Original subtitles

Now, suppose hypothetically we have two farmers.

Miss, uh, Tin.

Their lands are separated by a river.

Farmer A and Farmer B.

Now, suppose that, as has been known to happen in the history of the world, the

river changes course. Perhaps there's been a flood or something.

Changes course, thus.

There.

Now, Mr. Kemp, what is the boundary now of their respective bombs?

Do the deeds state that the boundary between the two farms is the river?

We assume that both deeds make reference to the river.

Then I suppose... I guess that the boundary would still be the river.

I see, Miss Kent.

Because of a fluke of nature, farm B is to be left with one-third as much land

as before, right?

Perhaps it would be fair to interpret the deed to mean that the boundary

should be the old riverbed. In other words, the river will now lie entirely

within the lands of Farmer B, and thus Farmer A's cattle, horses,

whatnot, will be unable to drink.

Well, that's not fair either.

I don't know what to do.

This isn't in our case books, is it, sir? No.

Let us hope that this hypothetical will stimulate further thought.

And now, Mr.

Soloway, give us the case of Wellington versus Boynt.

Sir, about the hypothetical, um... Stimulate further thought

outside the class.

Proceed, Mr. Soloway.

You stole my space.

I was here first, Golden.

Hey, take a look at your student parking sticker. It is blue. Therefore, you're

required to park in those parking places with blue labels reserved for

engineering students.

This is a red area reserved for law students.

Get it? Blue for wonks, red for law students. There are no blue spaces.

The law students got allocated 38 of our spaces by the university board. That is

your problem.

Look, next time you go to a university hearing, hire adequate counsel to

represent you, okay?

I'm going to kill you for this.

That would ruin my mother's day.

File it away, check the article for it, and make sure it gets posted on the

calendar. Wait a minute, what are you running in this place? The Petrusca

piece, okay?

Nice. Chairman, how about we go to my apartment later, put on some mood music,

open a bottle of red, and turn down the lights and the covers?

Stuff it, Scott.

What kind of man would turn Harriman on, Hart?

What?

Oh, I don't know. Someone forceful, handsome?

No, Hart. She already turned me down.

Harriman, I'm assigning you the projected article on the Newcastle cold

case. The decision raises important new issues involved in the NLRB's appeal

process. Okay.

My celestial, use the term to get an update on the latest work done on the

First Amendment.

Make the computer check for articles, cases, and even letters.

Uh, little problem, Golden.

like what there are other users online i can't access enough memory in the

mainframe who's tying it up as if you had to ask the

wonks they try to steal parking spaces they hide the computer damn it okay the

university code for shared data use clearly states that each graduate school

shall be given equivalent data access and they have been hogging the computer

all week all month all year well you see rules do not impress the engineering

school can we send them a message yeah sure i can use a computer mail service

well let them know that if they don't stop hogging computer memory and time

i'm going to file a formal grievance petition asking for university sanctions

to take away their computer access indefinitely aren't you being rough Hey,

we need that computer timed.

If we don't have it, the issue won't make deadline. There has never been a

late issue at this university, and it is not going to start under my regime,

Harriman.

I'm just running a test search now, sir, checking to see if your interactive data

comparison program fits in with the overall logic profile.

Thank you, Herman.

Would you like a hard copy of the results, sir? I think that would be

safest. Drop it off in my office.

Sure. Are you working on the roll-and-sell vote, I guess?

Oh, Richie, this program, even its developmental state, is awesome.

Professor Edwin's work on artificial intelligence is going to revolutionize

computer applications.

Herman, this just came in over the electronic mail.

What is this crap?

The usual law students write.

We're using too much computer time. They have vital, important work, which must

be finished yesterday.

They threaten some kind of university disciplinary action if we don't give

them equal access to the mainframe.

They are arrogant, abrasive, and self-indulgent. And they stole my

parking space.

And they're nitpickers.

All this stuff about university rules.

Remember the days when we could use a mainframe whenever we wanted to?

But now we have to share it day and night with a stupid law review.

I say, dust them. Let them know this is a technological society that is designed

by engineers, built by engineers, and run by engineers.

Okay. Celestia, have you got your site check started yet? Hey, I still can't

get on the computer.

I told you to let the wonks know that we're not going to tolerate any more

pigging of the computer time.

I sent them a note. Maybe they didn't get the message. Maybe, as usual, they

just ignored it. They think because an engineer invented the computer, they

have inherited divine rights to its exclusive use. Hart.

Yeah? I want you to draft a petition to the central administration.

