Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?

I just got my first assignment for law school. Apparently, the laws school operates an introductory clinic in aspects of legal practice. Part of this is a series of exercises, and questions. A few thoughts on what I have gone through so far.

Theoretical situations - These are basically supposed to make us think about ethics and honesty.

The first concerns "a female friend" who confesses over coffee one day that her boyfriend is physcially abusive towards her...yada-yada. What would you do? My first reaction was a half joke, maybe she deserved it. Half-joke because I am given very little information. All I really have here, objectively, is a woman, who I have no context for so cannot conclude anything definitively about, whining about her boyfriend in a coffee shop.

Who knows if its true or impartial? For all I know this could be a canny gambit for me to initiate a break-up she does not have the courage to do herself, a clumsy gambit telling me she wants to get freaky-deaky in the coffee shop's ladies room, or both as she invites her boyfriend to come watch us. In some ways this "friend" without any context seems rather repellant to me.

Of course I cannot really say any of this and expect to graduate (BTW part of the orientation is a morning of "diversity workshops". Oh, joy.).

The second one is classic case for attorney client privilege, you represent a man who has confessed to you privately to a murder that another man is up for trial. Technically speaking you can't do anything about it, but I expect argument and consternation from my classmates, and perhaps faculty, about the "right thing". I do not think "Don't care. He doesn't sign my checks" is going to fly. So I argue that perhaps we can bargain for the confession. He confesses and gets a commuted sentence, or something of the like (of course that is only in special situations).

The Mock trial

The second part is a whole mock trial. We have to read a complaint, a response, and a case supposedly providing precedent. We are then to depose a witness....yada-yada. The case is rather boring, and slam-dunk given the precedent given to us if you ask me. It is basically: a tort committed by an employee, can the employer be liable?

The odd thing is it seems all rather easy. A few questions on the employer's policy and the employee's actions that night to show a disconnect. Bam! done! I fail to see the difficulty in this. I do not know though if it was easy, or there is something I am seriously missing. Am I supposed to agonize over what questions to ask exactly? Loose myself in trivial details? Where is the challenge?