Remembering the Promise of the Declaration of Independence

Episode Notes

Transcript

Michael Ariens:

Lawyers are capable not only of great emotional appeals, but one hopes in law school they learned great reasoning appeals, and if you allow someone to make arguments from reason, not just from emotion, that at least begins the discourse.

Amanda Arriaga:

Welcome to the next episode of Leading theBar. I’m your host, Amanda Arriaga and with me is NCBP President Patrick Palace. In the next two episodes, we’re taking a look at our midyear meeting in San Antonio, Texas. We had presentations about strengthening bench bar relationships, celebrating the importance of the Declaration of Independence ideas for how your bar association can create rule of law programs, expanding access to justice and more. If you joined us at the meeting and heard the presentations, don’t worry. This podcast on the next one will have new information for you that you didn’t hear on stage. If you couldn’t join us at the meeting, this will give you a glimpse into what you missed and why you should join us at our annual meeting in Chicago, July 30th to August 1st. And if you’re an NCBP member, you can access a lot more information for your bar association on our [email protected]. Patrick, what was your favorite part of the conference?

Patrick Palace:

There was so many parts of this. It was really an amazing conference, and I have to tell you, we pushed out requests for feedback and the feedback came flowing in and I think this is the best midyear we’ve probably ever had. Now, I might be biased because I had this incredible opportunity to be on stage, introduce a lot of these programs, and then to them and you, Amanda had the chance to interview some of these really amazing speakers that came off stage. But I have to give out just a couple of shout outs. You talked about the expansion of access to Justice and more. We had Texas Justice Busby talking about access to justice and all of the tools that are out there. I thought his discussion of the laundry list of tools and the things we can do to actually take steps to bridge this access to justice gap was amazing. I really loved his presentations. We also had these awards, and I know what you’re thinking. Who wants to have rubber chicken at a giant awards banquet thing? But look, the people that were at this, and I know you know this because you’re sitting there at the table across from me, Amanda, but these award recipients were amazing. And if you don’t mind, can I give just a quick shout out?

Amanda Arriaga:

Of course,

Patrick Palace:

A shout out to our Lexi Nexus rule of Law award winner, which is Dan Kotter, who’s our former NCBP President. He also writes the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. He has a book, the Chief Justices and I told a little story, a stage about that because he was there at the Supreme Court and he was actually in the bookstore where they have all the books and his book was on the shelf, which is kind of cool. And there’s somebody there in the store and finds out it’s his book and gets so excited and so asked, he can have his autograph and take pictures. And so there’s pictures of Dan Cotter in the Supreme Court bookstore holding his book with this fan club signing autographs, which I think is amazing. But he won this rule of law word for his work and we’re very proud of him.

Also, judge Doris Cozy, who was a former member of the NCBP Executive Council president of the Virginia State Bar, and she won this Fellows Award for all of her outstanding work. And it was a pleasure. It was so nice to give it to her on stage. She’s been such an example of what it means to be a state bar president. And then we gave an award for the President’s page. So we look for the best pages that are being pushed out across the country in whatever state bar journal they’re in. And Kathy Law had one about mental health, about her battle with anxiety and impression as a lawyer and a leader. And so we gave it the award for her, the president’s page, recognizing her work in September, 2025, Iowa lawyer. They’re really meaningful awards. Really fun to have those. But I know you did your things at the conference too, Amanda, tell me about your takeaways.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, I might be biased, but I loved our opening reception because it was Texas themed. We were in my home state.

Yes, it was. We had support from various bar associations, the Austin Bar, Dallas Houston, San Antonio, Tarrant County, and the Smith County Bar Association. And everyone came dressed to in press, in particular, our president Patrick, you came in a fully bedazzled country outfit as if you were going to the Grand Ole Opry. I would encourage all of our listeners to go and look at our pictures. And I do want to remind you, nobody in Texas really dresses like we were dressing, but we were going for the theme. We don’t always wear boots with tassels and hats and fringe and sashes. I brought my Fiesta princess sash and let all the ladies take pictures with it. So we had a great time.

