I have no solution for the poor Mrs. Overworked Law Student, but if it's any consolation for her she's far from the only law student spouse to so complain. If you go read Scott Turow's One L (which I recommend more for those thinking about going to las school; once I was in law school the book didn't seem quite so good) you'll find a passage where Turow mentions that his wife at least once complained that Turow was more intimate with the law than with her. I suspect it's been a problem for married law students since the coming of Christopher Columbus Langdell, if not earlier.

OK, Len, c'mon, get into the spirit: I wanted a thread on law-school sex puns, here! The serious side is just too easy to contemplate. Work with me, here!

Maybe he should give his wife a little more consideration? If he doesn't, she might withdraw her offer after a reaonable time (how long is it reasonable for your spouse to turn you down for sex?)

Now see, that's what we're talking about. Bonus points for anyone who works in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. :)

FRCP? Well, the guy is required to disclose any pertinent information (re: inability to find time to have sex) found during discovery (re: law school). His silence on the matter can be taken as a violation of law and, thus, will get his side of the case thrown out in court. Judgment for the wife. (Very bad FRCP joke, but I thought I'd try...)

Frustrated, Horny Wife v. Big Law School Plaintiff appeals from summary judgement for Big Law School ("BLS") at trial court. The plaintiff's husband is currently enrolled as a first year student at BLS and has not, according to plaintiff, engaged in sexual activities with her since his first research memo was assigned in the first month of his first semester. Plaintiff argues that BLS negligently assigned her husband too much reading and writing and thus he was either too busy or too tired to "perform". Plaintiff further argues that this was a foreseeable result of the school's actions. Having been 1L's themselves, they should know that overworking their students would cause them to neglect their "bedroom duties." We understand the plaintiff's concerns and our spouses could probably all commiserate with her, however, there is an issue of causation which must be addressed. While the school might foresee the result of too much homework, was this overworking of the 1L the proximate cause of her loss? "A murder at Sarajevo may be the necessary antecedent to an assassination in London twenty years hence. An overturned lantern may burn all of Chicago. We may follow the fire from the shed to the last building. We rightly say the fire started by the lantern caused its destruction. A cause but not the proximate cause" Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 162 N.E. 99 (NY 1928). Are there not other factors which might affect her husband's sex drive? We do not wish to impugn the husband in this case but there is always the chance that he may be drinking too much or perhaps sleeping with his torts professor. Those things could also be a cause. And does BLS have a duty to the plaintiff to make sure she is sexually satisfied? I should think not although stranger things have happened. Affirmed.

Sorry to disappoint you on not getting into the spirit, but I've been so far removed from law practice that the legal puns don't come dripping from my fingertips like they used to. On the other hand, I suppose she might get her husband interested in a bit more nookie if she'd make an attractive nuisance of herself..... (I'm trying, Anthony... God help me I'm trying...)

'Attractive nuisance.' OK, that was good, Len... :) I myself was thinking she might threaten to invoke FRCP Rule 20, the "Permissive joinder of parties..."

At this point I think she'd be looking more at FRCP Rule 19, particularly (a)(1) "if in the person's absence complete RELIEF cannot be accorded among those already parties."