Start with something like, despite our ceaseless attempts to reason with the

engineering graduate students... such attempts occurring despite the fact of

their failure to respond to the clear letter of university regulations

regarding just a second regarding computer access time on the university's

mainframe system said engineering students have graduate students have

willfully and shamelessly disregarded set rules and regulations boom boom boom

and so on and so forth

The locks are talking to us.

I can't find any bugs using diagnostics. Neither can I.

Herman, that was a little heavy-handed. Haven't you ever heard of reasoning

things out?

Consultation, negotiation?

Well, Mr.

Hart, what do we owe the delights of a visit? Knock it off. You know damn well

why we're here. Now, you practically blew up the law review.

Look, we can understand a little fun and games, but you people went too far.

Now we're here to talk lawsuit.

You know what that means?

It means real court, real money, and real trouble.

That's your answer to everything.

Sue the bastards.

Bury the people with paper.

That's why this society is so screwed up. You people should never have been

given access to the university's mainframe. Yeah, you treat Suzy like a

typewriter. You fill her with garbage.

You use up her memory storing thousands of pages of old cases that nobody's

heard of, nobody's gonna read, nobody... Nobody else can get enough time on Suzy

to run experiments.

We play by rules. Oh, lawyers' rules.

For years now, you've gone to all the university hearings and you've grabbed

up all the goodies, the most parking spaces, the highest student aid, and now

you're trying to grab the computer.

Look, Herman, we have a law review issued you out next week. It's an

important issue. Hart, every month. It's always important and always a rush and

always involves the computer's memory.

Okay. Hart, maybe the law review is important, but what we're doing here is

revolutionary. You've heard of Professor Edwin.

Nobel Prize?

He did the initial work, which enabled computers to process information.

Well, now he's going further.

Professor Edwin is developing an interactive data system.

The stuff that you store in computers, this program not only stores, it can

think about it. It's awesome work, Hart.

It could change the way work is done all across this country. So don't give me

any more of this, my work is more important than yours crap.

Look, we use the computer all the time.

And it's fine for finding relevant cases, for doing sight-checking. But it

can't think, and it certainly can't think like a lawyer. It could never

handle a complex legal problem involving synthesis, analysis... Honey, you are in

for a bit of a shock.

Professor Edwin's program has already tested out analyzing complex engineering

problems. It's tested out on quantum physics, typology, algebra, biology...

You're talking crunchy numbers. I'm talking ideas.

Professor Edwin's program work on data.

of data law cases are data the facts the decision of the court this program has a

complete dictionary built into it you can read if there is any logic to the

law then this program can find the logic and rationalize it of course there may

not be any logic to the law there doesn't seem to be any logic to law

students

I don't care. Professor Edwin can teach a computer to sing.

The skills involved in legal analysis take years to learn.

Why couldn't it handle a legal problem?

No reason that I can think of. It should be kid stuff for the Edwin program to

tap into the legal databases.

The fact is, we're pretty much of the opinion that it could probably do a much

better job than you.

The machine doesn't have built-in bias or emotion.

You really believe that law is something that can be done by machines?

Can be done better. It couldn't even do a case comment.

What's a case comment?

When an important legal decision is handed down by a court, we write a short

analysis explaining whether that decision cuts new ground if it's a

departure from prior law.

I'd be willing to bet that Professor Edwin's program could do a better case

comment that is faster and more accurate than any law student.

What's this?

One of the cases I've been assigned to write up. At 12 noon, I turn in my case

comment, researched and in final type.

Why don't you let the computer write up a case comment on that same decision

with that same 12 o'clock deadline?

We'll hand both papers into Golden, names omitted, and we'll let him judge.

Okay, honey.

And the winner gets two days uninterrupted access to the mainframe.

You want to dance, we'll dance.

This one is it, Harriman.

Congratulations. It's beautiful. It's clear. It's concise. It's well laid out.

It's not mine, Golden. Golden, my terminal. It just went dead.

Golden, I think there's something you should know about a bet we made with the

engineering school.

You have such a brilliant mind, Cindy.

I love how you know things.

When I ask you how a jet engine works, you know.

When I ask you about quantum physics, you know.

You understand the way in which our world is put together.

You missed your calling, Soloway.

No, you should have been in the sciences.

You have so much curiosity about things.

The law, in many ways, is like the sciences.

Facts laid upon facts, endlessly detailed with only a few basic, crucial

concepts underlying it all.

Soloway's got a girlfriend.

She's a wonk.