Patrick Palace:

Well, I lived in Dallas for a while, so I got a sense that if you’re going to go to Texas, you go biggie, you don’t go at all. So I thought, what’s the way? I’m going to leave an impression amongst Texans, and so maybe I dress the part a little louder than most. But you know what says Texas more than a big hat and a few rhinestones,

Amanda Arriaga:

Definitely our roundstone cowboy.

Patrick Palace:

That was fun. But you also gave a tour, Amanda of the Alamo, and you told us stories about this.

Amanda Arriaga:

We went to the famous Alamo many times and anyone from Texas can attest that we don’t learn a whole lot about US history, but we definitely learn a lot about Texas history. And so I told the story of the Yellow Roses of Texas, which sounds like a lovely story. And in fact, the highest honor you can give to a woman in state government is to be called the yellow Rose of Texas. But if you go to the Alamo and you look at the plaque, what it says is that this woman distracted Santa Ana, and that’s how we won the Battle of San Jacinto and became Texans. That’s maybe not what Texas women in government would like to be known for, but no one knew that story. So I was proud as I told the story. I know all of you thought I was making it up, and then you saw it on the plaque in person and you knew I like to tell a story, but that one’s true.

Patrick Palace:

Well, it did sound a little farfetched, but then on the tour that you gave Amanda, there’s this huge statue of the Ella Rosa, Texas there and the whole story, and it’s not any more embellished what you said, so I liked the official version. I liked your version a lot.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes, thank you to Emily Morgan, but please don’t call me the Yale Rose of Texas because since I know what it means, it’s not super nice.

Patrick Palace:

There were some other fun things. We had our president of the American Bar Association, Michelle Benke there, and our president elect, Barbara Howard and a number of other dignitaries along the way. But one of the things you get to do when you’re president, when you’re on stage is take selfies. And so I have to tell you, I grabbed a few selfies of us on stage looking out of the audience, and it’s fun to see whatever, 300 presidents across the country, all raising their hands and helping you celebrate a selfie. We’ll post those pictures too. I think they came out fun showing the spirit and the energy that was there at the conference.

Amanda Arriaga:

Y’all definitely love a selfie.

Patrick Palace:

We took a few. We took a few. Can we also talk just a minute about this pledge, because we did the whole podcast about this last time.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes. And I know the goal was to get momentum so that bars and individuals would sign the pledge. Did anyone sign the pledge?

Patrick Palace:

Yeah. Yeah. It was really an amazing moment of unity when you have all theBar presidents coming together on a singular pledge from across the country. I think that podcast we did. You did such a nice job at that and thank you because I think it really built momentum. We’ve had more people downloading that podcast than I think any other podcast in a very short period of time. And at the conference, people were sharing it and talking about it. That helped give background and momentum to people to sign. And literally within three days, we had hundreds and hundreds of signatures. And since we announced it on stage and did the presentation about the pledge on stage, entire bars started signing. I mean, while we’re at the conference, executive councils are meeting presidents are getting together, and it’s being done. Allegheny Bar signed while we were there, the New Jersey bar signed while we were there, the Nashville Bar signed we’re here.

The National Conference of Women Bar Associations endorsed it and signed as an entire bar. And that’s continuing to happen. So we’re getting entire bar signing off and joining the pledge. And you can see when you go online to sign at the bottom of the pledge, there’s a running list of people who have signed it. And really it makes me very proud, Amanda, because it’s literally hundreds of bar presidents and leaders across the country who are joining in signing the pledge and standing in unity for the values and principles that hold this bar and our profession together under our oath and rules of professional conduct. And I love that it says a lot about who we are and who we are not and what we stand for, and that so many of us are standing up and signing, including you. Amanda, thank you for signing and thank you for your support. This pledge is a huge success. For those who are listening to this podcast, you can go to our NCBP website and look under resources or just Google NCBP pledge and it’ll take you to the page. A couple of clicks of the Malice electronic signature is there, and so please sign if you’re a lawyer and ask you or bar to join the many bars who have already signed the pledge.

Amanda Arriaga:

And there was a nice tie in because one of our plenary sessions was about the Declaration of Independence. It’s the 250th anniversary. We are talking to Professor Aarons in today’s podcast episode about that anniversary. And so it’s really relevant to the pledge, and you were able to tie that nicely together with that panel.

