to see this now.
Steve Zand: all right again. You come here.
Steve Zand: This is where the audience sits.
Steve Zand: This here is the bar.
Steve Zand: You pass the bar, you get to go through this.
Steve Zand: This is where attorneys sit.
Steve Zand: This is a jewelry box.
Steve Zand: Plaintiff’s attorney, who has the burden of proof, gets to sit closest to the jury
Steve Zand: prosecutor who has the burden of proof gets to sit closest to the jury. Okay, in most courts the court clerk does not sit here. The court clerk sits over here somewhere.
Steve Zand: This is the witness stands, and your bailiff sits here somewhere.
Steve Zand: So now who’s gonna tell me this?
Steve Zand: How many members in a jury.
Robert Nazarian: 12.
Grigor Kasabyan: 12, but 13.
Steve Zand: Why?
Nina Grayson, Realtor: 13.
Robert Nazarian: Oh!
Steve Zand: This is gonna blow your mind.
Robert Nazarian: Knew why, but right now you called me off part of the question, and I.
Steve Zand: Because Jesus Christ had 12 apostles.
Steve Zand: Okay, that’s where the number 12 comes from. So when I tell you this is a Judeo-christian system.
Steve Zand: are you guys following.
Steve Zand: Jesus Christ had 12 apostles, not disciples, know the difference.
Steve Zand: Okay, yeah. 1212 apostles. And thus.
Steve Zand: 12 members of the jury. Now do we have alternates? Yes, they don’t vote.
Steve Zand: The judge, depending on how long the judge thinks the case is going to take
Steve Zand: chooses 4, 6, 8. Whatever number the judge feels is appropriate.
Steve Zand: And the judge gets to
Steve Zand: say, I want 4 alternates. Why? Because if one of the voting jurors gets sick, is unable to serve, continue to serve that alternate alternate who has been hearing the whole case can replace that juror, you see. Otherwise you end up with a Mistrial.
Steve Zand: So let’s go back to.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: But you also do have the judge as the 13th juror.
Steve Zand: No, absolutely not.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: No in general, in.
Steve Zand: Absolutely wrong.
Steve Zand: I don’t know where you got that from, judge is not.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: From the last course. I just just did in pretrial litigation.
Steve Zand: No.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: 14th juror.
Steve Zand: No, the judge is, has a very distinct job.
Steve Zand: The judge decides the law.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Understand. I think
Nina Grayson, Realtor: I think it’s just to clarify the 13th juror this term. The 13th juror has to do with where the judge can decide if they’re seeing that based on all the evidence that the jury got it wrong, they can step in.
Steve Zand: That does not make him the 13th juror. The judge can hear post verdict motions
Steve Zand: for editors or remittors, which is to increase or decrease the judgment. Okay, as a matter of law. But the judge never goes, sits in the jury room.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: No.
Steve Zand: And acts like a 13 juror.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: No, no, no, that’s not what I was referring specifically to the judge’s role as this quote, unquote 13th juror.
Steve Zand: Well, and it was.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Wasn’t.
Steve Zand: Who told you that which Professor told you that.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Actually, it wasn’t. It was actually in our appellate advocacy class last term.
Steve Zand: Last minute.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: With, Glassman, yeah.
Steve Zand: Well, I will have a talk with him, because to call the judge. The 13 juror is very confusing.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: But.
Steve Zand: You know, it just does so much damage. Okay, judge does have the power to do a verdict, you know judgment, not notwithstanding verdict, to set aside the verdict as a matter of you know. Error. Okay, but and the judge can decrease or decrease judgments.
Steve Zand: But to call the judge a juror, because a juror is a finder of facts.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: Right.
Steve Zand: A very distinct job.
Steve Zand: Okay, so let’s get past that. Let’s come here again.
Steve Zand: All right. Now that we understood jurors, the judge
Steve Zand: sits at what is called the bench.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And what is the bench?
Steve Zand: Okay,
Steve Zand: And what is the bench to this date?
Steve Zand: Judges are called bench officers.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: So where does that come from? In good old England?
Steve Zand: There were no professional judges, you understand, in the medieval times
Steve Zand: the King. Yeah. And we didn’t have a queen until Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth the First.st
Steve Zand: It was the King who would send aristocrats to the villages to dispense justice.
Steve Zand: Okay, so. And they will sit at that bench.
Steve Zand: and thus they were called bench officers, and to this day they’re called bench officers.
Steve Zand: and they would go to these villages, and the word village comes from villainous
Steve Zand: because they were not civilized, they were not thought of as as civil, they were villainous, so guess what
Steve Zand: the judge they represent. This aristocrat representative of the king did not want to sit
Steve Zand: near where these villagers would sit and argue their case.
Steve Zand: So there’s this area in the court
Steve Zand: that today in Los Angeles County.
Steve Zand: and every court is called the well WELL.
Steve Zand: You walk here.
Steve Zand: The deputy, the bailiff, is gonna come up to you.
Steve Zand: and put his hands or her hands on you
Steve Zand: in a nice, in a nice, in a not pleasant way.
Steve Zand: Nobody goes in the well ever.
Steve Zand: under no circumstances. You see how we have kept these traditions.
Steve Zand: This well was an actual ditch
Steve Zand: to protect the representative of the king.
Steve Zand: and that’s why, when we do some of these cases. You see, it’s called the King’s Bench.
Steve Zand: From these villages, villainous villagers.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: And that’s where the term comes from.
Steve Zand: Okay, so that’s what the well is. And to this date you never walk across it.
Steve Zand: Okay? And this is just an absolute no-no. So what’s the depth of this well or the width of this? Well.
Steve Zand: well, it is the length, it’s an arm’s length
Steve Zand: plus the length of a sword.
Steve Zand: So the person sitting at that bench could not pull out a sword and stab this the King’s representative.
Steve Zand: Are you guys seeing it?
Steve Zand: You see how, even in the 21st century, Los Angeles.
Steve Zand: We are carrying on with these traditions.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And it is knowing these
Steve Zand: helps. You understand? The layout of a courtroom helps. You understand why we do what we do.
Steve Zand: I hope that you found that interesting.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: now, let’s talk about something that is important to your entire law school career, and that’s called burden of proof.
Steve Zand: We touched on it.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And the burden of proof is, nothing more than
Steve Zand: all right. Burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Okay, you guys are seeing this all right in a sillowcase.
Steve Zand: the burden of proof. And you need to learn this.
Steve Zand: It’s called preponderance of the evidence.
Steve Zand: Preponderance of the evidence, preponderance of the evidence, preponderance of the evidence, preponderance of the evidence. What is preponderance of the evidence? Preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not
Steve Zand: more likely than not preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not 51%.
Steve Zand: Where is Aram Aram? Remember, when you were suing me because I didn’t pay you right?
Steve Zand: Who hasn’t we gonna prove you do?
Steve Zand: How much? What’s the quantum? How much burden do you have to meet before you can recover from me? Your tenant.
Aram Harutyunyan: 51%, or beyond reasonable doubt, no.
Steve Zand: 20 push-ups.
Steve Zand: Okay, I wish I could make you guys do that. Okay. Gregor knows what I’m talking about. You know, when we went
Steve Zand: to school. They made us do push-ups.
Steve Zand: Okay, when we didn’t get something. Right? So arm do push-ups. Send me a certificate of completion. Okay, arm. I’m just kidding with you. Okay, listen, don’t go there. In a civil case.
Steve Zand: Plaintiffs. Burden of proof is to the preponderance of the evidence.
Steve Zand: All right. In a civil case. Plaintiff’s burden of proof
Steve Zand: is to the preponderance of the evidence. Did you write that down.
Aram Harutyunyan: I did.
Steve Zand: Plaintiff’s burden of proof is to the preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance means more likely than not.
Steve Zand: preponderance means more likely than not. In other words, 51%.
Steve Zand: So, Aaron, you need to prove your case. You need to prove that it’s more likely than not that I owe you the money.
Steve Zand: If you don’t, you have not met your burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Case, dismissed you with me.
Aram Harutyunyan: Yes. Name.
Steve Zand: Is critical to towards contracts. This is common to every
Steve Zand: area of law that we do.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: Alright. So. I keep losing this, so I have to draw it every time
Steve Zand: the lowest burden of proof
Steve Zand: it’s called preponderance of the evidence. Are you guys with me the highest burden of proof?
Steve Zand: Where is Vahe? He is our local district attorney, deputy district attorney?
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: You are now prosecuting a criminal case.
Steve Zand: What is your burden of proof?
Vahe Baghdasaryan: Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve Zand: There you go! You guys see that?
Steve Zand: Why does he have a higher burden of proof than Aram has against me?
Vahe Baghdasaryan: Because it’s criminal.
Steve Zand: So.
Vahe Baghdasaryan: You too.
John Chern: Way, constitution.
Steve Zand: He can take away my life or liberty.
Steve Zand: What can Aram do?
Steve Zand: Only take money out of my pocket.
Steve Zand: Do you see the difference between a civil case and a criminal case.
Aram Harutyunyan: Interesting. I didn’t know that.
Steve Zand: You see, in a civil case, all you can do to me is what arm make me pay.
Steve Zand: That’s it.
Steve Zand: That’s why you have a lower burden of proof. But what can Vahe do to me?
Steve Zand: Take you to jail?
Steve Zand: Incarcerate me, learn a new word incarceration, incarceration that means putting somebody in jail, and when we had
Steve Zand: the chemicals to do to carry out executions in California. Nobody’s selling this to us right now.
Steve Zand: but you could theoretically even do a capital punishment, and sentence me to death, you see.
Steve Zand: because you are in a position vahe to do more harm to me than Aram is. Therefore you have the highest burden of proof
Steve Zand: in our system, and that’s called beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve Zand: Are you guys following the reasoning behind this?
Steve Zand: Is there another burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Yes, there is.
Steve Zand: And that’s called the clear. We’re typing clear and convincing burden of proof.
