If I Kill the Dean of Widener with Malice Aforethought... is that Manslaughter or First Degree Murder!?

Ha.  That's exactly the type of example that Widener Law professor, Lawrence Connell, used during his Criminal Law lectures.  And for that, he is suspended indefinitely and may be fired. Allegedly, there are other issues with the professor as well:

In a letter to Connell, school administrators said the professor has a pattern of racist and sexists comments in the classroom, as well as hypothetical situations that threaten fellow professors and students. If true, the allegations made against Connell by several students may violate the school's discrimination and harassment code, it said. 

Wow.  These Widener students are super sensitive.  I might as well let it be known that I'm not a fan of Widener.  In 2000, Widener was my Cooley.  For those of you that don't read my blog often enough, I make fun of Cooley bi-weekly because it's the shittiest law school in the country.  That privilege was once reserved for Widener.  I thought regionally at the time.  I used to tutor students for the LSATs in the Philadelphia area and Widener was everyone's back-up school--before Drexel opened.  Their part-time program was infamous.  The bar passage rate was low.  And this Delaware School feeds into Pennsylvania because Delaware is too damn small to absorb them.  The Pennsylvania market is highly saturated and notoriously low paying for a big city.  I am no longer familiar with Widener, but I am sure it still sucks.  Chime in if you feel differently.  Big tangent, sorry.  Back to the story.

He is being accused of being a racist sexist pig:

According to correspondence released by Neuberger, Connell was informed on Dec. 10 that some students in his spring 2010 criminal law class had complained to administrators about offensive statements concerning women and minorities — including the murder of Ammons, a black woman. Vice Dean Patrick Kelly told Connell that he then interviewed students in his fall course. Those students "raised similar concerns without the violent scenarios of last spring." 

Ha. If the Dean is black and a woman, does that make her any less appropriate as the "victim" in a criminal law hypothetical?  Isn't she asking for it as the Dean of a shit law school?

"As a teacher, I have employed hypothetical problems involving familiar people in absurd situations, to enable students to remember the legal principles involved," Connell wrote. "It sickens me to think that after my nearly 26 years at Widener, university administrators are suddenly able to divine from the baseless claims of a couple disgruntled students that I am a bigoted racist with violent propensities."  

I don't know Prof. Connell from Adam, but I'm willing to bet that he isn't guilty as "charged."  It's pretty normal to discuss murder when you're teaching about murder.  Oh yeah, those classes often discuss rape and manslaughter as well.  I don't know how you can teach criminal law without discussing... crime.  You can only slice and dice and run over Britney Spears so many times before it gets old.  Power to Prof. Connell for evoking images that felt more real to these downtrodden students.  Leave it to a "Law" School to quash a person's freedom of speech.

Clueless Indeed.

Elizabeth G. Olson from Fortune is obviously dense, dumb and slow--as evidenced by her February 16, 2011 article entitled "Lawyers: Say farewell to that guaranteed raise." You think!?  It's articles such as these that make people hate lawyers.  Apparently, big law firms--although still starting associates at $160K--are going to base raises on merit, rather than years out of law school.  Wooptifuckingdo.  Whoa is them.  Poor little rich lawyers aren't quite as wealthy as they used to be.  The legal industry has bigger concerns.  How about the 80% of 2008 grads that were unemployed at one point?   What happened to them?

So, Ms. Olson notes the reason for the redistribution of wealth is because Big Law is under the scrutiny of their broke-ass corporate clients.  I experienced this myself while working at Big Law.  The corporate clients would audit the legal bills and make demands like "Can't Contract Attorneys (in India) do this work?"  Big Law, you're late to the pity party. Most lawyers deal with broke-ster clients that micro-manage your case because of costs.  Actually, i would venture to guess that most of legal strategy is defined by cost.   Ideally, you'd like to do the best for your clients, but they can't afford to have you pull all stops for them.  Now corporations are feeling the crunch and are similarly trying to micro-manage their legal teams.  So, bull shit story short, the legal world is changing and it's looking less stellar for the creme de la creme. What a mundane story.  It's like focusing on the gas tank leak at the corner Exxon while the BP Oil Spill is gushing in the Gulf of Mexico.  Journalists love to focus on the non-stories.  It makes the world seem like a decent place.