Patrick Palace:

Yeah, I had a lot to do about the impedance of the profession and where we come from 250 years. I’m really excited to share the interview that you had with Professor Aarons. He was a wonderful speaker at the conference, and I’m so glad you got a chance to sit down with him and do a deep dive. Tell me just a couple of your quick takeaways. I’m spoiler alert, I don’t want to take anything away from your interview, but tell me maybe something that you took away from this discussion.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, what I think everyone is going to notice is that this professor is like no professor. You had in law school, you think of professors, especially almost 40 year professors as stodgy and maybe a little too academic, but Professor Aarons was so fun and jovial and I can see that he would make his students just have a great time wanting to learn. So we talked about everything from what the kids are like now coming into law school to whether the musical Hamilton, which as we know I love, was actually something that is good for students or is it something that is making us dumber because we’re looking at that for history instead of reading actual books. And so I think that the audience is going to love this part too, where you get to know more about the declarations, but also know about the professor a little more.

Patrick Palace:

Yeah, he was great. Such a great storyteller. Before we kick this off, can I take a minute and just thank sponsors because look, if we didn’t have these sponsors, it’d be so hard for us to have the kind of success we have with these conferences. So just wanted to shout out to our leading diamond sponsor, Clio, for all of your work and support and your whole team that came to the conference. It was so nice to have you there. To our platinum sponsors, Lexi Nexus, who’ve been with us for two decades, supporting us and to file Vine. Also our gold sponsor, Momentive and our silver sponsors, a BA retirement fund, CLE abroad, LSAC Law, QI, and Member Central. Thank you to all of these great sponsors because truly we couldn’t do this or the conference or all of the things that are important to us as leaders without their support behind us.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes, thank you to the sponsors, the speakers, the staff, the council, the attendees for a great conference. And let’s hear from Professor Aarons. Welcome to the next episode of Leading theBar. I’m your host, Amanda Arriaga. Today we’re recording from our mid-year meeting in San Antonio, Texas. We just listened to the morning plenary session fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence. This July 4th will be the 250th anniversary of the declaration. I’m joined by Michael Ariens, professor at St. Mary’s Law School, who was a panelist at this session, professor 250 years later. Is the Declaration of Independence still relevant?

Michael Ariens:

I think it is. It’s not as relevant to most people, largely because most documents don’t seem to be relevant to most people. But I think for lawyers, there is a real relevance to understanding the notions of liberty inequality that helped us forge a nation.

Amanda Arriaga:

What can lawyers and bar leaders do to celebrate this anniversary?

Michael Ariens:

That’s a good question. I think the best answer was provided by Patrick Palace when he said, what we need to think about is we need to think about ways in which we connect. Law and democracy. Law and democracy have always been understood as connected, but the precise nature of that connection, it’s vitality, its thickness if you will, has often not been explored. And I do think that in these particular and sometimes perilous times, that it’s quite a valuable way in which to engage not only lawyers, but people in the community as well.

Amanda Arriaga:

So one thing that engaged people in the community, I always talk about, I love music. I love musical theater. I know more about music than I have actual facts is I think the musical Hamilton did a lot to tell the public about our founding fathers. But since you’re a professor, was that a good thing or a bad thing? Because anecdotally they say that kids are now making vibes on their AP test, their AP government test because of Hamilton. But if I wrote an essay on theBar exam based on Hamilton, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Michael Ariens:

Well, that would be a terrible thing, so don’t do that.

Amanda Arriaga:

Okay.

Michael Ariens:

But I do think overall, Hamilton, the musical is a great thing. First of all, it saved what the $10 bill it did. I mean, that was gone and all of a sudden they’re not talking about it anymore. They’re focused on the $20 bill, which I would be fine to change from Jackson to somebody else. If anybody’s getting a five on the AP history test and it’s connected with Hamilton, that is a fabulous thing because way too many of the teenagers, especially the 20 somethings that I teach, really haven’t learned a whole great or haven’t learned a great deal of history. I mean, they just seem not to have engaged in that topic at all. And I don’t know what’s going on in K through 12 or six through 12. That would create sometimes an appalling lack of knowledge. Like what century did the Civil War start in?