Steve Zand: clear and convincing burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Okay, so where does clear and convincing burden of proof? Come, all right.
Steve Zand: we’re gonna learn that next semester. But I just want you to.
Steve Zand: get used to the concept okay of clear and convincing.
Steve Zand: And what does clear and convincing talk about is
Steve Zand: Auram has already let me back up a little bit.
Steve Zand: What is the purpose of civil law?
Steve Zand: What’s the purpose of tort law?
Steve Zand: Anybody?
Steve Zand: What is the purpose of tort law?
Steve Zand: Is it to resolve up even more? What is a tort.
John Chern: What is silver wrong?
Steve Zand: Who said that.
Steve Zand: well done, John. A. Tort is a civil wrong. Everybody typing a tort is a civil wrong, a tort is a civil wrong.
John Chern: Okay.
Steve Zand: John runs over my foot with his car.
Steve Zand: What did he do? He committed a tort.
Steve Zand: He committed a civil wrong.
Steve Zand: What is the purpose of tort law?
Nina Grayson, Realtor: 2. 2 is the for
Nina Grayson, Realtor: for for there to be justice, or it’s public policy for persons to seek justice for for the prevention or the result of harm.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: something like I can’t trying to remember the actual wording of it. But it’s to prevent it’s to. It’s to basically prevent harm, or to to have seek justice.
Steve Zand: Because of tort law.
Nina Grayson, Realtor: What we’re coming.
Steve Zand: The purpose of tort law is to make plaintiff
Steve Zand: whole again. WHOL. E. The purpose of Tort law. We are typing the purpose of tort law is to make plaintiff whole again.
Steve Zand: You see, John ran over my foot, I’m now missing a toe right.
Steve Zand: He needs to make me whole again. Can he give me a new toad? No, but what’s the function of the jurors
Steve Zand: to put a value on my toe? Put a dollar figure on it and make John give me that dollar figure to equate the value of my missing toe.
Steve Zand: Okay, and forget about a toe. Think about a finger.
Steve Zand: Do you think my finger is worth as much as Lebron James’s finger?
Steve Zand: Who cares about my finger? I’m just a lawyer right?
Steve Zand: Missing a finger? So what Jason is still gonna hire me?
Steve Zand: Lebron misses a finger. You’re talking a billion dollars in damages.
Steve Zand: You guys see that. So it makes a difference who your plaintiff is?
Steve Zand: Are you guys following because you need to make that particular plaintiff whole again?
Steve Zand: So the tort law is a civil law
Steve Zand: and the purpose of tort law is to make plaintiff whole again. WHOL. E. We need to learn how to spell
Steve Zand: when I’m grading for the bar the things that it really gets under my skin is when I see somebody misspell.
Steve Zand: I think to myself, were you dropped as a child.
Steve Zand: What’s wrong with you. You’re a lawyer, you see, if you’re a doctor, I don’t care.
Steve Zand: That’s not their profession.
Steve Zand: Alright, but language is our art.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s front and center of what we do.
Steve Zand: Yes, Sarah.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Yeah, I have a question. So for bar exam, like, it’s not computer based. So we don’t have like spelling like, isn’t it? It’s not checked, and also like grammar, I guess, like that’s also important for the bar. Exam. Sorry for the silly question, but.
Steve Zand: Yeah, no, it’s not at all. It’s not at all nowadays. You heard what happened with the disaster of last February. Okay.
Steve Zand: with the board. But yes, it is. And nowadays you guys have the luxury of having computers that can spell check for you.
Steve Zand: Alright. So it helps a great deal. When I was taking the bar there were no computers.
Steve Zand: We were all handwrite, and there was a room for typists where they had these old fashioned typewriters with those hammery things without, and everybody would have earphones on, and everybody would go in and click, click, click. So now you have that. But you’d be surprised how often people make spelling mistakes with computers.
Steve Zand: How do you spell? Cannot?
Steve Zand: I cannot eat ice cream.
Steve Zand: You see, all fan lawyers make that mistake.
Steve Zand: It is one word.
Steve Zand: It’s not 2 words.
Steve Zand: You see, that, Zara. So it doesn’t have to be a spelling, but cannot. Is not 2 words. People put a space between them. How often have you seen that
Steve Zand: they were dropped as children?
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And people judgmental people like me judge them.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And when people write things like oh, in close proximity
Steve Zand: there is no such a thing.
Steve Zand: Proximity means close.
Steve Zand: There is no such a thing as close proximity.
Steve Zand: This is just not knowing basic English.
Steve Zand: Alright. So people like me who read these exams we pick up on stuff like that.
Steve Zand: or people have this tendency to write. Oh, this is a very unique situation. Do you realize, Ira, how wrong that is?
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Yes. So if I understood correct, the reason I’m asking is because, like maybe a lot of other students, English is not their 1st language. So grammar is, gonna be it? It’s not gonna be directly graded. But it’s important, right? So I just want to say, if this is something
Zahra Movassaghigilani: work on.
Steve Zand: I think, forget about you see, I want Sarah, you to go past
Steve Zand: law school. I want you to go past the California State bar.
Steve Zand: I want you to be thinking that you’re sitting in your office writing a letter to me. I’m your opposing lawyer.
Steve Zand: all right, and guess what I do when I see these letters. And I’m just going like this. Oh, my God, you know, and people judge you
Steve Zand: and judges judge you by your grammatical skills
Steve Zand: we are in a. This is the core of our profession.
Steve Zand: You gotta give me that.
Steve Zand: If you were a medical doctor again, nobody would care right.
Steve Zand: But as a lawyer, if you misspell
Steve Zand: you, you screw up the difference between Fx. And affects a common mistakes.
Steve Zand: All right, judges do judge you.
Steve Zand: and these are the impressions that they leave you with.
Steve Zand: So yeah, it is. It is an issue.
Steve Zand: It is an issue, and it is nowadays, you know. Look.
Steve Zand: I will endeavor to teach you a lot of Latin.
Steve Zand: Okay? And you may say, what’s wrong with you.
Steve Zand: Latin is the language of law. Lex means law.
Steve Zand: I grew up studying Latin. Okay, I speak as much Latin in court as possible.
Steve Zand: Why?
Steve Zand: Because people look at me like they’re caught in the headlight.
Steve Zand: and they’re too embarrassed to say, your Honor, what did he just say.
Steve Zand: you see the impact, the power of that? Okay.
Steve Zand: I am a lawyer. I’m there to win.
Steve Zand: I’m going to use every tool in my arsenal to give myself an advantage.
Steve Zand: and you want to go in there and say, I don’t know what you’re going to learn the 1st Latin term that every lawyer knows. And you’re going to learn in the 1st semester of law school is called Res ipsa lokitour.
Steve Zand: Okay, any of you heard of that? I’m sure some have.
Steve Zand: Nikon is saying. What does Nikon? What does recipsa locator mean?
Nickon Razi: The thing speaks for itself.
Steve Zand: Excellent.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s all Latin.
Steve Zand: Okay? So
Steve Zand: I will send you an email. I’ve made an email of 100 most commonly used Latin phrases.
Steve Zand: and you can incorporate that into your lexicon and give yourself that edge
Steve Zand: as an attorney. So for the bar. Look, it doesn’t really matter for the Cal for your law school exams. It’s not the end of the world but you when you send out an email
Steve Zand: and he has grammatical errors in it.
Steve Zand: It’s your signature. That’s the point that I’m trying to get across.
Steve Zand: Okay. And so you need to invest. You need look down the road.
Steve Zand: Okay. I don’t know if I answered your question or not. That was the best I could do.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: You did. Just the thing is like with emails and everything like there’s softwares that will check. But I just want to know for bar exam. We don’t have, like, you know, any help from computers. So it’s just like, you know, I need to like.
Steve Zand: Yeah, look, nowadays, you can use Chat Gpt, to correct your grammar. Do all of that look. Things have changed and things are going to change rapidly. Okay, so yeah, maybe a lot of what I’m saying doesn’t apply modernly. You know.
Steve Zand: I grew up without computers.
Steve Zand: You know, we were practicing. You know how we would write letters era. You won’t believe I would take a pen. I would handwrite a letter, give it to a secretary. He or she would type it on an old fashioned typewriter with those hammers that you see in a movie.
Steve Zand: They will give it back to me. I would correct it.
Steve Zand: Then they would put whiteout on it. You guys don’t even know what Whiteout is.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And then they would retype it. They would put it in an envelope with a stamp, and this would go to the opposing lawyer. It would take 3 days to get there. He or she will open it up, read it do the same thing. So a correspondence would take on a good week at least about 7 days
Steve Zand: today you’re my client. You send me an email at 11 o’clock.
Steve Zand: It’s 1230.
Steve Zand: Where’s my answer?
Steve Zand: I sent my email an hour and a half ago.
Steve Zand: You see how things have changed.
Steve Zand: So yeah. And everything is now chat. Gpt.
Steve Zand: I get that, and but just be careful with chat. Gpt. It does make a lot of mistakes
Steve Zand: much more than people think, especially when it comes to law.
Steve Zand: Alright! You’ve heard all these nightmare stories that judges and lawyers have relied on chat, gpt, and Chat Gpt is hallucinating.
Steve Zand: is coming up with taste. Law that does not exist.
Steve Zand: A judge was just sanctioned for that.
Steve Zand: because they rely on a chat. Gp just creates this nonsense.
Steve Zand: I have seen it for myself. Probably by the time you graduate it will be perfect. I don’t know. But yes, our world is changing.
Steve Zand: Okay, but you know I still think we should. But how about this when you’re making an oral argument to court? Then what.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: And there is no escape.
Steve Zand: There is no escaping it.
Steve Zand: Look at some point. It’s gonna catch up with you.
Steve Zand: All right. Look, it’s 8 0. 5.
Steve Zand: I will see you. I usually try to give you an earlier break, but you know I’ll see you in 10 min.
Grigor Kasabyan: Pressure? What
Steve Zand: That’s it.
