Cupid’s Covenant

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

With Valentine’s Day looming, it’s a good time to get some legal perspective on the whole relationship thing, especially the breaking up part. We need to face the fact that despite our hopelessly unrealistic expectations, most relationships don’t last.

Breaking up has serious consequences for both parties which need to be considered in advance, while equal bargaining power still exists. Never enter into a relationship unless BOTH parties have executed the…

Relationship Termination Agreement

The undersigned prospective lovebirds, being of sound mind but probably not for long, enter into the following agreement to govern their respective rights and responsibilities in the event of a partnership dissolution:

1. I agree not to go around blabbing the embarrassing secrets and quirks you confessed to me in strict confidence on the silly assumption that I wasn’t going to some day hate your guts. Breach of this paragraph shall constitute tortious interference with prospective advantageous relationships.

2. Within 10 days of the contract termination, I covenant to place 25 melodramatic phone calls to you, at least half of which shall occur late at night while I am intoxicated. Just to remind you that I still have strong feelings for you, at least five of these calls shall qualify as “harassment” under applicable law.

3. I shall retain any and all cards, gifts and other items of endearment supplied during the contract term for one full calendar year, at which time I may dissolve them in sulphuric acid. I shall re-read all cards on at least five occasions, and hereby bind myself to feel nostalgic, wistful and wonder whether we made a mistake on each such occasion.

4. When asked why the contract was terminated, I shall falsely represent: “It was a mutual decision. We’re still good friends.”

5. Upon breakup, you shall return all items of personal property belonging to me, with immediate attention to any videotapes made during the course of said contract.

6. It is understood that the next person I date shall be less attractive than you and that this provision shall be strictly construed against the datee. I agree not to date your best friends, even though I think a couple of them are really hot.

7. Friends shall be split as follows: (fill in blanks) ________ is my friend. Do not even attempt to speak to him/her, as he/she is subject to an express condition subsequent to curse you loudly in the event of a contract breach. ________ can be your friend, since I’ve always found him/her affected and annoying. Everyone else is my friend (choose one or more depending on property settlement) on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, alternate weekends and major holidays.

8. I agree not to hang out on “your turf,” including but not limited to your front porch and the alley behind your house, especially while on a date.

9. I covenant not to refer to any future contracting party as “Puppytoes” or “Yum-yum.”

10. I shall have the option of temporarily resuming the contract on at least two occasions after the breakup, at least one of which shall be initiated by a romantic chance encounter, preferably at someone’s wedding. It is understood that these contract renewals will be for short periods and end badly.

Cable Cartel

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

With cities threatening lawsuits and stiff fines for lousy service and millions of viewers flocking to satellite dishes, cable television companies have realized they need to upgrade their image. The giant, caring brain inside the cable industry’s public relations center has responded with this insert for next month’s bill:

Important Customer Information

It has come to our attention through your constant whining and complaining that some of you couch potatoes aren’t satisfied with our service. Apparently, you think we treat you shabbily. Well, of course we do. Why? Because we can.

Just kidding. We love our customers. That’s the reason we’re writing to tell you about some exciting new improvements, that and a paralyzing fear of government regulation:

New programming. We’re happy to report that last month’s 500 percent rate increase has allowed us to expand our programming to include many new and exciting channels:

(1) Empty Sky Network. See the sky live 24 hours a day.

(2) Bovine Growth Network. Watch cows mature from birth to adulthood.

(3) The Jones Channel (TJC). People with the last name “Jones” discuss their life experiences.

(4) TNT Network. Not Ted Turner’s outfit. We’re talking real TNT! Live detonations around the clock.

(5) Plus 27 more golf channels!

Help line. Have a question? Call us anytime. You won’t get to talk to a real human being because cable companies do not employ actual live workers. However, we do have a great new phone menu designed to demonstrate how completely we control your pitiful boobtube-watching lifestyles:

If you’re calling from a touch tone phone—and we know you are so don’t even think about pretending you’re not—press 1. Wait for static. Press 5. Wait for static. Press 3, 6 and 9 at the exact same time. Now press 4 and then 8 REALLY FAST. Wait for static.