Thanks Tipster!  You can email me next time at angelthelawyer@gmail.com

Georgetown Will Do ANYTHING for its Grads....

As far as career advice goes, cold calling has to be the worst of the acceptable methods to find employment.  It comes after applying for open positions, networking and contacting alumni.  For those of you who are unfamiliar, when all of the above methods fail, you literally contact whomever begging for a job.  The chances of scoring a job this way have to be about those of winning at the slot machines in Atlantic City, but I suppose it's better than doing nothing.


What about cold-emailing?  Sending out emails to potential employers who probably aren't looking to hire someone.  Are you chances of getting hired worse or better when a cold-email may end up in a potential employer's spam box?


Well, desperate times calls for desperate measures and Georgetown is going to make sure that Georgetown Grads are employed, even if they have to resort to cold-emailing.


A BIDER reader forwarded me the following email with the caveat: "FYI, I did NOT go to G'town undergrad or law.  Also we are located several hundred miles from Washington DC.  This just appeared in my in-box.  How they got my name, I have no idea."


From:    "Laura Hosid" <lar9@law.georgetown.edu>
To:    DELETED
Cc:    <amp273@law.georgetown.edu>
Date:    02/07/2011 02:58 PM
Subject:    Georgetown Law - Legal Interns


I am writing from Georgetown University Law Center to inquire as to whether you will be hiring interns in your legal department this year.  We have a number of highly qualified students seeking employment for the upcoming summer.  In addition, we understand that most corporations do not hire new graduates for lawyer positions, but if you have a need or interest in considering a talented young lawyer for a post-graduate legal or non-legal position, please let us know.
 
Please feel free to get in touch with either myself or Abe Pollack, Director of Employer Outreach, if you would like to post a position for our students.  I can be reached at (202) 662-9303 or lar9@law.georgetown.edu, and Abe Pollack can be reached at (202) 661-6560 oramp273@law.georgetown.edu.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  
 
Sincerely, 
 
Laura Hosid
  
 
Laura R. Hosid, Esq.
Associate Director, Office of Career Services
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Room 328
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-9303



For those that don't know (live under a rock), Georgetown is a Top Tier School.  This is what the legal job market is coming to.  What do you guys think?  Is this enough to keep the lemmings from taking the plunge?  Lord have mercy on us all.


Thanks for the tip!  

Really? Really!

Harvard #1.... and Cooley #2.  It's no fucking joke, according to Thomas M. Cooley School of Law.  Sorry if I'm late to the party, but I can't let a story about Cooley come and go without Angel's treatment. 
How the hell did that happen, you wonder.. so did I.  I'm still wondering, actually.  Cooley goes on about everything that was not considered in reaching this determination by "Judging the Law"*:

First, Judging the Law Schools eliminates the highly subjective criteria found in other well-known ranking systems from consideration. Eliminating subjectivity from the rankings means that:
•"Reputation" of the schools based on the opinions of various individuals and the quality of scholarly publications by faculty are not included; and
•No consideration is given to exclusionary admissions practices in these rankings, although the quality of incoming classes is considered.

Here's what was considered by these mental patients...

Judging's rankings are based on the following premises:
•That higher incoming credentials are better than lower;
•That lower student:teacher ratios and smaller class sizes are better than higher ratios and larger classes;
•That higher bar passage rates are better than lower;
•That bigger is better than smaller;
•That less expensive is better than more expensive; and
•That more minority enrollment is better than less.

I somehow think that Tom Cooley would rank #494, even under this newfangled and hardly recognized system. 

On that note, have a great weekend.  Don't go to Cooley unless you're a mental midget with a death wish. By the way, if you buy Tom Cooley's bullshit, you're a mental midget with a death wish and deserve everything coming to you.

*Who the hell are these idiots?

Law School is Most Definitely Losing its Mojo!