Grigor Kasabyan: What courtrooms you go to often, or where? Where is the majority of your.
Steve Zand: Downtown.
Steve Zand: Oh, it’s in downtown downtown, nice!
Steve Zand: And Chatsworth.
Grigor Kasabyan: I bet you become friends with the deputy, the bailiffs there.
Steve Zand: You know something I try not to.
Grigor Kasabyan: No! Oh, I see!
Steve Zand: Because I think it’s kind of conduct unbecoming.
Grigor Kasabyan: Oh, yeah.
Steve Zand: It would be like, I’m trying to get an edge.
Grigor Kasabyan: Oh, yeah.
Steve Zand: You know, and that’s not.
Steve Zand: I don’t. Even when my PIN, when I.
Grigor Kasabyan: Rows.
Grigor Kasabyan: Oh, I see!
Steve Zand: You see, I don’t even do that.
Steve Zand: Okay, because I don’t want anybody sitting. Oh, he’s trying to say something. Okay. No, no, I I don’t. I don’t even do that.
Steve Zand: I don’t flash my badge to not to go through security.
Steve Zand: Oh, okay, through security, like everybody else, you know. Look, Gregor is conduct gonna be coming.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah.
Steve Zand: Okay, that’s not who we are. We don’t carry that badge for an advantage.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah. I’m very.
Steve Zand: An obligation on us to to act better than everybody else.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, that’s right, and and and uphold ourselves to a higher standard.
Steve Zand: Yeah, that’s why I never even chat with
Steve Zand: deputies in court. Okay, if I see you, you know, on patrol.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah. The difference.
Steve Zand: You know, I’m gonna come up to you and say, Hey, how you doing, Bud? You know, whatever it may be. Okay. But.
Grigor Kasabyan: First.st
Steve Zand: Not in court.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, makes sense.
Steve Zand: I don’t do that.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, that makes sense.
Steve Zand: I’ll see you in a bit.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, okay.
Steve Zand: All right, let’s go where we left off.
Steve Zand: We were dealing with the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: This is really critical for you to understand the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: There are 3 burdens of proof in a civil case
Steve Zand: and in a criminal case, and there are 2 birds in the proof. In a civil case. That’s where the 3 comes from, all right. So where did it go?
Steve Zand: Whereas our deputy district attorney?
Steve Zand: Oh, wow! Dude.
Grigor Kasabyan: Could you? You said 3 for civil and 3 for criminal.
Steve Zand: No, there are only 3 burdens of proof in the entirety of law.
Steve Zand: 2 of which are in civil.
Steve Zand: There’s only one burden of proof in criminal
Steve Zand: clear enough.
Steve Zand: So why, you only deal with one burden of proof as a deputy district attorney
Steve Zand: you only deal with beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve Zand: That’s the only burden of proof in your world.
Steve Zand: Now, one thing that I’m going to ask you to do, and please listen for a second. There is a firewall
Steve Zand: between criminal law and civil law.
Steve Zand: You’re gonna be taking criminal law. You’re gonna be taking criminal procedure.
Steve Zand: Please understand that there is no commonality between the language procedure
Steve Zand: between these 2 areas of law do not try to reconcile them alright.
Steve Zand: They are not designed to be reconciled. Please put a firewall in between.
Steve Zand: Alright
Steve Zand: in criminal law when you’re arrested for battery.
Steve Zand: Should I put you on the spot? Gregor.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yes, yes, you may.
Steve Zand: What’s the penal code for battery.
Grigor Kasabyan: 2, 42, 2, 4, 2.
Steve Zand: Excellent, this Pinoccho. Section 2, 42.
Steve Zand: So he’s going to put cuffs on somebody, and he’s going to write them up for PC. 2, 42.
Steve Zand: That language, if you look up. PC, 2, 42 has absolutely minimal commonality with the tort
Steve Zand: definition of battery.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: don’t try to reconcile them. Criminal law and civil law are not designed to be reconciled. There is no commonality. Well, Professor, you see, we learned in criminal law that battery is blah blah, blah.
Steve Zand: stop it.
Steve Zand: These 2 areas of law are very distinct with very different procedures, different lexicon, different rules. They are not the same.
Steve Zand: Don’t use them interchangeably.
Steve Zand: So where is my deputy? Da?
Steve Zand: There he is.
Steve Zand: Well, hey? When you win a case in a criminal case, what
Steve Zand: has the defendant been? What’s the term we use in criminal law? Convicted right?
Vahe Baghdasaryan: Right.
Steve Zand: Where is Arun?
Steve Zand: Oh, there, all right, when you win your landlord, tenant lawsuit against me.
Steve Zand: Okay, I, me, the defendant. I have been found.
Aram Harutyunyan: Guilty.
Steve Zand: That’s the point that I was trying to make. Guilty is a criminal language.
Steve Zand: You guys see that 11th commandment.
Steve Zand: Thou shalt not use criminal law language in your civil cases.
Steve Zand: and thou shalt not use civil language in your criminal courses.
Steve Zand: You with me.
Steve Zand: So, Aram, you are a civil practitioner.
Steve Zand: Okay, you will never, ever use the word guilt or convicted.
Steve Zand: You will only use the word that the defendant was found liable.
Aram Harutyunyan: Because we’re talking about money damages.
Steve Zand: Y on the other side is only going to use the term.
Steve Zand: I I got a guilty verdict against defendant.
Steve Zand: you know I got him convicted.
Steve Zand: Do you see that this is where is our?
Steve Zand: There you are, you see, Zara, this may not even sound like grammar.
Steve Zand: but the language that you use if you use it in the wrong fora.
Steve Zand: which is a plural for forum.
Steve Zand: Okay, more Latin. Yes, Nikon, get used to Latin. It’s the language of law. Make your peace with it. Okay? And it’s going to give you an edge.
Steve Zand: Okay, use it as one of the tools in your basket of tools don’t run away from it.
Steve Zand: You see, you know, just just one of my best investments of your time. You can go on Youtube
Steve Zand: and spend some time for Latin for lawyers.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: Instead of watching people make moonshine in the South.
Steve Zand: All right. Complete waste of your precious time.
Steve Zand: Watch Youtube for free Latin for lawyers.
Steve Zand: So when you go in court against people like me, who are complete snobs.
Steve Zand: all right. You are not intimidated.
Steve Zand: You are armed, locked, and loaded, too.
Steve Zand: Okay, I throw Latin at you. Guess what you’re gonna throw Latin back at me.
Steve Zand: You’re gonna say, listen, Punk. You’re not gonna intimidate me.
Steve Zand: You see that.
Steve Zand: So invest in yourselves all I’m asking you to do. You’re not doing this for me. I’m irrelevant.
Steve Zand: Who cares about me all right. I am just here to help you
Steve Zand: become the best version of yourselves.
Steve Zand: All right, just doesn’t matter what I think. Who cares? Okay?
Steve Zand: So, Nikon, invest in yourself, that’s all I’m asking, become the best version of yourself.
Steve Zand: And we do that by investing in ourselves
Steve Zand: and not wasting our time on Instagram.
Steve Zand: Okay, our social media checking emails. You see, I don’t have emails. Are you kidding me?
Steve Zand: But I have disciplined myself not to check my emails. I check my emails on the hour.
Steve Zand: Okay. Otherwise you end up like this.
Steve Zand: and your productivity goes down the tube.
Steve Zand: You gotta put time for email.
Steve Zand: You gotta put, you know. This is how you design your time every single day.
Steve Zand: So again, be careful with not using civil language in criminal using criminal language in civil.
Steve Zand: And you guys, you guys, remember Rodney King
Steve Zand: Rodney King beating. Okay, that was, you know, highly disturbing. I mean, that’s understatement.
Steve Zand: all right. But you know what people said.
Steve Zand: what kind of a judicial system do we have that these police
Steve Zand: were found not guilty in one court and were found guilty in another court. You guys remember that this is this is too long ago. Okay, this is 1995. Okay? All right. You guys remember why that happened.
Steve Zand: And you need to understand why?
Steve Zand: Okay, before I put Ariel to sleep, Auriel, what happened?
Steve Zand: They were 1st prosecuted in State Court, these cops forbidding of Rodney King.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: And, by the way in case you don’t know this. Simi Valley is Cop town
Steve Zand: all right. All the cops live in Simi Valley, not the best place to prosecute cops.
Steve Zand: All right, just being hometown, all right.
Steve Zand: So these cops were found not guilty.
Steve Zand: Have you heard of this concept called double jeopardy?
Steve Zand: Ariel?
Steve Zand: You see movies right? Double jeopardy teaches us what
Steve Zand: Vahe, our deputy district attorney, knows. This
Steve Zand: means. Once you are convicted of a crime.
Steve Zand: you cannot be retried for the same crime. Again. That’s what double jeopardy is. So why, if you prosecute me for whatever crime
Steve Zand: I get a not guilty verdict, sir, you are done.
Steve Zand: Go away now.
Steve Zand: You cannot take another shot at me. Is that crystal clear?
Steve Zand: But, Marcy over there, you know what you are. You are a Federal prosecutor.
Steve Zand: You get me actually, your job is more prestigious than Vahe’s.
Steve Zand: Okay? Because you you’re you’re with the United States Attorney General’s office. Here’s the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office. Okay, you get more pay, and your job is more prestigious. So can you prosecute me, Marcy?
Steve Zand: Yes, you can, because double jeopardy only applies to the same king.
Steve Zand: and I explained to you what I mean by the word king.
Steve Zand: State of California can prosecute a defendant only once for one crime. But, Marcy, who do you represent?
Steve Zand: Not the State of California? Right?
Steve Zand: You represent the Federal Government of the United States a different sovereign.
Steve Zand: you see, double jeopardy does not attach to you, Marcy.
Steve Zand: So now you can go prosecute me. So you see what happened in Rodney King.
Steve Zand: They got prosecuted by a different king.
Steve Zand: Different sovereign, double jeopardy did not apply.