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, we both live in Texas. We’re in San Antonio right now, and we definitely have a focus on Texas history. We grow up knowing about the Alamo. But you’re right, we don’t necessarily know about all of the other important things in history that are happening.

Michael Ariens:

We do. We love our state and we love our history in our state sometimes too much. And so that too much might be, maybe we should push a little bit back and discuss American history as well as Texas history.

Amanda Arriaga:

I will say watching Hamilton sometimes helped me relate to the men in the office.

Michael Ariens:

Did it?

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes. Because I feel like a lot of older men really know a lot about history. And when I had to explain, you see, the reason we have conflict is I’m a Hamilton and you’re a burr, but we’re both just trying to get things

Michael Ariens:

Done. I like that idea. That’s a good way in which to think about polar opposites. In fact, one ends up killing the other, but they had an opportunity to work well together. I’ll tell you a very brief story. I wrote a book called The Lawyer’s Conscience, and one of the stories had to do with a murder that occurred in New York City in 1799. And when the alleged murderer was tried, he was represented by both Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. That is, this is just four, four and a half years before Burr shoots and kills Hamilton. They worked really well together. They showed pretty clearly that the person accused not only wasn’t the killer, but highly likely couldn’t have been the killer. And it was one of the first cases in which you actually got a transcript of how the lawyers asked the questions and how they were answered. So there was some evidence of those two working well together even though it ended badly as a relationship.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, I mean, people have lifelong friends, frenemies rivals, and that is something in history I wouldn’t have known. But for the musical,

Michael Ariens:

That’s

Amanda Arriaga:

Fantastic. I could have learned it in a book, but I didn’t.

Michael Ariens:

You learned it in a musical.

Amanda Arriaga:

I learned it in a musical.

Michael Ariens:

And there were songs that were really good songs as well that helped keep it in your memory. So yeah’s fine.

Amanda Arriaga:

That’s right. So one thing that we talked about in your plenary today is there’s this duality between, as lawyers, we uphold the rule of law. We are for democracy. We remember the declaration, and if we don’t stand up and shout from the rooftops, we’re not doing our job. But there are some lawyers who have to defend all kinds of things. Whatever you think is going poorly right now on government, there are lawyers that represent those issues, those people, those things. And that’s our job. So how do you overcome that duality between what is your job and what is your duty?

Michael Ariens:

That’s a great question because it’s hard. But the basic way I think most lawyers should try to do both is think of themselves in some sense as divided in this fashion. Sometimes we have a role that we have to play that we don’t want to play often that can be the proverbial case that we always talk about is the criminal defense lawyer. That notion of role to represent even the most despised in our society is something that’s absolutely crucial to the rule of law. On the other hand, you don’t have to maintain that role if you’re not representing that person. That is, if someone seems to have with overwhelming evidence killed some innocent person, you’re not required as a lawyer to just stand up and always say, Hey, we should make sure that due process takes place. Your role different now because you are not actually representing that person.

So when we represent clients, we have to take on a particular role that is mostly client-centric, but that’s not the entirety or totality of our lives. We are also public citizens and we’re more public citizens than most people because we have this license to practice law and law stitches us together as a community. And so in this other role, this public community facing role, you should, I think at this time, use your voice to speak on topics that are absolutely crucial to the present and future of our nation. And let me just make clear, I am one of those people who believes. We have in most of our history, been subject to massive trials and tribulations. All you have to do is go back to the red scare of the post World War II era, roughly the early 1950s when lawyers who represented people alleged, not necessarily communists, but just alleged to be communists, found their practices falling apart because other clients didn’t want to be associated with these alleged communists. Look at the civil rights movement of the late fifties and early 1960s. Lawyers who represented those who are fighting for civil rights, rights, particularly in the south, often found themselves ostracized by their community. And it’s not easy. As I said in the plenary, there are costs to being lawyers. There are a number of benefits, but there are a lot of costs as well. And we don’t get to just talk about the benefits. Sometimes the costs in terms of how we are perceived even wrongly by members of our community may be the result.

