From: To: <Editor@lawschool.com> Subject: Date: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:37 PM This was posted for Concord students:
The Hornbook has the old rule "any matter not
privileged, which is
the subject matter involved in the pending action," but warns that
this rule might soon change.
The Casebook, which is copyright 2001, states that the rule DID
change to "relevant to the claim or defense of either party."
The FRCP 2002 supplement states that this change took place in 2000.
Our course began in 2003.
It is now 2004.
Our course lecture, however*, teaches the old "subject matter" rule.
This raises the question of which is better:
 Hiring a Big Name to instruct students on basic rules of black
letter law - such a Big Name that it is too expensive to re-record
each time major changes to the law are made, if not once a year
(despite tuition that is 50% higher than one's closest competitor and
4 times that of ones least expensive competitor)?
 Hiring the too-expensive-to-update Big Name for the lecture, but
then having one of our less expensive but Very-Well-Learned
Professors in each subject become immortalized in digital
videophotography by having him/her provide a 5 minute "errata" update
at the end of each presentation, to bring it current to within one
year of a student's listening to it?
 Using some of the excess profits to hire the Big Name to correct
his own errata annually (but what to say to the NYSE:WPO
 Archiving the Big-Name-Lecturer for historical posterity (after 4
years, perhaps it is of more historical interest than utility, as the
law tends to change with some regularity!), and hiring our WONDERFUL
Letter-Law Profs to lecture to us on what IS the Law, rather than
what once WAS the Law?
After all, these lectures really ARE just Black Letter Law, and we
get plenty of Prof Miller's erudite musings in our HB and CB; even
Prof. FLEMING and his competitors from the BarBri Coast can teach