Perfect, and who cares?

Is there any other reason you're interrupting my studying?

Kingsfield gave us an interesting hypo today.

Two farmers in the river that separates their land.

Do you remember that from your first year?

Laura, do you remember my rule? Anything to do with the dorm, I'll be glad to

help you. Anything to do with Kingsfield, that's your problem.

Maybe it'd be a better plan if I just took my questions directly to

Kingsfield.

Kingsfield doesn't discuss class material out of the classroom.

For tomorrow, you will continue your reading up to and including Wayne Scott

versus Ford Motor Engineering.

professor yes yesterday you mentioned a hypo in class about the farmers and

well i've been doing a lot of thinking about the hypo i know we moved on and

it's not the proper subject for the class as a whole right now but i was

wondering if i could discuss it with you personally no

If I discuss every hyper with every student, I would never reach the end of

a day.

But it raises so many interesting questions.

That is precisely what a hypothetical is intended to do, Miss Giff.

Glad to see the Socratic method is alive and well here.

Sir, don't you ever discuss contract law with students outside the classroom?

Yes.

If a student has demonstrated that in reference to a specific issue, he or she

has special knowledge. For example, if you were from Rangoon and had special

knowledge of the Buddhist practice of sealing bargains. Good day, Miss

Kiernan.

I understand.

But can it do more? Could it write a real, full-blown article?

Would it be good work? Would it be original?

I think we should just forget about it.

Experimental computer programs aren't our line of work. The law review is, and

we are in deep trouble.

But we're talking revolution here, Golden. This could be a major

development. This could change the way law is practiced in America.

It could free the lawyer from his ordinary tasks so he could devote

himself to his role of advisor, counselor.

And it could eliminate the lawyer.

All this time and money and I could be automated out of a job.

It's a possibility.

Before you know it, Joe Schmoe could be taking his own case to the Supreme Court

with a portable computer as his counselor.

I can't believe this. Our future is in the hands of walks.

And they know it.

I can't believe Soloway made friends with him.

Soloway. Knowing him, he's probably bought stock in their machine already.

Look, it's experimental, untested.

Even if the machine could write an acceptable brief, presentable in court,

its practical applications are still years away.

I mean, for one thing, would the Bar Association allow briefs composed by

machines? I mean, would computers have to pass the bar?

The only question I want answered is whether we're going to meet the deadline

on the next issue.

Hart, go to the Wonks.

Beg if you must, but get our time back.

Okay?

Drink.

Well, Hart, I hope this settles one thing once and for all.

Whose work is most important and who gets computer time? Their face at heart.

Maybe you drive cars, but we build them. Herman, Professor Edwin's computer

program can write a good case note, but can it write a paper dealing with

complex ideas?

Can it write a law review article?

I mean, would it be a summary or would it actually be original? I mean, just

how close to actually thinking about the law can this computer come?

Oh, that depends on...

What you mean by original depends on what you mean by thought. We have the

program set up for you, sir. Herman, I'll see you later.

You know, I have the reputation for being somewhat absent-minded.

I don't think you're one of my students.

No,

actually,

Professor, I'm a law student, James Hart. Always interested in computer

logic. Yes.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Hart.

Is it not possible that originality is...

composed of thousands of ordinary, mundane thoughts, that these same

thoughts are composed of thousands of mundane, ordinary facts.

Are you saying that what looks like an original thought is really just an

arrangement of ideas or facts, none of which are original in themselves?

That's a possibility.

Certainly present-day computers cannot come up with the thought.

Spontaneously, they can't come up with an idea.

Lightning doesn't strike, so to speak, as it does in the human mind.

But that does not preclude the fact that they can be original.

Oh, Cindy, would you help me with the machine code?

Sure.

Herman.

I'm sure we're all very impressed.

I mean, after all, he's a Nobel Prize winner and everything, but I think

Herman may have made a mistake in gambling computer time.

It was a mistake only because she lost, Hart.

Herman, this is a very serious situation.

I mean, I'd hate to see us at an impasse.

It's clear that access time is important to all of us.

Let's talk, Hart.

Let's talk, Herman.

Double or nothing.

Double or nothing?

We could lose four more days of precious computer time.

I think I have to sit down. Oh, come on, Golden.

The machine got lucky against Harriman. This isn't a little case comment. This

is a detailed note.

Now, look, we start tomorrow morning. Two drafts will be handed in at 5 p.m.,

okay?

Hart. What?

Don't lose.

Professor Kingsfield.

