What I really liked about this exercise is being able to get my feet wet as an attorney for a client.

When I saw the evidence, I was very excited because I have always been interested in being part
of the case. After reviewing the case, I felt that I was part of the law-and-order show, with the
goal of figuring out who was telling the truth about the car accident. When I saw the photos of
the car accident, I was surprised at the extent of the damage to the two cars. I would've like to
argue for the plaintiff because I have some good opinions about the defendant's lawyer. When I
looked at the evidence from both parties, it sounded that the plaintiff wanted to get more money
for the defendant’s insurance. I say this because the defendant does not need to pay the full
amount that should be shared with the other person who caused the second accident. The second
accident aggravated the back problems faced by the plaintiff throughout his life. This is why
there should be a distribution between the two parties so that everyone is involved to help the
plaintiff recover. What I did not like about the exercise was the time it took too long get the
argument back from the other party. Another aspect that I did not mention is that the other
groups did not raise too many arguments. I would've thought they could put more of an argument
so it can be fun but also exciting to see how I will argue against them. Some feedback about the
exercise is to set a meeting time for both parties. The reason I say this is to allow everyone to
cooperate with each other and reach a consensus. In addition, I think it will enhance execution
even more, because it will feel that students are actually defending their clients. But in general, I
am ready to have a good time this exercise because It gave me experience, but also tested the
conceptual knowledge I learned in class.