Press 1 finger to nose. We’re not kidding. Do it. … (Whistling) … We’re not in any hurry. Are you? There, that’s better. Now press 2 and then the pound sign. Or 7. It doesn’t really matter.

To report a service outage, enter your phone number, street address, zip code and mail us a picture of your house with directions. Stay on the line. For billing questions, skip to our state of the art automated account system and, seriously, good luck. If you have a complaint, press the star sign and hang up. Go watch more TV and you’ll feel better.

If at any time you wish to repeat this menu, you must be a very bored and lonely person. Go watch more TV.

Service appointments. Experiencing a service interruption? No problem. We offer four convenient and reliable appointment slots to help you manage your busy schedule: Fall, Winter, Summer and Spring.

Pay-per-view. Some of our most special programming is available only on a pay-per-view basis. Sign up now for the “Thrilla in Ashtabula” for only $99.95. See the heavyweight grudge match of the century as Lennox Lewis defends his crown against some other guy TBA.

Our promise to you. We’re 100 percent committed to providing you intermittent sound and video images and a monthly bill. If you’re not completely satisfied, we encourage you to try out one of our competitors. Be sure to figure in interstate moving costs when comparing monthly rates.

Cellular Rights

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

The right to keep and bear a cell phone is one our nation’s most cherished liberties, yet a movement is afoot to restrict this freedom. Bills have been introduced in 25 states to prohibit driving and talking.

Beware. Freedom of digitized speech is in danger. Outlawing driving while talking would be just the first step. Next it will be no checking voice mail while piloting jetliners, then no ordering pizza while inserting plutonium rods. Where will it end?

But there’s good news. Lobbyists for the National Association for the Extreme Pecuniary Benefit of the Cellular Phone Industry have persuaded members of Congress to introduce the Cellular Freedom Act (CFA). Here’s why you should support the CFA:

Driving and talking. Some people feel that driving while talking on a phone is dangerous because it is distracting to drivers. And indeed it can be. Trying to talk and drive through red lights while motorists are flipping you off and shouting obscenities can be dangerous and distracting, especially when you’re trying to concentrate on the newspaper.

Under the CFA, anyone flipping off a motoring-cell phone user will be charged with reckless driving and improper signaling.

Cellular disruption. Sometimes — about 5 million times each day — cell phones go off at inopportune times, such as in the middle of theater performances, sermons and U.S. Supreme Court proceedings. In our nation of misplaced priorities, it is cell phone users who are made to feel ashamed on such occasions, when in fact they are victims of rude behavior around them.

Are the lives of Supreme Court justices really so overburdened that it would kill them to let lawyers answer the phone during oral argument? Of course not, but I’ll bet they’d pitch a fit if an advocate so much as paused to check Caller ID.

The CFA will restore the dignity of cell phone users everywhere by requiring that all activity within 100 yards of a ringing cell phone cease immediately. Time shall remain suspended until the call recipient gives the all clear sign that the conversation is over and no further calls are expected.

In the event multiple phones ring at the same time, the loudest phone wins. Should a dispute arise, all callers shall call back and the subsequent “ring-off” will determine talking order.

Talk-Talk. Some people can’t understand why people must be on the phone every second of the day, no matter where they are or what they are doing. The fact is, blabbing addictions are a serious problem in the U.S. that we have ignored for too long.

The CFA recognizes “prattle disorder” as a disability that must be accommodated by federal law. Under the act, all movie theaters, performance halls and classrooms will be required to have designated “Talking Sections” with sufficient electrical outlets to meet the battery-charging needs of the Get Off the Freaking Phone!-impaired.

Still undecided in the fight for cellular rights? Ask yourself this: “What if some day I’m greatly exceeding the speed limit on the Interstate through a construction zone during rush hour and get an urge to call my significant other to exercise my first amendment right to have a highly emotional argument over who should pick up the dry cleaning? Do I want the government saying I can’t do that?”

Ruff Justice

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

In San Francisco, they hold Dog Court. This is where troubled dogs end up when they choose the wrong path in life, such as the one directly behind a fleeing postal worker.