Professor Kingsfield.

Yes? I was wondering if you had a chance to read the essay I gave you.

Essay? Yes, I handed it to Mrs. Nottingham in your office.

And you are?

Laura Kiernan, contract one.

Mrs. Kiernan, I have trouble enough digesting the published material. It

comes flooding into my office, perhaps in the summer when things are easier.

Herman? Was the password changed? I need access.

We think it's time we discuss your relationship with the law student.

I've noticed your social life has improved, Soloway.

I'm sure you're elated, Bell.

She's a wonk. She's going to do you in, Soloway. She's going to do us all in.

Don't forget whose side you're on.

I am proud to say Cindy and I have transcended the typical prejudices

people often hold toward each other.

Soloway, we don't mean to invade your privacy, but we need to know if the

wonks are planning any more raids on the law review.

I don't know.

Find out.

Tell us as soon as you hear of anything.

Remember, the law review is at stake.

This is repugnant.

You are attempting to use me. You want to manipulate my relationship to serve

your own needs. Right, you got it, Soloway. And remember, you're a lawyer

first. You are a lawyer first.

What's going on? My car's been stolen.

Probably towed. What? This is law student parking.

They tossed the gauntlet. They don't know who they're dealing with this time.

Howard, I think it's about time you hit the sack.

It's 9.30, Bell.

You think I like mothering you? I don't, but I have to. It's my duty. Now, you're

playing with all our futures tomorrow, and we don't want to lose them. No one

could ever accuse you of under-exaggeration, Bell.

If a law firm has the choice of hiring a machine that thinks better than the law

reviewer, some slob like me, now, who do you think they're going to pick?

A machine doesn't eat or talk back.

Well, this is a high-tech prototype designed by a genius.

It takes one of the largest computers in the world to run that program.

This is a state-of-the-art maxi-computer, and it's worth over $40

million. You're not talking about anything that could even potentially be

introduced into the law firms.

They said a man couldn't fly. He went to the moon.

Hart, if you lose tomorrow, I'm going to try to get into med school.

Now, what would relax you? Would you like a nice glass of warm milk?

Willis, if Hart doesn't want you to mother him, you could mother me.

Draw me a bath and whip me up some hot chocolate.

Screw off, Ford. You want some hot chocolate, Hart?

What?

That's right, Hart.

It's my car.

At first I thought it was a hallucination, a symptom of the nervous

breakdown that I'm having.

But it's real.

Isn't it, Hart? How did it get down here? There's only one group able to

take a car apart, then reassemble it in one night.

The Wonks?

That's right, Hart. The Wonks.

Well, what are you going to do?

No. What you are going to do is more on the point. You're going to kill them.

Hart, I want to write a superb paper.

that shows that a machine is just wire, solder, and tin. Okay, Hart?

Get started.

Hart, good luck.

Make whatever that damn computer comes up with look like a comic book.

Give it my best shot. Stop him, Hart. Stick the locks.

Stick the locks.

Stick the locks. Herman?

Go.

Herman? I finished.

Log him in.

Let's see. It's 4.30. The machine finished four hours ago.

That gives it a clear lead on time.

Four hours ago?

Here's the product, Hart.

Hart, you did a good job.

But the computer found eight more relevant cases than you did, and a

little-known statute that was right on the point, which you missed.

Maybe I rushed it? No.

The machine just made law review.

It beat a law student by hours, worked faster, and researched more

exhaustingly. And we have just lost two more days of access on the mainframe.

Um, you all have to excuse me, please. I have to be alone.

Mr.

Golden, you have sullied the reputation of the law review.

You have allowed a deadline to be jeopardized by back... I

hate to make excuses, sir, but it began innocently enough. How it began is not

relevant. I do not need to tell you that as president of law review, you have

sole responsibility for its quality and punctuality.

It appears you have compromised the trust the university placed in you.

Wagers. Lost access time.

Mr. Golden.

Never in all my years at this institution have I seen the law review

reduced to such a pitiable state.

You have contributed quite enough to this discussion.

Good day, Mr. Golden.

I don't know how you can show your face in public.

I'm sorry, Bell. I guess I'm only human.

What was it? Did the machine write a better law review article, or did you

just have an off day? Bell, I gave it my best effort.

Say, Hart, is this the mainframe?

How's the law review issue coming?

Herman, you're being sadistic.

I know.

Would you like another celery tonic?

No, I'm fine, thanks.

That was quite a trick. Your people played with Golden's car.

