The Law Talking Guy

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Joey Fishkin says:

    I second this.

    Every review session, before every exam, I tell my students: You may think you are supposed to state the issue, state the rule, do the analysis, and then tell me a conclusion (the old IRAC, now apparently superseded by some fancier acronym).

    But actually, I tell them, almost all of your words should be spent on the analysis — applying the rule to the facts. If you do this in a clear way, you will make it obvious what the rule is that you’re applying and also what the issue was (and, for that matter, what your conclusion is) without wasting entire sentences on each of those things. On an issue-spotter question, what I generally want to see is your skill in applying the rules to the facts.

    I tell my students this, but their ability or willingness to implement it varies. I still always get a few answers that spend the majority of their time telling me what the rules are, which is no good in either an exam or a legal brief.

  2. Steve M says:

    I love Simpsons references.