analysis - stripped

actually, i'll mention 1 more thing before i call it a night.  i have trouble writing a very good analysis. i mean, going into great depth and just taking the facts and weaving it in with the rules and thinking outside of the box.  last week for work, i wrote a motion to quash for improper service and for lack of personal jurisdiction.  the other attorney's there thought it was okay. (they themselves are fairly new attorneys).
i know i needed more feedback, 1 - b/c i'm a glutton for punishment and just love constructive criticism, a writers work is never done, and 2 - no way was my motion good since it was my first and i'm new to all this.
anyway, this was supposed to be a motion to quash for another state which only allows actual appearances in court. so, we ended up retaining someone from that state, showed him my motion and asked him for advice.  he ended up reformatting it to how that state does theirs. (structure was somewhat different). and today i read the actual content of the motion and it was sooooooo good. he analyzed every single element in the law and left no stone unturned.  he took my analysis and basically made it better by elaborating even more.  i didnt think you could do that but after reading what he wrote, i realized how you could.  and i guess this is what my corporations professor has been trying to beat us over the head when he spends 3 hours disecting a stupid sentence.   i think it finally hit me.   at least i hope it did.
(dont get me wrong, i'm not saying i think my corporations professor is a great professor, i still cant understand most of anything he says but at least i understand the principles which he basis all of his lectures on better).
and i've read exam answers from students where they go on and on w/analysis but its still crap. this guy went on and on w/his analysis but it was good. it all related in some way and nothing was repeated.

so, not only was i relieved that i had finally came to this epiphany in regards to analysis but i also became mad because though he used some of my content and some of the case law i researched and quoted, he also did a much better job than i did.  and though he has 20 years of experience, it just bites when u see someone write that well and u know ur writing is no where near as well as that. u dont think of the fact that there is 20 years of experience over u.  at least, all i thought of was 'shit. i'm not near as good as that.'

I wish he were at my office critiquing me.