Yes, well, engineering students can be pretty resourceful if they have to be.

You admire that type of cunning?

I don't admire any of the enmity that's been going on between the two schools. I

think it's childish.

I agree.

These things get out of hand so easily.

So easily.

Lawyers are a vengeful lot, aren't they?

I wouldn't be surprised if your group was planning some kind of retaliation.

Why do you ask?

I'm just curious.

Like you.

I'll bet.

It is clear to me that you want information to take back to your

friends.

But I feel betrayed.

Who's betraying whom?

You've been trying to work things out of me the whole evening.

I do not intend to be duped into being a conduit for information... It's clear

that you have blind hostility to anybody involved in the hard sciences.

I'm glad the hubbub over your Nobel Prize has subsided sufficiently for you

to go back to work.

Yes, I've discovered that much to my relief, fame is very fleeting.

I can assure you that your fame, trying to attribute human intelligence to a

machine, will be equally fleeting.

So the debate begins again.

Isn't that what a university is supposed to do, promote serious thought, even

among senior members of the faculty?

Your review took quite a drubbing.

You were trying to demonstrate that a machine cannot equal the complexities of

the human mind.

Empirical data proves otherwise.

Ask your students.

I know you and your machine defeated my students.

Brilliant students, but students after all.

Oh, Charles, I'm not preying on your poor students.

It's just that a more seasoned veteran has not presented himself as yet.

Ho, ho.

Nottingham, will you kindly cancel my appointment with the dean? And I also

want to be connected with Professor Edwin. Yes, sir. I also want to speak to

Mr. Golden.

Yes, sir.

Nottingham, we're going to have quite an unusual day.

And perhaps an unusual night as well.

It pains me, gentlemen and ladies, to observe that the intellectual elite of

this law school has been reduced to a bedraggled group of hopelessly lost

human beings.

I am disappointed that you have allowed the engineering school completely to

strip you of your dignity and spirit.

It is in this moment...

of your acute embarrassment and despair that I've come to ask your

help. Whatever we can do, Professor.

I have decided to challenge the computer program developed by Professor Edwin

to a thinking contest.

Yes. I want to make clear that this challenge originates from my personal

curiosity about the machine's potential.

and not as a gesture to bail out this law review from a predicament of its own

making.

The contest will involve the application of contract damage doctrines to

fact situations.

Mr. Golden, I look to you to prepare a series of rigorous questions that you

will pose simultaneously to myself and to the computer.

And I will look to your colleagues to help prepare me in this diverse and

difficult field.

The coming hours will be very arduous, and I will appreciate your full

cooperation. Should we get to work?

Yes, sir, we're ready. Absolutely.

Mr. Golden, the left front tire needs air.

Stats. Pull out Corbin on contracts.

Harriman, a fine Williston's treatise. Mysleski, check for specific versus

general damages.

Get everything good, fine. Hart, a foreseeability of damages. Zeitz, come

here.

What do you think?

Kingsfield. Oh, I'd love to see the machine blast him. The law school would

never recover.

What's the problem?

Oh, I don't believe it. Someone's checked out Dobbs on remedies.

Kingsfield needs it. You can bet that there's a copy of it in the computer's

brain and that it hasn't been checked out. Yeah, I know.

Remember John Henry?

Man against machine.

Man got slaughtered.

Do you think Kingsfield knows what he's doing? I hope so.

Thanks, pal.

Ready?

This 11th hour of man versus machine, may I take a moment to tell you,

my fellow humans, that your research is more than adequate.

Sir, we'd just like to wish you the best of luck.

What you call luck, Mr. Hart, is the hard work we've all put in in the past

few days.

Now, let's go test ourselves against the technology of the future.

Professor Edwin, this is Mr. Golden, who will be posing the questions in our

think contest.

And this is my assistant, Mr. Herman Seidowitz.

He will be putting the questions into the computer.

May we begin?

A man promises to give his nephew a $50,000 check to buy a sports car.

After hearing this promise, the nephew purchases a $50,000 sports car.

His uncle then reneges on his promise. What would damages be based on the

doctrine of quasi-contract?

That is a tricky question.

It attempts to mislead.

that the answer will be found in the doctrine of quasi-contract.

In fact, it arises under Section 90 of the Second Restatement of

Contracts, and it is an enforceable contract.

The computer has agreed entirely with Professor Kingsfield's answer.

It has also cited the predecessor section of the first restatement of

contracts and six common law precedents preceding the first restatement.

A dealer in bricks reaches an oral agreement.