Both sides show up and present their stories. Sometimes they bring witnesses and even lawyers. In half the cases, the dogs are ordered leashed or muzzled. Difficult cases are referred to pet shrinks. One dog was put on Prozac because, in the judge’s words, “he was so high-strung.”

What’s it like inside the canine justice system? The ABA Journal offers this exclusive firsthand account from Rex (not his real name), a retriever charged with vandalizing public property.

Day 1/Holding cell

Nervous. Agitated. Don’t like the way that German Shepard is wagging his tail at me. And the mutt with the scabs and one ear looks mean. Said he works in the automobile security industry. I don’t belong in here with them. They’re animals!

I’m innocent. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time—standing next to a fire hydrant getting ready for a little jog around the neighborhood, stretching my left rear quadricep.

Starving. Nothing to eat since I’ve been here except biscuits and water. Come to think of it, that’s all I get at home. That really bites.

Day 2/Interrogation

Right to remain silent? What kind of a right is that? Howl at 110 decibels. Now that’s a right …

Stop! Quit hounding me. How many times is he going to say, “Did you do it, boy?” and I say “Woof, woof,” before he realizes that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

Day 3/Line-up

Some line-up. A chihuahua, alley cat and an unemployed performance artist named Stefan. So much for due process. But it doesn’t matter. I’m home free. No eyewitnesses except that mangy hound — Elrod! What’s he doing here? And with them. He must have rolled over.

Time to stay calm. Stop panting and lick that slobber off your lip like it’s the most natural thing in the world. They’re bringing him over. Be cool, Elrod. We’ve never met. We’ve never met. Elrod, stop licking my face. No sniffing. Elrod! Maybe I can still cop a plea.

Day 4/Sentencing

The judge is reading my rap sheet. It sounds bad, but I could explain everything if he would just listen, and if I could talk. For example, all those citations for chasing cars never would have happened if my owner would have just bothered to mention he was coming back. Thanks for the raging abandonment complex, master.

As for the aggravated assault against the cable guy, I am 100 percent blameless. “Guard the house, Rex.” That’s what the man said. I just do what I’m told. It’s not like he ever gave me a list or anything. Never said, “Bite intruders unless they’re wearing a patch that says they work for a regulated utility.” If the dude had been a burglar, I’d be a hero. Probably get my picture in the paper.

Uh oh, it’s sentencing time. Fourteen years in the backyard! No way. I’ll never survive captivity. Well, I have all my life, but still. Man, those better be dog years.

eLawrealcheep.com

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

E-commerce has exploded. You can buy just about anything online these days. eBay Inc. alone offers four million auctions a day, in 4,320 categories. It was only a matter of time before e-lawyering came of age.

Ambitious new web sites are about to start auctioning legal services. Law firms will be able to bid online to provide services ranging from personal injury defense to drafting real estate documents. The idea is to get firms to bid against each other, driving down legal costs.

Some traditionalists object to legal services being treated like a fungible commodity. They fear e-lawyering will devalue the hallowed attorney-client relationship, an intimate union built on trust, confidence and open communication.

They may have a point. Check out this transcript of a recent online transaction, submitted by a frustrated, e-challenged lawyer:

eLawrealcheep.com Transaction Record #90896

Lawyer. Hello. I’m writing to inquire about the products liability defense case posted on your web site. My law firm is new to electronic representation, so please tell me how to proceed. Frankly, I have concerns that the auctioning of legal services may detrimentally affect the attorney-client relationship. I am hopeful you can alleviate these concerns.

E-Client. Enter your name, address, seven-digit password, credit card number and amount of bid. Scan bid for viruses and make sure decimal points are placed correctly. In our experience, virus-infected bids and misplaced decimal points can seriously impair attorney-client relations.

Lawyer. (long cyber-pause) I am writing to see if we can set up a time and place to meet to discuss the case.

E-Client. Your last entry could not be processed. Double-check credit card number and try again.

Lawyer. Don’t you think we should get to know each other before proceeding further? After all, as your lawyer, I would be among your closest confidants. And, of course, I am very interested in learning more about your company to make sure you’re a good fit for my firm.