Wall Street Journal Blogs poses the question: Is Law School Losing its Mojo?  Hell, fucking yes it is.  Mizzou released news that it's applicant pool is down since last year, and down 12% nationwide.  So, these college kids are using their brains and getting a clue.  The WSJ blog ends with an appropriate question.  What else are kids to do?   After all, they can't find jobs.  So, why not go $100K+ debt and hide out from the recession for a few years, right?  Wrong.  Let's think of things that kids can do that are more productive than burying yourself under pile of debt:

• Nothing.  Sometimes, inaction is better than action.  Especially when action results in negative net worth.
• Volunteer.  It's an honorable thing to do and will be a better resume gap filler than the bullshit you make up to cover up the fact that you were in law school for 3 years, when you find yourself in the horrible position of having to drop the J.D. from your resume to find gainful employment.
• Take an entry-level job anywhere.  You may think you're too good to be an administrative assistant, but you're not.  It's in your head.  The market says your college degree is worthless.  Nothing will make you shine more than competence.  Your degree is not enough, so prove yourself.  If you're really as smart as you think you are, you'll be running the place before long.
• Explore your creative side.  If you are a writer, write.  If you're a painter, paint.  If you can build shit, do so.  This might be the only time in your life that you can focus on something that you enjoy.  I used to write poetry, and now I don't have time and I'm eternally uninspired because my life sucks.  Well, being a lawyer sucks.  Who knows?  You might end up the next Warhol or Edgar Allen Poe (hopefully you won't die a drunk in a gutter in Baltimore though).
• Become an Entrepreneur.  All of the richest people in our country are Entrepreneurs.  You're young. You're on the pulse of technology and innovation.  If you have an idea, run with it.  Ask the rents and their friends for start up money and start something.  Even if you fall flat on your face, you'll likely owe less money to more sympathetic creditors.

I understand you'd rather be earning money.  But if you go to law school, you won't be making money. You will owe money.  Trust me, it's so much worse to owe than to be broke.  As an unemployed law school grad, you can look at a homeless person and say, "I can't give you a dollar because you're wealthy compared to me."  No money is greater than $100K of debt.
At the end of the day, you're not entitled to what our parents had.  Our society is falling apart.  Our grandparents had the benefit of jobs for life with benefits and pensions.  Our parents had the benefit of relatively steady employment and health insurance and maybe a 401K.  We have nothing.  No one is going to give you a fair wage and health insurance because you're smart or good looking.  So get over yourself.  Stop drinking Obama's Kool-Aid.  Education is not a panacea.  Make your way, by yourself.  It's scary, but I have faith in you.

University of Minnesota Starts Bullshit Program

Wow.  Law Schools just don't get it.  A few schools have started programs in Islamic Law.  What a nice idea, right?  Wrong.  What in God's name, or Allah's name for that matter, will students do with a degree in a legal system that isn't used in this country?  Are the students enrolled in these programs going to become barristers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?  Will they be more or less qualified than scholars from Al-Azhar University?  Even if they were qualified, who the hell is going to hire a non-muslim over a muslim when dealing with a legal system based on religion?  Will this prepare lawyers to be better practitioners in the United States?  HELL no!  Don't get me wrong, I am sure that these programs will be interesting, perhaps even enlightening.  But it will do nothing at all to make University of Minnesota law grads more employable.  Absolutely nothing.  Let's just stop with the whole "juris doctorate" thing and call a law degree what it is: "B.A. Part II"--or perhaps B.S. as in BULL SHIT.  Interesting classes are enticing.  But, my secret to passing the New York bar on the first try wasn't Barbri--it was taking bar classes to the exclusion of anything interesting.  It wasn't a huge loss since nothing in law school is that interesting.  Anyhow, that's how you pass the bar, which may or may not make you nominally employable.  That does nothing for your lack of practical skills.  Lawyers and law firms have been on law schools for a while, for their utter failure to produce lawyers (rather than law school grads).  I think it's hard for a bunch of nitwits that were too socially inept to practice law, to teach others.  After all, those who can't do, teach--as the old adage goes.  

This type of program does nothing to fix the obvious problem with law school.

