One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School

Rudolph Perini is Scott’s fictionalized Contracts Law professor. Perini has a terrifying reputation for being tough, and initially, he lives up to this reputation. He grills his students in heightened tones, commands a room with both silence and yelling, and refuses to allow unpreparedness. Scott is quickly enraptured by the thrill of Perini’s teaching and the electric atmosphere of the classroom, but he soon becomes skeptical of these theatrics. Perini’s actions and words are measured and practiced, as if he were performing “a parody of the legendary tough professor” (35). The atmosphere of Perini’s class is tense and oppressive, leaving many students ill at the prospect of being called on. Perini is menacing, but also has a good sense of humor, and he encourages his students to playfully poke fun at him and each other. Perini is, to Scott, surprisingly progressive in his views, though he maintains that many traditional aspects of a Harvard education should remain in place.

Perini hails from Texas, and outside of school, he acts as an advisor to Republican politicians and Supreme Court judges. Perini relishes his intelligence and loves showing it off to his students; for example, he “would press his fingers to his forehead like a sideshow clairvoyant” (190) to draw out intricate, memorized citations. Scott thinks Perini preys on his students’ vulnerabilities, especially concerning their grades, to boost his own ego. He detests how Perini uses the classroom for this purpose, especially when Perini searches for his summer assistants through an interview of top candidates in class. In a legendary classroom altercation that becomes known simply as “the Incident,” Perini snaps at a student for being unprepared. Perini cares deeply about his reputation and how others perceive him, so when word of the Incident leaves Harvard, he becomes infuriated that his political friends will think less of him. Despite their fears, students still give Perini a standing ovation at the end of the year, but Scott refuses to join in, having thoroughly lost respect for the man.

Nicky Morris is Scott’s fictionalized Civil Procedures professor. Morris is 31 years old and considerably younger than the rest of the Harvard faculty. Morris was a star student at Harvard, dubbed “the greatest law student at HLS since Frankfurter” (244) a long-serving Assistant Supreme Court Justice. Morris dresses and speaks casually, and some students even mistake him for a fellow student. His teaching style is similarly informal, and he allows students to approach him with whatever issues they have—whether about his class, other courses, or the law school experience in general. Some students grow to see Morris’s friendliness as condescension, and Scott often thinks that Morris competes with the students to show off how much he knows. Despite this, Scott still views Morris as the professor who cares most about easing his students’ fears.

Morris is one of the more progressive faculty members, and he shares similar frustrations about the rigidity and lack of progress in the institution. He wishes he could offer pass/fail grades instead of letter grades because he doesn’t think letters are helpful in the first year. He also offers mock exams to give students much-needed feedback partway through the term. Students sometimes take advantage of Morris’s willingness to listen, and they use him as a scapegoat to air their grievances. Morris takes the criticisms in stride and remains “good-hearted, responsive, [and] sincere” (245).

William Zechman is Scott’s fictionalized Torts professor. Zechman was a law professor at Harvard in his thirties, but he moved to England to teach until his recent move back to Harvard to teach Torts. Zechman’s manner “remained decidedly British” (44) in his formality. A visual symbol of this formality is his tendency to remain ensconced behind his podium while teaching. Zechman has an unusual teaching style, posing a series increasingly ridiculous hypotheticals, nicknamed “hypos,” without offering precise answers to any of his questions. This style initially leaves students frustrated and confused, sometimes to the point of tears, because they can’t make out the purpose of his inquiries. Zechman recognizes the confusion and offers some definitions to appease the students, but he refuses to change his approach. Scott realizes Zechman’s hypotheticals all work to show the indefiniteness of the law and the need to constantly determine how different conditions relate differently to the same rules. Scott grows to love the course and to appreciate what Zechman does with the material, and the students even perform one of Zechman’s hypotheticals at the end of term to show their appreciation.

Terry Nazzario is a fictionalized student at Harvard Law School and one of the first people Scott introduces himself to at school. Scott meets Terry while he’s “glad-handing everybody around him” (8) and thinks he’s a real character. Terry came to Harvard directly from his undergraduate program, though before that he owned two successful stereo stores that he sold to a large retail chain. Terry enters Harvard enthusiastic about school, though he grows disillusioned with Harvard’s style of teaching as the year progresses. He is concerned with staying “loose” and free, and he feels that Harvard is becoming “a threat to the independence he valued” (186). Terry believes he can teach himself the law better than he can learn it in class, so he starts skipping class to read in the library.

Terry’s staunch independence frequently puts him at odds with other students, especially when they work on group projects. He works at his own pace, which frustrates his study group members during the outlining project, and which causes tension with Scott during the moot court competition. During moot court, Terry insists on pursuing an unconventional argument, even though Scott and Margo warn him the argument has no legal footing. Terry becomes convinced that Margo, like Harvard itself, is telling him what to think, so he pursues his theory even more stubbornly. The moot court competition alters Scott and Terry’s relationship, as Scott resents the embarrassing position Terry puts him in in front of his peers.

Stephen Litowitz is a fictionalized student and one of Scott’s closest friends at Harvard Law School. Scott gets to know Stephen because they “have an extraordinary amount in common” (53), both having grown up in Chicago and taught before coming to law school. Stephen is driven and pushes himself to succeed, sometimes to the extreme, which can lead him to feel glum when he makes mistakes. Stephen is a “nervous person by disposition” (152), which becomes especially true around exam season. Stephen went through a divorce before entering school, which Scott believes is partially responsible for how much time Stephen can dedicate to his studies. In the first outlining project, Stephen’s sets such high standards that he himself can’t even meet them, and he fails to complete his section of the project in time.

After receiving high marks for his first-term exams, Stephen becomes hungry for even more success. Swayed by corporate law and the big salaries his grades can get him, he forgets the promise he made to himself that he would go into teaching after graduation. Stephen is also pulled by the prestige of the Review. He speaks constantly about who will make the Review, ranking students by who is working hard enough to maintain their grades. The stress of keeping himself in contention for a position at the Review exacerbates Stephen’s nervousness, though he tries to project calm. Stephen ultimately does well but doesn’t make the Review, though Scott thinks the failure helps Stephen regain his old humor.

Peter Geocaris is a fictionalized third-year student at Harvard Law School. Peter is a member of the Board of Student Advisors, and he oversees Scott’s Legal Methods class under the professor. Scott frequently goes to Peter for advice throughout the year, as Peter recently lived through the grueling first-year experience. Peter offers realistic guidance through the first year, but he also deeply believes in Harvard’s standard of excellence. Peter has an “earnestness” and seriousness about Harvard Law School, and he hasn’t lost his enthusiasm for his studies, as many upper-year students do. Scott worries about disappointing Peter, especially during the Legal Methods oral argument, because he knows Peter expects him to take his work seriously. Peter especially reveres the Review, but does not make the cut. Peter speaks of the Review in tones of “half awe, half sadness” (66) because he knows how influential that accolade is on a resume.