Steve Zand: Now I’m going to ask you a kind of a rhetorical question that you’re going to think
Steve Zand: what’s happening. You know
Steve Zand: how many kings do we have in this country? And I’m not talking about what’s happening currently. But just how many kings do we have in this country? Can anybody think?
Steve Zand: And I, there’s historical accuracy behind that question.
Steve Zand: how many kings do we have in this country
Steve Zand: under common law? There was a king right, and the King made the law
Steve Zand: think, how many stakes do we have?
Steve Zand: 50?
Steve Zand: We have 50 sovereign entities. You you guys get that.
Steve Zand: So under common law, which is the law of the land.
Steve Zand: Please understand, don’t disconnect, don’t disconnect. Stay present. All right. You can worry about the dog. You can worry about your flat tire. You can worry about global warming. Okay, later.
Steve Zand: Do one thing at a time. Do it? Well, move on.
Steve Zand: Alright. Right now. You need to be present here.
Steve Zand: The law of this country is called the common law.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: where is Nina? You see, she mentioned common law. Right? What happened? The 13 original colonies stay present. Don’t disconnect.
Steve Zand: Okay, the 13 original colonies they imported English law
Steve Zand: as the law of the land. Are you with me?
Steve Zand: If there was copyright, probably England would have sued them for it. Okay, they stole. They imported the entire body of English law into the 13 original colonies. It became the common law of the land.
Steve Zand: And today that we have 50 states.
Steve Zand: it’s still the law of the land, unless stay with me overwritten by statute.
Steve Zand: This is our. This is another mistake that a lot of people make.
Steve Zand: They confuse statute, wood, statue, statue of Liberty Statute is a law.
Steve Zand: So you see this on TV a lot, I mean, especially these news people news people. Well, there is a statute that says, you know, you shouldn’t do this or something. No, you idiot, it’s a statute.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And yes, it is embarrassing to make these mistakes.
Steve Zand: and we don’t make him because we are wordsmiths by vocation and by avocation.
Steve Zand: Okay, so common law is still the law of the land.
Steve Zand: There are only 2 ways to change common law.
Steve Zand: either by state by legislative action.
Steve Zand: Okay, the legislator enacts a new law that overrides common law.
Steve Zand: The other one is through a palette court decisions.
Steve Zand: You with me
Steve Zand: appellate court can say, now, blah blah blah, think about it this way, any computer people here?
Steve Zand: I’m sure there are. Okay.
Steve Zand: You know, Ariel looks like a computer programmer. Okay, Ariel, you know, what dos is digital operating system.
Steve Zand: That’s your the backbone of your computer digital operating system. Okay? And then you can override it
Steve Zand: right? Common law is your dos.
Steve Zand: You can override it through legislative action. That means United States Congress or State legislators can
Steve Zand: enact a new law, and it overwrites common law or court of appeals, can render a decision that changes it until and unless that has happened, Ariel, common law is
Steve Zand: the law of the land.
Steve Zand: Okay. So when I said, How many kings do we have, how many States do we have in the Union?
Steve Zand: 50?
Steve Zand: John knows the answer to this.
Steve Zand: So, John, how many kings do we have in the United States?
John Chern: Routine.
Steve Zand: Bytes.
Steve Zand: It’s too obvious.
John Chern: 13.
Steve Zand: You bet on it!
Steve Zand: We have 50 States and.
jude seleck: Federal Government.
jude seleck: You are.
Steve Zand: There we go, 51. Well done.
Steve Zand: You see, we have 50 sovereign states, right?
Steve Zand: And we have the Federal government
Steve Zand: using common law, common law vernacular. Each sovereign State is a king, right? Just like good old England.
Steve Zand: the sovereign, the Federal government is the king of kings.
Steve Zand: and what we learn in constitutional law is what’s called the supremacy clause.
Steve Zand: What is the supremacy clause? Federal law is the supreme law of the land.
Steve Zand: So if California wants to say something, and it conflicts with Federal law. Who wins Federal law wins
Steve Zand: you with me.
Steve Zand: It’s called the Supremacy clause.
Steve Zand: It preempts.
Steve Zand: You see how you’re adding language, Zara, it’s called a preemption doctrine.
Steve Zand: It preempts all contrary state law.
Steve Zand: Are you following?
Steve Zand: What does that mean?
Steve Zand: Let me go into Gregor’s world?
Steve Zand: California? Just passed a law that we can waterboard defendants
Steve Zand: to to get a confession out of him.
Steve Zand: Have you heard the term? It doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
Steve Zand: Where do you think that comes from?
Steve Zand: There’s a 5th amendment to the United States Constitution means that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself?
Steve Zand: You see, so Bill of Rights would preempt
Steve Zand: a State law that is contrary to Federal law.
Steve Zand: so that law that allows us to torture defendants to get a confession would be unconstitutional. Are you guys seeing how it works? Now?
Steve Zand: God bless the United States Constitution?
Steve Zand: Alright!
Steve Zand: That’s how it works.
Steve Zand: Why, again, 50 sovereign States and the Federal government. Federal government is the King of kings.
Steve Zand: Federal law preempts all contrary State law.
Steve Zand: For whatever reason, Nikon, I get you. When you go to law school. I get you again when you’re graduating in a course called community property
Steve Zand: in between, you’re on your own
Steve Zand: okay? And with community property, which is like divorce law, right?
Steve Zand: Nikon, for whatever reason you were in a family law court social security is that?
Steve Zand: Well, my generation? I’m the baby boomer generation. We’re gonna draw, suck it dry. So by the time it comes to you guys, you’re not gonna have any, but assuming there’s some left for you by the time you retire, and my generation has not vacuumed it all up. Okay,
Steve Zand: is that an asset to be divided in a divorce court?
Steve Zand: Absolutely right. It’s a valuable asset. You want to get your social security rights in the economy. Retire
Steve Zand: absolutely. You do.
Steve Zand: Yes, so does your spouse. How does it get between you and divided between you and your spouse.
Steve Zand: Does California get to do that?
Steve Zand: No, because social security administration is Federal law
Steve Zand: division of social security benefits is Federal law. California law cannot interfere with this division.
Steve Zand: You see the preemption, law, doctrine and the supremacy clause. In effect.
Steve Zand: California cannot say, Nikon, we’re giving your spouse all your social security benefits.
Steve Zand: Why? Because it’s governed by Federal law. We cannot touch it in California Court.
Steve Zand: You see how guys this stuff is working.
Steve Zand: And this is what happened in the Rodney Rodney King case, not guilty in State Court
Steve Zand: State Court, could not prosecute them. As a result of double jeopardy the fed, stepped in, prosecuted them for civil rights violations, and got them to be guilty.
Steve Zand: And yes, they really deserved it.
Steve Zand: Okay, I don’t care if that’s a politically incorrect statement on my part. I don’t care. I’m too old.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: Those days videos were very uncommon.
Steve Zand: Okay, today everything is videotaped those days. It was just luck and happenstance that somebody videotaped it.
Steve Zand: Otherwise nobody would have known.
Steve Zand: All right. It was just, and it changed everything.
Steve Zand: And
Steve Zand: you guys are too young, but if you have voted for me, I would have been your district attorney.
Steve Zand: but I lost the election.
Steve Zand: So
Steve Zand: it’s on you now. All the problems with the criminal justice system is now on you. You had your chance to elect me. You did not. Okay. That was the height of Oj. Simpson’s case. That was the height of all that Rodney King stuff.
Steve Zand: Talking about Oj. Simpson’s case was, he found, not guilty.
Steve Zand: He was as guilty as sin.
Steve Zand: but he was found not guilty, but was he found liable in a civil court?
Steve Zand: You see, everybody goes out there and says, what kind of a court system is this one court says this, and one court says that
Steve Zand: why navigate that.
Vahe Baghdasaryan: It’s a different burden of proofs.
Steve Zand: Are you guys getting it now?
Steve Zand: In a criminal case? They could not
Steve Zand: meet their burden of proof to the beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve Zand: Right in a civil case 51% much lower burden of proof. Guess what they were able to meet their burden of proof
Steve Zand: to find him! What aura.
Aram Harutyunyan: Guilty.
Steve Zand: You’re hurting my feelings.
Aram Harutyunyan: Oh, it’s liable sorry!
Steve Zand: Liable liable. Are you guys seeing how you’re already changing?
Steve Zand: You see, the way you see things start changing?
Steve Zand: Okay, so, was there any inconsistency in the Oj. Simpson’s case.
Steve Zand: Criminally, they could not convict him to the highest standard of highest burden of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case. It was a wrongful death case. 51% more likely than not they were able to find him liable
Steve Zand: right? No inconsistency.
Steve Zand: And one thing else you will learn in civil procedure, and there is beauty in all of this.
Steve Zand: If OJ. Was found guilty in the criminal case in the civil case would they have had to prove that he did it?
Steve Zand: No, because another court to a higher standard of proof had already found that he had committed the murder. So in a civil case it would have just been a question of how much
Steve Zand: the damages were.
Steve Zand: Are you with me?
Steve Zand: But not the other way around
Steve Zand: in a civil case, if he felt found liable. It’s meaningless in a criminal case.
Steve Zand: different standard burden of proof.
Steve Zand: This leads us to our 3rd burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Okay, our 3rd burden of proof.
Steve Zand: And let me try to give a good example.
Steve Zand: Where is Aura?
Steve Zand: There are
Steve Zand: You punch me in the face battery.
Steve Zand: I sue you in a civil court because I have a broken jaw, and I missed 2 months of work.
Steve Zand: The court says you got to pay me X number of dollars because you were found liable. All right. What’s the purpose of civil law around.
Aram Harutyunyan: To settle disputes between.
Steve Zand: Oh, no! Go to your notes.
Steve Zand: You’re not having a conversation with your grandma.
Aram Harutyunyan: The purpose of tort law is to make plaintiff whole again.
Steve Zand: There you go. Do you see that counselor?