Amanda Arriaga:

There’s also this sort of sub-question of what’s the most effective way to make your voice heard? Because what I don’t find effective is just people shouting at each other on Facebook. No one has ever changed anybody’s mind on Facebook.

Michael Ariens:

I’m not on Facebook, so I don’t know, but I believe that to be true.

Amanda Arriaga:

Good for you. No social media campaign I would think has ever swayed someone when they’re diametrically opposed to say, you are totally wrong. And I’m totally right. That’s not a good argument. And that seems to be the social media arguments.

Michael Ariens:

I think one of the things that I dislike about the last 10 or 15 years is the effect of the rise of social media on our discourse there is owning the libs. Owning the maga, right? It doesn’t go anywhere. I am not on any, I’m not on Twitter, much less X, much less X ai. And the reason is there’s no civil discourse available on any of those social media channels. There’s simply, I’m right, you’re wrong. You are wrong. I’m right. And I’m not sure what the most effective way is, but I do know this, lawyers are capable not only of great emotional appeals, but one hopes in law school, they learned great reasoning appeals. And if you allow someone to make arguments from reason, not just from emotion, that at least begins the discourse

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, and hopefully people can also figure out how to take action. Because one of the things that drives me crazy is I see a lot of people on social media who shout to the rooftops about why they are right and you are wrong, but then they don’t do anything. And I always feel like, Hey, put your money where your mouth is, run for office, support a candidate, do something other than just shouting, look what happened again, because again, the shouting is not helpful. But if you could take that passion and put it into action, do something good, give money to the nonprofit that you care about, but the shouting, I think does nothing at all. So we need to figure out how can we turn this into action?

Michael Ariens:

I think you’re absolutely right, and I think that’s the most difficult question to answer because we are a society that for many provides the kind of material, makes sure that the material needs that we have as individuals are easily taken care of. Now, obviously, that’s not everybody, but for more people than ever in human history, the needs of individuals that are material have been satisfied. So you have this sense of maybe a sense of not understanding one’s purpose or maybe just, I’m satisfied. I’m just going to sit on my couch and watch for three or more hours people telling me that I’m right, I’m right, I’m right. And that’s not clearly not getting us anywhere. I think for the intended audience of this group, these are already the joiners, these are already the actors. So you’re doing probably much more than the vast majority of people, even if you haven’t thought of it that way.

I think you have. So I’m preaching to the choir with regard to this particular group. But one way might be to try to find some friends, whether from law school, from some affinity groups and maybe from other organizations, whether it’s nonprofits, churches, any of those kinds of places, and try to see if you can get that person started a little bit. And as you said, just give a small amount of money to a nonprofit that you support. Then maybe after you give that money for a couple years, maybe you’ll get more invested in that entity and do something for that entity that I think can help engage you better in the community. Let me finish with this. There’s a really good book with a really terrible message that came out about five years ago called Deaths of Despair. And what it talked about is that in our materially abundance society, an extraordinary portion of our society lacks friends.

They lack community engagement, and they are dying not from things that you would expect a horrible cancer or the like, but largely from the lack of social interaction that leads to the kinds of diseases and illnesses that end up in someone dying. And I think, again, if we can just reach out to a few of those people preaching to the choir, then maybe those folks might come out of their isolationist state and instead of sitting down on the couch and watching three hours of whatever station they want to watch, they go outside, they meet their neighbors, they make sure their sidewalk is clear of debris, and I think that might be the star small. That might be the only way we can actually help ourselves.

Amanda Arriaga:

I’ve never thought of this intersection of wellness for lawyers and something like democracy, the rule of law. But bar associations are poised to do that because I’m a binge watcher of things. But when I leave my house to go to the happy hour that my local bar is having, I can talk about that or talk about other things and just find like-minded people who are, I’m going to say normal. I don’t know that everybody is normal, but just people that have the same background and experience that I do, and we can chat about things and maybe together we can make the world a little bit less crazy if we know that we’re doing it as a team.