My name is Tom … for 25 years … president of bar association … $5 million verdict … Lawyer of the Year … firm’s clients include … raised in … church caught fire … years in recovery … beautiful wife and three children.

E-Client. Hello, Tom. We’re a Delaware corporation. Enter amount of bid.

Lawyer. Could you tell me more about the case?!! Successful representation depends on complete familiarity with the facts.

E-Client. Click on Case Specifics for additional details.

Lawyer. I did click on it!!!!! I clicked on it until my fingers bled!! It finally took me to a porn site!!! I can’t even tell what kind of product it is. The picture is the size of an electron. Is it a can opener? A Slinky?

E-Client. It’s a thresher. Click on the image to enlarge the picture. Do you want to bid?

Lawyer. This whole set-up is outrageous!!!!!!!!!! You’ve destroyed the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship!!!!!!!!!!!!:(:(:(:. Don’t you want to know anything about your lawyers except their bid?

E-Client. How much does your firm charge for photocopies?

Lawyer. I can’t take it.

E-Client. Sorry, Tom. Bidding just closed on the products liability case. Would you be interested in bidding on this week’s special, the “Dime-O’-Dozen” bond deal package?

Note to readers: Real online legal services auction companies do not function as described above. This is silly parody.

Campaign Refinancing

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

[Written before Congress passed campaign reform in 2002 in the form of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, parts of have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as violative of the First Amendment.]

Campaign finance reform has played a contentious role in this year’s electioneering, yet many people still are confused by the intricacies of this important issue.

Voters, not being as smart as elected representatives, see campaign finance reform in simple terms. Surveys show 100 percent of ordinary dumb voters “strongly agree” with the statement: “Anyone who regularly gives me large sums of money is a pal of mine.”

However, the issue is far more complicated, as proved by the fact that Congress has been unable to agree on it since first raised during the Madison administration. The good news is that opposing forces finally agreed to sit down and work out their differences. The bad news is their first meeting ended in a brawl over what time to adjourn for lunch.

Lawyers, as vital members of the political debate, need to know about campaign finance reform. Here are the most commonly asked questions:

Q. What exactly is “campaign finance reform”?

A. “Campaign finance reform” is a term used by persons seeking political office. Beltway etiquette rules prohibit candidates from speaking, writing or even thinking about the concept after 7 pm on election day.

Q. Many critics have the perception that special interests are “buying votes” with their contributions. What is being done to address this perception?

A. Long barraged by such complaints, some officials have proposed simply selling votes outright at a fair market price. “We’re sick and tired of being accused of backdoor dealings,” said one indignant senator.

Q. What is “soft money” and why do they call it that?

A. Soft money is money that, under our airtight election laws, contributors are prohibited from giving to candidates, so they give it to their friends to spend for them. As for the name, one historical theory is that early politicians preferred paper currency over bulky change, which slowed their movement to the next fundraiser.

Q. Opponents of campaign finance reform argue limitations on campaign contributions violate the first amendment. Is this true?

A. Yes. The argument is historically based. Due to a typographical error, a crucial clause was omitted from the first amendment. The amendment originally stated: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or pertaining to any other matter unless members get generously comped for it.” (emphasis added)

Q. Why did it take so long for Congress to require that groups sponsoring issue ads disclose their donors?

A. Because donors to groups like “Moms for Mother Earth” (Biohazard, Inc., Waste Dumps R Us and Ultraslime) complained that the truth puts them at an unfair disadvantage in the marketplace of ideas.

Q. Being a special interest sounds like fun. I like getting my own way. How do I know if my interests are “special” enough? I like to bowl and collect dead animals.

A. An interest qualifies as “special” if the holder is able to satisfy the four-part test set forth in §4678.03 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

1. Get out your checkbook.

2. Find the balance.

3. Count the number of digits.

4. If the total exceeds 6, you’re a special interest.

If you’re a less-than-special interest, just check the little presidential campaign box on your tax form each year. You will get exactly $3 of political clout.