Steve Zand: You see how you’re changing?
Steve Zand: We’re not having a conversation in Starbucks.
Steve Zand: All right. You’re a lawyer. Now think already as you’re a lawyer.
Steve Zand: Zara, I want you to think that you already are a lawyer. Now, what’s the only question before you.
Steve Zand: Where do I pick up the skill set
Steve Zand: to be the best, most effective lawyer I can be, you see. Think backwards. Don’t think I’m a law student. No, you already are a lawyer. And now you’re trying to pick up that basket of skills to be an effective trial lawyer.
Steve Zand: So, Ara, you see how you changed. The purpose of civil tort law is to make plaintiff whole again. So now you have to pay me a hundred $1,000 for my broken jaw, for my pain and suffering and for my lost wages. You with me.
Steve Zand: Hypo number one, hypo number 2. Same Punch aura.
Steve Zand: You punched me this time because you didn’t like my sexual orientation.
Steve Zand: You didn’t like my skin color.
Steve Zand: You didn’t like my gender. You didn’t like my sexual orientation. You didn’t like my place of origin. You didn’t like my religion.
Steve Zand: So what do we want to do as a society to you? I’ve already been made whole.
Steve Zand: We now want to punish and deter
Steve Zand: similar future conduct. Are you with me? We call that punitive damages. We learn that next semester
Steve Zand: do you see now? So in a dish I’ve already been made whole
Steve Zand: for my broken jaw. You know I lost so much wages. You know my doctor’s bills. You paid all of that. I’ve already been made whole.
Steve Zand: But we don’t want you going around punching people because you don’t like their sexual orientation.
Steve Zand: Right? So we want to punish you and deter similar future conduct. How do we do that
Steve Zand: by taking additional monies out of your pocket?
Steve Zand: They call that punitive damages.
Steve Zand: Come on, guys, there’s a beauty in this.
Steve Zand: and if you’re not seeing any beauty in this, maybe it’s time to go to medical school.
Steve Zand: Go to architectural school, go, become an engineer, as Steve Jobs said.
Steve Zand: Follow your bliss, follow your passion, whatever it may be. If this is not it for you.
Steve Zand: Okay, go find whatever it is that connects with you.
Steve Zand: Okay, this stuff connects with me at a DNA level. I love it.
Steve Zand: Okay? And if you’re passionate about it, it doesn’t feel like work.
Steve Zand: Okay, if you if if you don’t connect with it. And it just doesn’t do anything for you.
Steve Zand: Ron Forrest, Ron
Steve Zand: Forrest Gump, I don’t know if that made any sense. Okay, just don’t. Your time is far too valuable.
Steve Zand: Okay, so I’m hoping that you find some beauty in all of this
Steve Zand: by seeing this logic and connectivity between all of this stuff.
Steve Zand: So now we call that punitive damages. But you see, Aram, you I have already been made whole.
Steve Zand: So in order to punish you financially.
Steve Zand: We need a higher standard of proof.
Steve Zand: But we are not in Vahe’s criminal courtroom.
Steve Zand: We are not beyond a reasonable doubt, so we have a different
Steve Zand: burden of proof. This is your 3rd and final one. It’s called clear and convincing standard of proof.
Steve Zand: clear and convincing standard of proof.
Steve Zand: clear and convincing standard of proof.
Steve Zand: And you think you’re gonna remember this. Write it down.
Steve Zand: Okay, engage yourself all right. Clear and convincing standard of proof. What is clear and convincing standard of proof.
Steve Zand: It is evidence, that is evidence that there is a high probability evidence that there is a high probability
Steve Zand: that the fact is true evidence that there is a high probability that a fact is true
Steve Zand: evidence, that there is a high probability that a fact is true
Steve Zand: evidence, that there is a high probability that the fact is true. Keep repeating this to yourself. Think of this as Sunday school.
Steve Zand: Nobody knows what Sunday school is anymore. Okay?
Steve Zand: And you know you will repeat Bible verses until you had ingrained it into your memory. Right?
Steve Zand: This is what we do because Rm. Is gonna be sitting for the bar. Exam. It blinks of an eye. It’s gonna go like this, I promise you.
Steve Zand: Okay, we’re going to see ourselves in the corridors of school, and you’re going to come up to me and say, Hey, Professor, I remember you the 1st day of class in Tours. You told me it’s gonna fly like a blink of an eye. I’m not in my 3rd year, and I’m already studying for the board.
Steve Zand: It’s gonna go so fast.
Steve Zand: Okay, 1st of all, enjoy it.
Steve Zand: Alright! Don’t! Don’t stop enjoying it all right.
Steve Zand: and in in quickly. You are going to
Steve Zand: pick up more and more and more information where you know, you get to a point where you feel
Steve Zand: blocked and loaded ready to go. Okay, so
Steve Zand: Now we have exposed ourselves to all 3 burdens of proof preponderance, the lowest
Steve Zand: more likely than not 51%,
Steve Zand: the next clear and convincing standard of proof
Steve Zand: evidence that there that that there is a high probability that a fact is true
Steve Zand: and clear and convincing, and then, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Steve Zand: that is only used in criminal courts.
Steve Zand: Okay, these are your 3, and
Steve Zand: don’t mix them up. They have nothing in common.
Steve Zand: Alright. So now you know your burden of proof.
Steve Zand: So for the time that we have left.
Steve Zand: We are going to do a couple of things which is
Steve Zand: to teach you how to brief a case
Steve Zand: alright. When I was going to law school. They told me to brief a case. I was clueless. I said, what the hell does that mean? Brief a case, I mean. Nobody bothered explaining that to me. You know. What is it that’s briefing a case.
Steve Zand: a briefing of a case.
Steve Zand: Look at your 1st case, Liana.
Steve Zand: Help me out here. Okay, I’m not putting on the spot. Just QA. With me. Okay.
Steve Zand: Kendall versus Brown. Have you read that.
LIANNA KARIBYAN: Mildly.
Steve Zand: Okay, just I’ll tell you the facts, and I’ll teach you how to brief a case.
Steve Zand: Okay, there were 2 dogs fighting. Are you guys with me.
Steve Zand: Kendall versus Brown. Good morning. Come back. Okay.
Steve Zand: 2 dogs were fighting.
Steve Zand: The dog owner tried to separate the dogs, using his cane. Remember.
Steve Zand: in the upward motion of his cane, he hit the other dog owner blinding him.
Steve Zand: Are those the operative facts?
Steve Zand: Does anybody think I missed an important fact?
Steve Zand: The fact, it was a dark and stormy night. Do we care?
Steve Zand: Okay, did I miss any operative facts? You see. So what you do in a briefing of a case. Ask yourself, what are the operative facts?
Steve Zand: His cane was wooden, and it had, you know, a bolt painted on it. What the cane?
Steve Zand: What difference does that make?
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: Yes, I did put bolts, you know. Lightning bolts on my mother’s.
Steve Zand: what do they call those things? Well.
Steve Zand: things that elderly people walk with.
Nickon Razi: Walker.
Steve Zand: Walkers. Okay, just as fun. Okay, you know. She could hardly walk 10 feet, but you know I thought it would be cool for her she could show off to the other people in the nursing home. Okay, but you see, you got to ask yourself what are the operative facts?
Steve Zand: Those are the operative facts. So when you’re briefing.
Steve Zand: think to yourself, what are the operative facts?
Steve Zand: Okay, these are operative facts.
Steve Zand: Now, Liana, the guy with a
Steve Zand: the guy who lost his eye comes up to you and says, Attorney Caribbean, I lost an eye
Steve Zand: because this other dog owner hit me in the face with his cane, and I was blinded.
Steve Zand: What are you gonna do for me.
Steve Zand: I mean, do you think that’s not real?
LIANNA KARIBYAN: Do I think what’s not real?
Steve Zand: I mean, this is like real life, right? Because you’re going to get a case similar to that. Okay? And what is it Eliana wants. She wants her one-thirdrd
Steve Zand: right.
Steve Zand: She was taking the case on contingency. She has a billboard on the side of Ventura Boulevard, okay, and she wants to take her 1 3rd contingency. Okay.
Steve Zand: so, Liana, you’re thinking to yourself, huh?
Steve Zand: What’s the purpose of tort? La Lianna?
LIANNA KARIBYAN: To make the plane to fall again.
Steve Zand: Who’s your plaintiff now? Your client.
LIANNA KARIBYAN: Correct.
Steve Zand: You want to make your client whole minus your 1 3, rd that you’re, gonna you know. Enjoy. Okay, and buy your, you know, Bentley, whatever the case may be. Okay. And by the way, the Bentley dealership is on hold line 3. Okay. So you need to come up with the money. Okay, so
Steve Zand: recover. Make your client whole again.
Steve Zand: How do you do that?
LIANNA KARIBYAN: I don’t think we would be able to in this situation, because the defendant did not intentionally strike him in the eye. Battery is a general intent. Crime.
Steve Zand: Okay, so guys.
Steve Zand: what I’m trying to do here is to show to you that she needs to have a theory of recovery. Stay with me. I know it’s late. I know you’re tired. Okay, you know the wind has been blowing the wrong direction. All right. We are lawyers. We don’t get tired.
LIANNA KARIBYAN: That’s your mantra.
Steve Zand: We are lawyers. We don’t get tired. I have 3 jobs.
Steve Zand: Okay, at my age.
Steve Zand: And I’m yeah. I am older than your grandfathers. Okay, so
Steve Zand: if I can do it, you can do it all right. So
Steve Zand: pain, tolerance, pain, tolerance, pain, tolerance, increase your pain, tolerance.
Steve Zand: Don’t want to get off the subject, and you’re not letting you go like liana. But
Steve Zand: one of my favorite poets was Maya Angelo. You either know her. You don’t know her. Okay. And she had this beautiful poem.
Steve Zand: And please listen to it, she said. Whenever pain comes into my life I ask it.
Steve Zand: What are you here to teach me today.
Steve Zand: That’s life altering.