Michael Ariens:

And it’s both similarity and difference. I think that it’s a similarity. We both went to law school, we both graduated. We’re both practicing law. We may be practicing in different areas. We both show A, on the other hand, you dislike show B and I liked it, or vice versa. Then we can talk about that disagreement. Why didn’t you? Well, the character was underdeveloped or the character was not realistic. And I think just those kinds of interactions, I think they do have a massively positive effect on wellness, just gathering together in a group. But you can still have the start. Doesn’t have to be politics, doesn’t have to be any of those third rail issues. Just talk about which streaming show or maybe these days, which streaming service must I have and must I not have? So I think that’s a really, really good point.

Amanda Arriaga:

I see a CLE and we can be part of it. We can start it. I like it. That is a pro and con of Hamilton.

Michael Ariens:

There we go.

Amanda Arriaga:

Did it help society and lawyers to understand history, or did it hurt? Because again, since I don’t know all the facts, when I first learned about Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was in the got milk commercial. Oh, do you remember this? There was

Michael Ariens:

Way back in the day.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes, there’s this famous commercial and there’s the guy who’s the docent of the Aaron Burr Museum, and he gets a call from radio who shot Alexander Hamilton, and you see everything, the bullet, the this, the that. But he’s eating peanut butter, and so he can’t give the answer. And I thought, that’s how I know who Hamilton is is from that got milk commercial,

Michael Ariens:

Right? It was a $10 bill. You’re like, who’s this guy?

Amanda Arriaga:

Who is this guy?

Michael Ariens:

Why is he wearing a wig? Exactly. And now we know. And he was a really important influential character. And Aaron Burr though more disliked, and there are certainly reasons why Aaron Burr does not have the same reputation as Alexander Hamilton. Sorry, but we should shed a tear or two for Burr that he seemed to not be able to be as welcoming and as forgiving as he might’ve been.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, it goes back to wellbeing. Everything was internalized. If we have been rivals our whole life, you must hate me. And so all of that, if that guy had just gone and taken a walk, done a yoga class,

Michael Ariens:

I like the yoga idea. Probably a little early the walk though, for sure.

Amanda Arriaga:

Right. Just take a walk around the block, man, we don’t need to do this. Go to A CLE Learn wellness tools and we wouldn’t have had this outcome.

Michael Ariens:

I think more than one CLE might be needed on this though.

Amanda Arriaga:

Okay. Well, these are actionable takeaways for our NZBP listening audience. So my final question for you, because you’ve been professing for a long time.

Michael Ariens:

I have.

Amanda Arriaga:

You have, how are the law students different these days? What are they interested in now versus when you first started?

Michael Ariens:

The difference seems to be when I first started, and I was much younger than obviously the students had this sense that your job as a professor was to teach them what was important for their success in class and then very occasionally serve as a sounding board, maybe should I take this job? Should I go into this area of law? But they were quite self-sufficient. What I find today is I love our students’ passion and their desire to learn, but they’re less confident in themselves than they were 15 or so years ago. I don’t know why that is. I shudder to think that it might have something to do with the rise of social media today. But this lack of confidence is something I try to dispel in them. So I’ll give you one example. I have a fairly large constitutional law class, and I tell students that they need to speak up, first of all, because they’re professors old.

But secondly, because people on the other side can’t hear them. And then I say, now I don’t want an uptick. And they look at me, what is he talking about? I say, I don’t want you to say in answer to my question who wins or what the law was, just go unconstitutional. No, we’re not going to have an uptick. You’re going to say unconstitutional in a declarative way. And they look at me like I’m crazy, but I say, look, even if you’re wrong, you can get it right the next time because the answer is going to be constitutional if it wasn’t unconstitutional. So why are we worried about this? So for those students, and they’re starting to get it, they’re realizing that they have to have confidence in their own opinion. And it’s okay then if the professor says, no, you’re wrong to explain why you’re wrong. Why? Because I’ve also told them, if they don’t fail, they’re not trying. And so they better start failing. So that’s the difference that I see in my students today and yesterday. But overall, I love my students.

Amanda Arriaga:

Do you see a difference between the students that came straight from college versus those that had life experience?

Michael Ariens:

Ordinarily? Yeah. Those who have some life experience generally are have realized that they don’t know everything and that they shouldn’t pretend to know everything. And they, at least in the beginning, take it much more effectively than those right out of college. When I say, no, that’s completely wrong, and we need to figure out why it’s completely wrong. I don’t want you going down the wrong path in this course.