Rocket Science

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

The National Missile Defense (NMD) is the successor to President Reagan’s Star Wars initiative. The system is designed to protect us from unfriendly “rogue states” by blasting their missiles out of the sky with our missiles. The NMD should be of great interest to lawyers because if it doesn’t work, probate business may be picking up considerably in the future.

Unfortunately, despite a price tag of $60 billion, hitting “a bullet with a bullet” is proving as hard as ever. In June, the New York Times reported that NMD tests have been rigged to hide the fact that the interceptor missiles can’t distinguish decoys such as balloons from real warheads. The Times said the government is deliberately “dumbing down” future tests to increase the odds of success.

Officials deny decoy trouble, but a test in July raised eyebrows when the “kill vehicle” failed to detach from the interceptor rocket. According to a high-placed source, the kill vehicle’s fault codes were interpreted to say: “I refuse to suffer any more humiliation. I am not leaving this interceptor until you do something about those decoys.”

Now, ultra-top secret documents appearing in this month’s Los Alamos National Laboratory Tattler newsletter confirm that there are indeed bugs in the anti-missile system.

Field test #72 transcript

Defense Contractor: Direct hit!

General: Get out. We hit that missile?

DC: No sir. It appears to be a balloon.

General: Decoy?

DC: Birthday.

General: What the #$%# [redacted for national security reasons] is a birthday balloon doing in outer space?

DC: It wasn’t exactly outer space. It was at a Chuck E Cheese, somewhere in the Midwest as best we can tell.

General: I thought we dealt with the spherical decoy problem.

DC: With great success, I’d say. The interceptor hasn’t mistaken Venus for a warhead since Test #59. As for the moon, we just have to pray the enemy attacks during an eclipse.

Field test #201

DC: The interceptor has launched. This time we’ve equipped it with video so we can see how it behaves as it approaches the missile. The missile is coming into view.

General: What are all those flashing lights?

DC: Stadium scoreboards. Part of the new decoys. See how they spell out “DECOY” between “Touchdown” and “Awesome”?

General: What’s all that other stuff? Isn’t that Porky Pig?

DC: Yes sir. A float from last year’s Rose Bowl parade. We used a variety of decoys to refute critics who say the tests are unrealistic. We also launched the Statue of Liberty, some inflatable Miller-Lite cans and a couple of barns, in case someone claims we can’t hit the side of one. The kill vehicle is zeroing in. It’s going to hit the … no, the … no, the … (BIG EXPLOSION IN OUTER SPACE!)

General: Porky Pig?

DC: Reasonable mistake, general. The pig has a similar infrared signature to a Soviet SS-20 warhead, except it’s a different shape and ten thousand times bigger.

General: Another failure (sigh).

DC: To the contrary—an impressive triumph. Pig like that hits a major city, we’re talking some serious damage.

Hogwarts Torts

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

Like many adults who were less than pleased to receive the news that they were expected to actually grow up one day, I love Harry Potter. For readers who have been heavily sedated or in trial for the past several years, Harry is the protagonist in J.K. Rowling’s bestselling books about a remarkable young wizard somewhere in England.

Why is Harry so remarkable? Two reasons. First, he saved the entire wizarding world while only a tot. Second, never in the history of education has a student been subject to as much tortious conduct as Harry Potter at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

Harry finally got fed up and sought legal advice. In an amazing Harmless Error exclusive, here are the actual notes the solicitor took during the initial client interview:

Client. Harry Potter. Resides at number 4, Privet Drive (note possible separate action against aunt and uncle for false imprisonment). Insists all law office correspondence be delivered by overnight . . . owl?

Defendants. Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Location: kept secret, probably to avoid service of process. Individual defendants include entire faculty, fellow students Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, and some chap named Voldemort, a/k/a You Know Who, d/b/a He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Premises liability. Defendant maintains the premises in an unreasonably dangerous condition, in breach of its duty to client, an invitee. Hazards include dungeons, trapdoors, a willow tree that beats people senseless, trolls, three-headed dogs, toxic potions, trick stairs into which students disappear, and a forbidden forest adjacent to the premises containing attractive nuisances such as werewolves, dementors and dark lords.