I can hardly think of anything more useless than a J.D. with a concentration in Islamic Law for all 20 positions in the government that may or may not find it useful to understand the legal systems in the Middle East.  Why don't we have programs in French Civil Code or Samurai Sword Fighting?  Somewhere in the world, there may be a need.  Will that need be in Minnesota?  If I have to answer that question for you, you're a retard and please don't read my blog anymore.

U of M administrators took this sign literally!

Let's Just Let EVERYONE Become an Attorney!

In case I didn't mention it before, the ABA is seriously, and I mean seriously, considering dropping the LSAT as a criteria for admission:

According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, the American Bar Association is currently looking at a proposal to make the oft-dreaded Law School Admission Test optional. If passed, this proposal would alter the system of law school admissions that has been in place since the first administration of the LSAT in 1948.

I'm tempted to go on a diatribe about how the ABA just doesn't fucking understand.  I think I will.  Like it or not, the LSAT is the great equalizer.  Everyone knows, or should know, that an "A" is easier to get at University of Phoenix than it is at Harvard.  But how can a law school determine who is the better candidate without some sort of equalizing criteria?  The LSAT, that's how.  The University of Phoenix Grad can perhaps usurp the Harvard grad's place with an awesome LSAT score of.... 179 or so.  I know, it's unlikely, but it can happen.

What the hell are law schools supposed to rely on, if not the LSATs?  Extra-curricular bullshit?  Maybe they will do interviews?  Charisma, charm, cleavage can be taken into account?

I can only think that the new plan is to inundate the market with flagrant idiots so that the costs of labor will be floor level and the PPP (Profits Per Partner) will be astronomical.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Anyone who has been a first year associate realizes that the work can be done by pygmy goats.  But that's not an indictment of the profession--once you get to a certain level, things are complicated.  Also, if you do real litigation in a mid-sized or small law firm, the work can be dizzying at times.  So, back to my point--they want to pay lawyers even less than Manmeat Patel in Bangladesh, so that the PPP can be astronomical.  So, part one of the plan: MORE and less competent people should go to law school.  Check!

Then, on the other side of the tunnel, à la the post about the indebted law school grad that can't pass the bar because of law school debt, they will prohibit people from passing the bar.  Then, part two of the plan.  I predict, the ABA will somehow say that bar passage is only required for attorneys that sign documents.  Ta-da!  Two class of lawyers, indentured slave servants who probably should not have gone to law school to begin with--and the Partners, the upper echelon of the legal profession.

That's my prediction.  What do you think?

The ABA can't possibly be considering the needs of lawyers as a whole when it considers dip shit moves like this one.  Since I know that they all took the LSATs and are moderately competent people, I can only assume that their goals for the legal industry are wholly divergent from ours.  The collect "ours" being that of recent, debt-laden grads who are without work or a loaf of bread upon which to spread Jiffy.  I know the LSAT sucks.  However, it's a test that you can master and you can distinguish yourself from the masses with that goddamn test.  In the article mentioned above, some  GT Hoya says:

"While I agree that the LSAT often discriminates against some students and that it may not be a fair assessment of a person's worth or talent, it is certainly the only measure we currently have to gage a student's ability to succeed in law school," Mehta said in an email. "Until a new, unbiased form of testing can be put into place, there is currently no better way to gauge a student's ability to perform in such a demanding profession."

I have to disagree with him wholeheartedly.  Once you get to a certain level, maybe 165, you're not more or less likely to do better than other students that score higher than you.  On the other hand, if you score <150, you have no business going to law school at all.  You don't have the aptitude for it... hell, maybe you had a bad day.  The point is, that law school will be bad day after bad day and you can't handle the pressure.  Stay home, cause you'll be living there after you complete law school anyway-your childhood home.  Let's end with what this idiot's quote regarding the "plus" side of eliminating the LSAT:

Evan Monod (COL '14), who is considering a career as an attorney, believes that the cost of the test itself, test preparation and the long hours of studying serve as a deterrent to students who might otherwise enter the legal profession.

"I would definitely support making it optional because I think it would increase the number of kids able to go to a good law school and participate in a profession that we desperately need bright people in," Monod said.

Exactly my point.  Lift the flood gates.  Where is Noah's ark when you need it?