Every answer he gives is brilliant, but the machine beats him by just a little

bit each time

Hart, this is a nightmare.

The man we revere as an intellectual paragon is being beaten by a machine.

It's not over yet, Harriman.

Gambler accidentally receives $1,000 from Smith's bank account through an

accounting error.

The gambler takes the money to Las Vegas, where he plays craps and wins $50

,000. On what doctrine would Smith base his recovery, and how much would he

recover?

Most... courts would hold that gambling is a game of chance and not one

of skill and effort.

Under the equitable doctrine of the constructive trusts, Smith will be able

to trace the stolen money into the gamblers winning and recover that

portion of the $50,000 not attributable to the gamblers skill and effort.

The computer states that Smith would only recover $1,000.

Although craps is based on the laws of chance, it involves calculations as to

how those odds will affect the bets made.

Those calculations are a form of skill and effort.

Therefore, $49,000 of the gambler's take is attributable to skill and effort and

not recoverable by Smith.

Interesting.

What, sir?

That machine is able to beat me with raw data.

I think I can perceive a fatal flaw.

It does not seem to be able to handle ambiguity.

It nuances, synthesizes facts, draws conclusions.

What the computer is saying, then, is that as long as there is effort

associated with the laws of chance, any ensuing windfall can be deemed legal

profit.

Professor Edwin, I would like to ask a hypothetical question of your computer.

No.

Yes.

Yes, I think that is within the scope of this contest.

Is he trying to pull a fast one? Probably.

He's a lawyer.

What if a river, defined as the boundary between two pieces of land,

changes course?

Would the person whose land has thereby been expanded get to keep the land

merely by doing a small amount of work on it?

Herman, front it.

Professor Edwin, it's searching for data exponentially.

A very interesting set.

It's heating up as it searches more databanks.

I can't get control of it. We're using up too much memory. Power down before

you blow the mainframe.

And wipe out the program itself.

Before you lose all my work. Before you lose everyone's work. It's ignoring

commands. I've never seen it do anything like this.

It's working at full capacity.

Cannot correlate data to fact situation presented.

That was brilliant, sir. To think of that hypo was brilliant.

Well, to think of it was actually quite logical.

The computer was not able to probe, to question, to see the ambiguous.

It could not recognize what gray when all appeared either black or white.

It could not do the work of a lawyer.

Law.

is not simply the arrangement of facts as if they were numbers and a

mathematical equation.

Law is a human science, involving intuition, judgments,

curiosity,

and compassion.

There has not yet been a machine invented that can emulate these uniquely

human qualities.

And until there is, we must look to the subtleties of the human mind to

guide us through the labyrinth of the law.

Soloway.

What, are you here to gloat? I'm not here to gloat.

I want to know if our relationship can be patched up.

Jane, I missed you so much.

Well, we saved face.

Yeah, but we're still behind on the review.

Saving face isn't enough. Come on, we have to eat pride.

Fortune. She ever was a strumpet.

Herman?

Have your computer time back. Why don't you just leave us alone? Look, we've

spent a lot of time and energy working on the battle between Kingsfield and the

machine. We're never going to get the law review out on time.

But with your help, we might.

Oh, so now you want the machine to do the articles for you?

No. Help do the articles.

What's in it for us?

A couple of things.

Maybe we do get a little over-legalistic.

Maybe there have been times when we played the system to our own advantage.

So we'll share parking with the engineering graduate students.

We'll draft a legal petition to get you more space.

Maybe we can all learn to work together if we give it a shot.

Okay.

One more thing.

You've got to get my car out of the law review.

Okay?

Terrific. It's okay.

Who? Just a minute.

Laura.

Laura, up and at them.

Telephone call, Mrs. Nottingham.

Kingsfield probably wants you to call your mother and tell her that you'll

never be a lawyer.

Good morning, Miss Kiernan.

Professor Kingsfield will be delighted to see you. Delighted?

Go on in. He won't bite you.

Come in, Miss Gillard.

Take a seat.

I have been somewhat preoccupied lately.

Therefore, I've only very recently turned to the paper which you submitted.

Upon examining it, I find it interesting, even a worthy effort.

It is?

Yes, Miss Kiernan, it is.

And I propose to spend half an hour now with you discussing it.

Let us start with why you decided to write it.

in the first place i'm not sure it's just that when i started to think about

the problem it seemed somehow special that's all very good the

fact is that good hypotheticals all have that quality perhaps you might

wish to expand on that as i began thinking of the two farmers in the

shifting river