Gross negligence. Defendant sponsored a school competition known as the Triwizard Tournament, into which client was entered involuntarily. Rather than compete in age-appropriate contests such as three-legged races, participants were required to fight dragons, swim under freezing water for more than one hour, and negotiate a maze filled with monsters, hexes and curses.

Strict liability for keeping dangerous animals. Rubeus Hagrid, teacher of a required course in Care of Magical Creatures, shows conscious indifference to the welfare of Hogwarts students by recklessly exposing them to vicious animals, including most recently, Blast-Ended Screwts, which client describes as “ten-foot long, armored creatures with stingers, suckers and fire-blasting ends.”

Infliction of emotional distress. Professor Sibyll Trelawney, at all times acting within the scope of her employment as Hogwarts teacher of Divination, has engaged in a pattern of extreme and outrageous conduct intended to induce severe emotional distress in client by repeatedly prophesying his imminent and hideous death.

Assault. Upon client’s arrival for 4th year, one “Peeves” caused imminent apprehension of harmful bodily contact by dropping water balloons on client from the top of a magical staircase. Defendant has allowed Peeves to reside on the premises for hundreds of years despite full knowledge that he is a poltergeist with violent and malicious tendencies.

Products liability. Defendant knows or should know that two students—Fred and George Weasley—operate a business on school premises specializing in the manufacture of defective products such as Ton-Tongue Toffee and Canary Creams, the only utility of which is to cause laughter while consumer suffers gross tongue engorgement or feather sprouting.

Damages. Emotional trauma and permanent disfigurement (nasty scar on forehead).

Disposition. Bloke doesn’t want to sue! Only seeking advice on licensing his celebrity right of publicity. Referred him to Gilderoy Lockhart’s solicitor for advice.

Really Intellectual Property

BY ANDREW J. McCLURG

Every lawyer remembers the LSAT®. But how many people remember how incredibly hard it was, especially the analytical reasoning section? In writing an instructional guide to law school, I had occasion to revisit the LSAT®, and came away believing it’s a miracle I ever got a single question right. Check out these sample questions:

Instructions. The following questions test your ability to understand relational structures. Carefully select your answer, then close your eyes and randomly blacken a space on the score sheet. Good luck! Ha, ha.

Question 1. Analyze the relationship structure among the following dots. Place them in order from most important to least important:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questions 2-5. Assume exactly six of the dots are representatives at a national punctuation conference. Six chairs are evenly spaced around a table. The chairs are numbered 1 through 6, with successively numbered chairs next to each other and chair number 1 next to chair number 6. Each chair is occupied by one of the dots. The following conditions apply:

. must sit next to .

. must sit next to ., ., or both

. can sit anywhere except in front of the coat rack because it makes him look like ! and he is already sensitive about his shrill temperament

. must be seated at the end of this sentence to make it grammatically correct.

2. Which of the following seating arrangements does not violate the stated conditions?

a) . . . . . .

b) . . . . . .

c) . . . . . .

d) . . . . . .

3. Assume . sits next to ., . sits next to ., . sits next to . and . sits next to . Assume further that their table is in the smoking section. Which of the following best describes the resulting seating arrangement?

a) ??????

b) ??????

c) ??????

d) ??????

4. Assume each dot sits in its proper seat, except ., who sits on ., with the resulting seating arrangement of . . : . . Which of the following is most likely to result?

a) A violation of the stated conditions.

b) A game of musical chairs.

c) A broken pelvis.

d) A sexual harassment suit.

5. Assume the dots, feeling slighted as the only ones in the universe not asserting their intellectual property rights, hire an agent. The agent will seat the dots as follows:

a) .® .® .® .® .® .®

b) .© .© .© .© .© .©

c) .com .com .com .com .com .com

d) All of the above.

Fortunately, the good folks behind the LSAT® publish several helpful test aids: the Official LSAT PrepTest®, the Official TriplePrep®, the Offical TriplePrep Plus with Explanations®, and the all new Official® QuadraPrep® PremiumUltraPlus® with Explanations As To Why You Should Plan on Taking the LSAT® Several Times® (last one is made up).