Steve Zand: Don’t run away from pain.
Steve Zand: Don’t run away from stress.
Steve Zand: This is Nature’s way of teaching us.
Steve Zand: Okay? So if I’m asking questions from liana liana. I promise you.
Steve Zand: I’m just trying to do my job.
Steve Zand: Okay, if I push you guys, it’s not because I’m being disrespectful. I’m just trying to do my damn job
Steve Zand: and trying to be worthy of you, too.
Steve Zand: Okay, so, Liana.
Steve Zand: thank you. It’s easy. Snap focused. I love it. Okay, all right. So I want you to understand. You need a theory of recovery.
Steve Zand: How am I going to make my client whole again?
Steve Zand: You see, that’s called the theory of recovery. What do we call a theory of recovery in law?
Steve Zand: We call it a cause of action.
Steve Zand: Okay. You see, Liana.
Steve Zand: you are not thinking what is my cause of action? What is my theory of recovery against this other dog owner? You got that?
Steve Zand: You see how it starts making sense now.
Steve Zand: So now she starts thinking, what is? How am I going to recover this money? What’s my theory of recovery?
Steve Zand: What’s the purpose of tort law to make plaintiff whole again.
Steve Zand: All right, tort law
Steve Zand: we are typing this down is a fault based system of recovery. Tort law is a fault based system of recovery. Tort law is a fault-based system of recovery.
Steve Zand: And you think you’re going to remember all of this good luck. That’s your arrogance. Okay, write it down.
Steve Zand: Okay? Oh, I’m gonna remember it. Because, you know, I am the second coming of the Messiah. Okay? Good for you. All right. You’re going to be stuck behind the bar. Okay.
Steve Zand: invest in yourselves, invest in yourselves. Okay. Tort law is a fault-based system of recovery. So, liana, she’s saying, Okay.
Steve Zand: I need
Steve Zand: a fault-based system of recovery. So what is my cause of action? What’s my theory of recovery on tort law, liana? There are 3 ways to prove fault in tort law.
Steve Zand: typing, typing, typing. There are 3 ways to prove fault.
Steve Zand: There are 3 ways to prove fault. One intentional towards
Steve Zand: you. See, Eliana, you see, she heard, now her brain is saying, huh! I see how I’m gonna make by my Bentley. Okay.
Steve Zand: she is thinking intentional Torts.
Steve Zand: What is an intentional tort?
Steve Zand: If the person the other dog owner hits the other dog owner with the intent
Steve Zand: to cause a harmful or offensive touching.
Steve Zand: Then she’s gonna go after an intentional tort.
Steve Zand: If there was no intent but carelessness or negligence.
Steve Zand: You see, negligence is our second
Steve Zand: pathway or theory to prove fault, you, you see.
Steve Zand: and there is a 3rd pathway
Steve Zand: that we will learn next semester, and that’s called strict liability.
Steve Zand: All right, I’m just gonna talk about it for about 60 seconds. But we learn that next semester.
Steve Zand: If
Steve Zand: arm over there, I don’t know why I keep picking on him. Okay, he decides to go into dynamite blasting business.
Steve Zand: He wants to implode all the high rises in Las Vegas, Nevada. Right?
Steve Zand: Are you allowed to engage in that kind of dynamite? Blasting business? Yes, you are, Aram.
Steve Zand: but if you injure anybody.
Steve Zand: We, as a society, we say, Okay, you can engage
Steve Zand: in an abnormally dangerous activity. However, if you injure anybody, that person can recover from you without showing a fault.
Steve Zand: Where is Jason, John? Remember, when you ran over my foot with your car.
Steve Zand: you are not engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
Steve Zand: You were just being careless, so my only available 3 of recovery against you is negligence. You with me.
John Chern: If you hang around for my foot.
Steve Zand: It would they intend to cause me a harmful, offensive touching?
Steve Zand: Then we will be looking at intentional Torts. Are you with me?
John Chern: Yeah, it wouldn’t be a better.
Steve Zand: Yeah, something like that. Okay.
Steve Zand: But if you were engaged in abnormally dangerous activities, such as dynamite blastine, then I could recover from you without showing a fault.
Steve Zand: Do, do you have your hand up? Is that a hand?
Steve Zand: You have a question, Mr. Sally?
Steve Zand: There’s a hand in your box.
Steve Zand: Huh? Okay, no problem. I’m just seeing a hand in your box. So I wanted to be
Steve Zand: conscious of it.
Steve Zand: Okay, are you guys seeing how this works?
Steve Zand: So we have 3 different theories of recovery.
Steve Zand: intentional tort, negligence, strict liability. That’s it. These are your 3 pathways of proving fault.
Steve Zand: And, Liliana, why is it so important to prove fault because Tort is a
Steve Zand: fault based system of recovery. If you cannot show fault, kiss your Bentley goodbye
Steve Zand: all right. You’re not going to get your Bentley, you got to show some fault on the up part of the defendant.
Steve Zand: So what is Liana doing now? Liana is thinking to herself, how am I going to show fault?
Steve Zand: What’s my 3 year of recovery? What’s my cause of action? Did this other
Steve Zand: driver? Did he do this intentionally?
Steve Zand: Did he blind my client intentionally.
Steve Zand: then he may. You may have a cause of action for battery
Steve Zand: if you didn’t do it intentionally, Anna.
Steve Zand: you’re going to be thinking to yourself, what’s my next area of recovery?
Steve Zand: Negligence?
Steve Zand: His conduct in swinging the cane fell below the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent person. Under the circumstances. That’s what negligence is.
Steve Zand: Your conduct fell below the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent
Steve Zand: person under the circumstances, is strict liability available to you. Was he engaged in a normally dangerous activity? No, so that gets shut
Steve Zand: in Kendall versus Brown. This whole case dealt with.
Steve Zand: What are the facts?
Steve Zand: What’s the issue was his conduct intentional.
Steve Zand: And what we’re gonna learn next week is a definition for intent.
Steve Zand: We’re gonna learn that intent can be specific intent.
Steve Zand: We’re defended.
Steve Zand: Wanted to bring about that particular consequence.
Steve Zand: He intended to blind the person he intended. His consequence was
Steve Zand: to bring about those goals. His goal was to bring about those consequences, that specific intent.
Steve Zand: or he had general intent.
Steve Zand: which is, when an actor intends a consequence of his conduct, if he knows with substantial certainty that those consequences will occur.
Steve Zand: Okay. So if if Liana can show that when he was swinging the cane in what era in proximity
Steve Zand: to her client’s face, you see not close proximity.
Steve Zand: This is where you know you start tipping your hand, you know, in proximity
Steve Zand: to the plaintiff’s face. Did he act with substantial certainty. Did he know with substantial certainty that he would strike his face if he did? She still has an intentional cause of action. If she doesn’t have any of these. What are you going to do, Leona?
Steve Zand: You’re going to go to plan B, which is negligence.
Steve Zand: that a reasonable, prudent person would not swing their cane in that fashion.
Steve Zand: The dog owner’s conduct in swinging of cane, in proximity to the other person’s face.
Steve Zand: was conduct falling below the standard of care of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances. Are you guys following
Steve Zand: what we’re trying to accomplish here, you see, Ileana.
Steve Zand: that Bentley is looking better and better now
Steve Zand: because you’re thinking, well, I’m gonna start with battery.
Steve Zand: Can I prove specific intent? I’m going to give you a definition for that next week? Can I prove general intent. If I can’t prove any of those, then his conduct was not intentional. Then what am I going to do? I’m not going to call mommy.
Steve Zand: I’m going to go to negligence
Steve Zand: and prove that a reasonable, prudent person would not swing their cane in this fashion under the circumstances.
Steve Zand: and we’re gonna learn that that’s called breach
Steve Zand: in the cause of action for negligence.
Steve Zand: Okay, so now, liana, these are your causes. So battery becomes your cause of action. Negligence becomes a cause of action.
Steve Zand: Causes of actions are what your theories of recovery. So when you’re briefing, you’re going to say these are the facts.
Steve Zand: The issue is, did the defendant act intentionally?
Steve Zand: Then you state the rule.
Steve Zand: Intent is either specific or general intent, and you state those.
Steve Zand: then you apply the facts to that law.
Steve Zand: That’s your analysis.
Steve Zand: Then you conclude
Steve Zand: this is called the irac method, issue, rule, analysis, conclusion, issue, rule, analysis, conclusion, issue, rule, analysis, conclusion.
Steve Zand: So this is what Liana is thinking.
Steve Zand: and if she says, Okay, I don’t have intent, then she’s going to have her second cause of action.
Steve Zand: which is negligence.
Steve Zand: Then she’s going to give the rule of law for negligence, which we haven’t learned.
Steve Zand: Duty, breach, causation, damages.
Steve Zand: Then she goes through all of that.
Steve Zand: Okay, and that’s how you and you brief a case.
Steve Zand: So you ask yourself, why is this case here?
Steve Zand: And one of the things that I really suggest you do when before you brief these cases, look at the year of the case
Steve Zand: and see where, if it’s coming from.
Steve Zand: Okay, if he’s from coming from California, you stand up straight. Okay?
Steve Zand: And you pay attention because it’s coming from the greatest state in the Union.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And listen, I’m going to prove this to you. California is
Steve Zand: just in a league of his own.
Steve Zand: Every good thing 1st happens in California and then these other States eventually follow.
Steve Zand: Okay.
Steve Zand: if he’s from coming from Tennessee. You just throw up your hands and say, Listen, you know. Give up on this thing. Okay? Right now, Tennessee is trying to pass legislation, allowing lawyers to carry guns in the courtroom.
Steve Zand: Brilliant. So I’m in courtroom. Jason is my opposing lawyer instead of me focusing on my argument. I’m looking at his hip.
Steve Zand: Is he about to draw on me?
Steve Zand: I didn’t need a gun in a courtroom. For God’s sakes! What is the purpose in that?
Steve Zand: How is that beneficial. But then, hey? Maybe that’s over my pay grade and don’t. Don’t think you know I love guns, you know I’m gun collector, and all of that. But in a courtroom. Are you kidding me? I mean, I don’t even connect with that type of thinking
Steve Zand: California as we do the cases in your in your textbook. You see all that. Where do you think sexual harassment came from
Steve Zand: the great State of California?
Steve Zand: Where do you think intentional infliction, negligent infliction of emotional distress came from the great state of Cal.
Steve Zand: Okay, every good thing happens here. So when you see California cases, you just stand up straight, you pay attention. You salute. And
Steve Zand: you, thank
Steve Zand: all the positive forces in the universe that have given you the privilege of being a resident of the State of California.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And we’re going to be practicing the State of California, which is judicial system, is by far ahead of every other state you ever want to. If you doubt me, Google, Nevada Courts.
Steve Zand: Okay? And you’ll find out what it’s like. Okay, I mean, Nevada Afghanistan, you know. I mean, okay,
Steve Zand: we are. Just, I’m so proud of California.
Steve Zand: Okay, I really am.
Steve Zand: 37 years I practiced here, and I don’t want to say there is no corruption. I don’t want to say there is no nepotism, but I have never, ever personally experienced it.
Steve Zand: nor do I know of any lawyer who has experienced.
Steve Zand: who goes in and says, judge so and so.
Steve Zand: Oh, Judge Kasabian over there? Well, you know, just.
Steve Zand: you know. Give him an envelope.
Steve Zand: It just doesn’t happen in California, I mean, I don’t want to say never happens, but I have never, ever seen it. Okay, you know, California is truly, is California legislature, California judicial system
Steve Zand: California courts are in a league of their own.
Steve Zand: Okay, just so far ahead of every other state. I’m just. That’s just my view. You don’t have to agree with it, but you know
Steve Zand: I’m very, very proud to practice in the courts of State of California. I consider it truly a privilege and an honor.
Steve Zand: So now.
Steve Zand: that’s what. So you look at the year of the case because some of these years you start seeing some really old cases. If you have ever looked through your textbook.
Steve Zand: Okay, some of them go back to the 14th century.
Steve Zand: all right, and you start seeing the sophistication of the language changes
Steve Zand: all right. Do you guys think about it? 14th century was what was medicine like, okay, leeches.
Steve Zand: And you know, bleeding as as the best you know.
Steve Zand: I mean, things have changed. But just think about it.
Steve Zand: In the 14th century somebody wrote a judicial opinion. If that doesn’t impress you, I don’t know what does.
Steve Zand: Okay? In the 14th century, you know.
Steve Zand: they used to keep snakes in their homes to keep the rats away.
Steve Zand: Have you ever looked at a pharmacy’s insignia.
Steve Zand: Have you seen these 2 snakes going up the up the up of it? Where do you think that comes from?
Steve Zand: Because in the medieval times people would keep snakes
Steve Zand: to keep mice out of their house because mice was carrier of all kinds of diseases.
Steve Zand: So think about it. Oh, yes, can I have a snake running around my house instead of having mice, because I’d rather be bitten by a snake than have a mice in my house.
Steve Zand: Okay, so next time you go to a pharmacy, look, every pharmacy has it. Where do you think that comes from?
Steve Zand: This is how much we have progressed? Okay, so always look to see where the case comes from.
Steve Zand: If it’s a State of California Supreme Court case, you really pay attention.
Steve Zand: Okay, if if it’s from some other jurisdiction.
Steve Zand: It doesn’t mean that California has to follow it. The only reason is in your textbook because it has a pedagogical purpose. The purpose is to teach you a piece of law, okay, or the history of development of of law. All right. And look at the year.
Steve Zand: These are important things to do so in Kendall versus Brown. Look at the year, see where it came from, and this is what we brief
Steve Zand: alright, and the whole process is, what’s the issue in the case. What’s the law that you got out of this case?
Steve Zand: And what was the application of the law to the facts? That’s the analysis.
Steve Zand: Okay, so that’s how we brief cases.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: One other thing I need to do
Steve Zand: before I completely put Naira to sleep. Okay, is the following, okay, I really try to be entertaining. But please understand, sometimes it’s just not possible. Okay, I do my best. But you know, I’m not really that good. Funny. Okay, but I try. Okay,
Steve Zand: so think about the following, how does if my whiteboard cooperates with me?
Steve Zand: And
Steve Zand: on that one, let’s do this one
Steve Zand: alright.
Steve Zand: Think about how does a court work?
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: Who’s gonna do this with me?
Steve Zand: Brianna, you’re looking exceptionally sharp. Okay? So in a plaintiff
Steve Zand: in a courtroom. Leona, who has the burden of proof.
LIANNA KARIBYAN: I’m sorry. Did you say Brianna or Liana.
Steve Zand: Brianna.
LIANNA KARIBYAN: Oh, okay.
Brianna Horton: What’s the question? One more time.
Steve Zand: In a courtroom.
Brianna Horton: Who has the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: Just learned that I did. I did.
Steve Zand: Okay, you got this. Just go
Steve Zand: Blind.
Brianna Horton: It is cool.
Brianna Horton: The plaintiff.
Steve Zand: There you go.
Steve Zand: Okay, there you got this. Okay, there is nothing difficult under the sun.
Steve Zand: Okay, plaintiff has the burden of proof.
Steve Zand: So when you’re talking about how he works in a courtroom, you represent the guy who lost his eye.
Steve Zand: Right?
Steve Zand: You show up in the courtroom.
Steve Zand: Does the defendant have to do anything, Brianna.
Brianna Horton: I mean show up.
Steve Zand: Of Brianna.
Steve Zand: Just trust yourself, for God’s sakes.
Steve Zand: You just answered the question, who has a burden of proof.
Brianna Horton: The plaintiff.
Steve Zand: Okay, so what is the defendant has to do?
Steve Zand: Nothing.
Brianna Horton: Oh!
Steve Zand: Okay, so plaintiff needs to prove.
Steve Zand: And this is a new term. You guys need to learn prima facie
Steve Zand: prima PRIM. A facie FAC prima facie
Steve Zand: prima facie. You will see it all over every textbook in contracts, in torts, everywhere the prima facie elements
Steve Zand: of a cause of action.
Steve Zand: All right, prima facie elements for a cause of action. We have not learned negligence, but just as an example, the prima facie elements for negligence are duty.
Steve Zand: breach, causation, and damages.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: These are the components of a cause of action.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: So what is it? Where did she go? Oh, there is, Brianna, don’t give up on me.
Steve Zand: Okay, just stay. Stay with me. Okay, you got this all right.
Steve Zand: Hmm, you, as the plaintiff’s attorney, Brianna.
Steve Zand: What is your cause of action? Negligence? I don’t expect you to know these things yet. We’re going to spend 8 weeks on negligence, this semester, and we’re going to spend
Steve Zand: 6 weeks of next semester on negligence. That’s how big negligence is. So if you think I’m going to explain it in 10 min in one night.
Steve Zand: I’m not okay. So you’re gonna go. You’re and the court is. Gonna say, Attorney Orton, you may proceed.
Steve Zand: So thank you, your honor, then you’re going to put on evidence to establish that there was a duty.
Steve Zand: and you may put that evidence through testimony or through documents, or whatever there may be.
Steve Zand: then you’re going to prove that there was breach, and you don’t know what any of these things are, and I’m not expecting you to know that you go through the elements of your cause of action.
Steve Zand: All right when you are done.
Steve Zand: What do you think you tell the judge?
Steve Zand: You say, your honor, plaintiff rests, rests.
Steve Zand: and when you say plaintive rest it doesn’t mean that you go find the nearest couch.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s legally speaking, you’re saying, your honor.
Steve Zand: we have met our burden of proof to meet
Steve Zand: each and every prima facie element of this thing. Are you guys seeing this or not?
Steve Zand: You’re seeing it. Right? Okay. So when Brianna has met each and every prima facie element of her cause of action, what does she tell the judge? Your honor
Steve Zand: plaintiff rests.
Steve Zand: Then guess what happens. Brianna.
Steve Zand: What happens next is.
Brianna Horton: Oh, the defendant! Plead, staircase.
Steve Zand: The burden of proof now shifts
Steve Zand: to the plaintiff, to the defendant.
Steve Zand: and guess what the defendant needs to do. Now, defendant now needs to raise
Steve Zand: plaintiff. Now, defendant now needs to raise affirmative defenses.
Steve Zand: and we’re going to spend a lot of time on what is an affirmative defense.
Steve Zand: an affirmative defense. Brianna is a complete bar to recovery.
Steve Zand: You with me.
Brianna Horton: Yes.
Steve Zand: So what is an affirmative? Defense is, hey? Remember, rm, hits me.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: Then I’m suing him for battery. What do you think Rm. Is going to say, your honor, it was self-defense.
Steve Zand: That’s an affirmative defense.
Steve Zand: It bars my recovery. If he can prove that he has a valid affirmative defense. You see.
Steve Zand: that’s how law works.
Steve Zand: and at the end, then your case, Brianna, is called your case in chief.
Steve Zand: If you have failed to meet the prima facie elements of your case in chief defendant is going. When you say plaintiff, rest. Defendant then raises, moves for a motion to dismiss.
Steve Zand: saying, judge
Steve Zand: plaintiff has failed to meet his or her burden of proof. We move to have the case dismissed. The judge makes a ruling either yes or no. If the answer is Yes, then the burden shifts to the defendant to raise affirmative defenses.
Steve Zand: This is an anatomy
Steve Zand: of a case. So what we’ll be doing this semester is the following, what we will be doing this semester is, we’re going to 1st start with intentional torts.
Steve Zand: We will learn all intentional torts.
Steve Zand: We will learn battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to chattel.
Steve Zand: We will learn conversion, we will learn intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Steve Zand: Then we will learn all the affirmative defenses to all these causes of actions.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And when we’re done with this.
