We're discussing Special Litigation Committees in Corporations. One of the overarching ideas in Corporations law is the Business Judgment Rule. The details of the rule aren't important, what is is that in notes you abbreviate it is BJR. When it comes to Special Litigation Committees, Courts in Delaware have to assess the business judgment of the SLCs and exercise their own independent business judgment. Which led me to write the following in my notes on Joy v. North:
"The court didn't trust the corporation's BJ, so it decided to perform a BJ of its own."
After writing that sentence, I re-read it and burst out giggling. This is not a wise move when professors are discussing important matters of business judgment.
And an update: Today in Professional Responsibility we were discussing a particularly thorny problem that a law firm found itself in where they had already gotten into ethical trouble, and then got themselves further into trouble by suggesting their client engage in more illegal behavior to thwart a federal investigation. The professor made reference to this as "finger in the dyke" behavior, in reference to the tale of the little Dutch boy.
When she subsequently called on a student and asked her why a given partner did something, the student, struggling to think of an answer, grasped at the professor's earlier phrase:
"Umm... I guess the partner was just trying to put her finger in the dyke..."
At which point, because she was distracted, she noticed what she'd said and started cracking up.
I like Doctor Who! But I don't like Comment Spam.