Amanda Arriaga:

For a lot of students, that’s the first time they’ve heard that. I was one of those kids that I happened to get into law school right after college. So I went in my head, smartest one, best one. And then everybody is as smart or smarter than you. And I remember in my small section, it was like we had a 10 year law enforcement officer and someone that already had their PhD and someone who was a professor. And I thought, oh, I

Michael Ariens:

Didn’t. I made it to 22.

Amanda Arriaga:

I know how to read books and then tell you what was in the book. And so when the professors would write the books, I would assume You want me to give you your answer, or should I give the answer? I thought it was. And that is a hard thing to learn when you are a young punk right out of college with no other experience.

Michael Ariens:

That must’ve been a tough first semester.

Amanda Arriaga:

I learned a lot.

Michael Ariens:

That’s excellent.

Amanda Arriaga:

I learned resilience,

Michael Ariens:

Resilience, grit. Those are both good things.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yes.

Michael Ariens:

Yeah. I tell my students that. I say grit is a combination of persistence and resilience. So you got to keep persisting and you’re going to be on the floor. Got to pick yourself back up, and if you can become gritty, you’re going to become successful.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, the other thing I learned is they say in high school you can be friendly with your professors and that will help you. But once you get to college and law school, it doesn’t work that way. That’s not true. Because since I have a last name, I was called on first in every class, every time.

Michael Ariens:

I have a last name too.

Amanda Arriaga:

So I was always prepared. So I wasn’t a gunner, but I had to be prepared the first day and set the stage. And I had a property class where the gentleman next to me every day had a question every day, and the professor would make me answer it every day. And it got to this comical thing where every time I raised his hand, I would just look at him and the class would look at me and they’re like, oh no, what’s going to happen? And that final was so crazy. It was an alien comes down to Earth, explain the property system. And I wrote, I don’t know, 20 pages of something. And I feel I didn’t do well on that paper. But the professor called me in and he said, I think you didn’t do well. And I was like, well, that question is insane. And he said, but you answered a question correctly every day in class. So your grade is based on that.

Michael Ariens:

Wow.

Amanda Arriaga:

Yeah. So kids be prepared every day. There might be a jerk sitting next to you that’s going to make you answer a question every day. But the professors notice that.

Michael Ariens:

Thank goodness for that jerk.

Amanda Arriaga:

I know.

Michael Ariens:

No

Amanda Arriaga:

Kidding. That’s my favorite jerk.

Michael Ariens:

Yeah. I’ve never had a student come by and say, that was an insane exam. If they had, and I looked at it and had to admit it, I might say It’s time to go.

Amanda Arriaga:

Is there anything else that you’d like to share with our audience about your time at St. Mary’s or your session today about the

Michael Ariens:

Declaration? I’ll say a couple of things. First of all, I’m in beautiful San Antonio, Texas. We’ve lived here for 39 years. We love the city. The people of the city are great. Our kids all grew up here. Fantastic place to live in. St. Mary’s University has been a law school for next year, a century. So we will celebrate our centennial in 2027. And as for the Declaration of Independence, I think it’s really important for people not only to at least occasionally glance at the Constitution, which is enforceable law, but to look at some of the documents that arose before then. A lot of them are short, and the Declaration of Independence you’ll find is very short. The biggest complaint are those 20 complaints against King George, because King George wasn’t doing anything and he wasn’t. And so that led to it. But I think just the idea of reading those documents, or at least perusing them or thinking about them briefly, I know most people are busy practicing law and then going to happy hours and talking about what TV shows they like and dislike. So I think just an occasional look would be something that, again, could make you an even better public citizen.

Amanda Arriaga:

Well, thank you for being here. I know that the audience is going to love this conversation. I’m so glad that the people that couldn’t be here in person now get to have this part two.

Michael Ariens:

Excellent. Thank you so much, Amanda.

Amanda Arriaga:

On behalf of the NCBP Executive Council President Patrick Palace, I’m Amanda Arriaga, your host of Leading theBar. Thank you for listening to this episode. Like and subscribe for more podcasts. For more information about membership getting involved or signing the pledge, visit cbp.org.

Continue Reading