Steve Zand: and these are considered the happy days.
Steve Zand: Okay, when we’re done with this, then we go to negligence.
Steve Zand: and we learn a new cause of action for negligence.
Steve Zand: And then we go through the prima facie elements of negligence, and then next semester. We will learn all the affirmative defenses to negligence.
Steve Zand: Next semester. We have a section which I think that’s your litmus test
Steve Zand: for you to know if law is for you or not, and that’s called defamation.
Steve Zand: All right. It’s my favorite subject.
Steve Zand: Okay?
Steve Zand: And I think it’s the highlight of law school.
Steve Zand: If you don’t like defamation.
Steve Zand: All right.
Steve Zand: Law school is not for you.
Steve Zand: That’s my best show.
Steve Zand: Alright. And if that doesn’t do it for you, really, you know.
Steve Zand: it’s important to find something that connects with you all right.
Steve Zand: And what I’m asking you is to respect your time.
Steve Zand: You guys know who Warren Buffett is.
Steve Zand: Yeah, I mean, I’m not so sure but he’s worth somewhere around 120 billion dollars, right? Some ridiculous amount of money.
Steve Zand: And he is, I think, in his late eighties.
Steve Zand: Okay, so, Brianna, are you willing to change places with Warren Buffett?
Brianna Horton: Mean.
Steve Zand: Take all his money and be his age 120 billion dollars.
Brianna Horton: No.
Steve Zand: Listen to me. I’m giving you a hundred 20 billion dollars, and you will be him
Steve Zand: yay, or nay.
Brianna Horton: Age, wise, too.
Steve Zand: Yes, ma’am.
Brianna Horton: Oh, no, I’m okay.
Steve Zand: Oh, 94. Nikon said that he’s 94. What are you telling me
Steve Zand: that you place more importance on your time
Steve Zand: than a hundred 20 billion dollars.
Steve Zand: Think about that, Brianna, for a second.
Steve Zand: What what is it that you’re saying that your time is worth more than a hundred 20 billion dollars.
Steve Zand: Remember that, guys
Steve Zand: remember that. I’m sure if I ask that question from any of you, your response would be exactly the same as Brianna’s
Steve Zand: no way. Take your 120 billion dollars. So what’s the takeaway from this that your time is more value than 120 billion dollars
Steve Zand: act like it.
Steve Zand: Act like it.
Steve Zand: Don’t waste your time.
Steve Zand: It’s your most valuable asset, Brianna, 100. And you said No to 120 billion dollars.
Steve Zand: Okay, the message is that your time is worth more than 120 billion dollars. So how you spend it
Steve Zand: is really serious.
Steve Zand: Okay. And this is what my message to you. If law school doesn’t do it, for. You find your bliss, whatever it may be.
Steve Zand: Okay, you may want to be a musician. Maybe you want to be an architect. Maybe you want to be a mathematician. I don’t know.
Steve Zand: Follow whatever it is. Your bliss
Steve Zand: don’t do this for the wrong reasons.
Steve Zand: If it connects with you, stay with it.
Steve Zand: Okay? And hopefully, it connects with you.
Steve Zand: and you will find joy in it.
Steve Zand: Okay? Because if you find joy in it, then that’s true happiness.
Steve Zand: When you love what you do.
Steve Zand: Okay, it’s 9, 30. I finish all my classes
Steve Zand: by saying, Namaste, which means what is good and honorable in me
Steve Zand: bows to what is good and honorable in you.
Steve Zand: I’ll see you. I’ll be on campus next Wednesday.
Steve Zand: So I’ll teach this class from campus if you wish to come to campus. Okay? And if there are enough students on campus, then I may just teach it from campus. So you guys can come
Steve Zand: all right.
Steve Zand: So Zara.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: I just wanna ask if we need to buy the the.
Steve Zand: Question. I’ve got a lot of.
Steve Zand: And 15th edition look, 15th editions, apparently, is difficult to find. Okay, there are cases in the 15th edition that are not in the 14th edition. But look, if you have the 14th edition and there is a case you can. Just you guys have access to Westlaw. You understand that
Steve Zand: you know how much lawyers pay per month for your access.
Steve Zand: $650 a month
Steve Zand: for the access that you have to Westlaw. Good morning.
Steve Zand: So Wesnel has this book as well.
Steve Zand: Westlaw, you can research all these cases on it.
Steve Zand: not the book itself, but you have the access to to look up the case. Okay? So you know, you lawyers will give their left arm to have access to Westlaw. The way you guys do.
Steve Zand: Okay, you can look up cases in Tennessee. I don’t know why, but you could. Okay, and
Steve Zand: you can live without it. All right. I don’t want to pressure anybody to spend the money, you know.
Steve Zand: and I will go over the cases. I’ll do my best to manage it. Okay, that’s the best I can tell.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: But I mean eventually for bar exam, like eventually.
Steve Zand: Bar exam. Has nothing to do with your textbook. Bar exam. Has everything to do with me, giving all the black letter law that you need and everything that. And you putting the time to memorize the black letter law.
Steve Zand: Okay, the textbook is not gonna play a role in you. Passing the bar, I promise.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: And what about homeworks like do you like put like homeworks in the.
Steve Zand: In the in the syllabus. You see the cases there
Steve Zand: and and then, you know, sometimes we deviate from the cases. I always tell you, then in class, please read to such and such page.
Steve Zand: Okay, give or.
gevorg kulikyan: Yeah, Professor, just wanted to make sure I’m Mark present. I got kicked off in the beginning of the class.
Steve Zand: Yes, you are.
gevorg kulikyan: Thank you.
Steve Zand: Everybody is no worries, but just, you know. Please try to be here on time, and you know, listen.
Steve Zand: I can wing it, too, you know. I
Steve Zand: I haven’t eaten since, God knows when. You know I’m hungry, too, you know. I want to go eat, and you know. But
Steve Zand: you know we we we stay with it all right. All you guys
Steve Zand: have a wonderful evening. I’ll see you next Wednesday.
Robert Nazarian: Thank you. Professor.
George Diaz: Thank you. Professor.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Thank you.
Zahra Movassaghigilani: Sure.
Nickon Razi: Professor.
George Diaz: Have a wonderful weekend.
Steve Zand: Thank you.
Nickon Razi: So professor.
Steve Zand: Yes, sir.
Nickon Razi: I haven’t eaten since 12. When have you not eaten.
Steve Zand: I have not eaten since 8 30 last night.
Nickon Razi: And I knew. Do you? So, you fast! Are you doing that on purpose?
Steve Zand: But today was a bad day, you know. I just didn’t get. I usually eat around one o’clock.
Nickon Razi: And just one meal a day. Do you like to do stuff like that?
Steve Zand: No, no, I eat from like I don’t eat for 16 h.
Nickon Razi: Okay.
Steve Zand: Okay, and then I eat for 8.
Steve Zand: So I go from 6 to maybe 7 o’clock, 8 o’clock, you know.
Steve Zand: But even during those 16 HI don’t even put milk in my coffee. I mean, it’s just black tea.
Steve Zand: black coffee, and water.
Nickon Razi: I’ve seen you always have black tea and water, I mean coffee, black coffee, water. I’ve always seen.
Steve Zand: And I don’t even put a drop of milk in it.
Nickon Razi: Just to keep yourself alert and keep your system fresh.
Steve Zand: No, it’s because
Grigor Kasabyan: Okay.
Nickon Razi: You don’t. Anything that you put down. Your mouth has a glucose right.
Steve Zand: Bike to it. Yeah, you want to keep your glucose at a minimum for as long as possible.
Steve Zand: All right. Yeah, that, you know, helps with. Look, I’m an old dude. I have to worry about Alzheimer’s. I have to worry about, you know, arterial blockage I have to worry about.
Steve Zand: Yeah. You. You’re bulletproof right now. I used to be like you, you know. I you know we would go to been in and out, Burger 2 o’clock in the morning and have to. Okay. If I right now, you have to take me to emergency room. Okay.
Steve Zand: change when you get old.
Nickon Razi: Right.
Steve Zand: So that’s how it goes. But no, I believe in fasting absolutely.
Nickon Razi: Yeah, I feel better when I do it, too.
Steve Zand: Is very good for you.
Steve Zand: No question about it. If you read the science on it. Fasting is good for you.
Steve Zand: Okay. But today it just got busy, and I never got any food.
Nickon Razi: Alright. I don’t want to keep you, but that’s that’s pretty badass. I oh, it’s still recording. I just realized that, okay.
Steve Zand: I never say anything politically incorrect to begin.
Nickon Razi: I might, though that’s why I’m making sure I I don’t.
Nickon Razi: It’s all good oppressor.
Grigor Kasabyan: Professor. Tomorrow you you might see the participation drop if I’m in, an if you know.
Steve Zand: Know what’s going on.
Steve Zand: Okay? Alright. Well, thank you. I wish you a great rest of your night.
Steve Zand: 10.
Grigor Kasabyan: That was an awesome lecture. So I look forward to the other classes to come honestly, very animated, and you keep it alive. So thank you for that.
Steve Zand: Have you taken anything else yet.
Grigor Kasabyan: Contracts with Professor.
Grigor Kasabyan: Wow. What an awesome, awesome man! Yeah, awesome man. And then I have the Mbe review and legal research and writing on Friday with Mirar Char.
Steve Zand: My student, and she’s smart as hell.
Grigor Kasabyan: Oh, wow! Okay, good. Yes. And I look forward, and I know you only teach Torts. And what was the other one family.
Steve Zand: I teach bridging the gap between law school and the practice of law, and I teach community property.
Grigor Kasabyan: I think that’s the.
Steve Zand: Property is a bar tested subject, so we’ll take that together.
Grigor Kasabyan: Perfect. Okay, good. And bridging. The gap is something I’m really looking forward to, too.
Steve Zand: All right.
Grigor Kasabyan: Yeah, all right, Professor. I will see you.
Grigor Kasabyan: Bye, sir. 
