Actor heads to law school

August 17, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
I’ve heard of actors going back to school to get their undergraduate degree but I can’t recall one pursuing a law degree. Now there’s Jerry O’Connell, perhaps most famous for “Stand by Me,” “Sliders,” or being Rebecca Romijn’s husband, who announced last week he’s enrolled at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and signed up for one course so far.

According to news reports, O’Connell decided to go back to school because his wife will be working again and he’ll be at home all day with his daughters. He figured he’d take some night classes and law school was a better option than playing video games all night.

Who knows if he’ll actually complete his degree, pass the bar, and become an attorney, but he does take the “working actor going back to school” thing a step further. I’ve heard of actors taking time off to pursue their undergraduate degrees in psychology or literature and some have even attended Ivy League schools. But law school? That’s a new one to me.

Let’s look at some of the benefits of having Jerry O’Connell in your law class or courtroom.

- He’s a famous actor! Here’s your chance to get to know one and perhaps befriend him. Maybe you’ll get invited to study groups at his house and other celebrities will stop by!

- Perhaps he can give some real world experience about contracts and entertainment law.

- His acting skills could come quite in handy while making arguments.

The drawbacks:

- He’s a famous actor! That could be pretty distracting to some people who only want to know what Mariah Carey was like to work with or how was it filming “Stand by Me.”

- Will other attorneys, judges, and juries take him seriously?

- You know he has enough money to pay for his tuition and won’t have to even use his law degree. That could cause resentment and feelings of ill-will toward him.

What would you do if you showed up to law school and someone famous was in your class? Would you try to befriend that person or leave him or her alone?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT