Law School Discussion

Applying to Law School => Personal Statements, Resumes, and Letters of Recommendation => Topic started by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 01:48:50 PM

Title: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.

My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 01:54:18 PM
Did you sign his name on the recommendation form?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 01:58:08 PM
Yes. But I was running out of time and he lets me sign his name for lots of office related stuff.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 02:00:24 PM
What would you like any of us to say? You should have known better.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:01:59 PM
I know. I agree. I should have known better but I was desperate and did not want to miss the deadline. What should I do?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 02:04:15 PM
Deal with the consequences of your action
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:08:34 PM
That's fair. Do you think that my offers will be rescinded? I never meant for this to happen. I wasnt trying to be deceitful. He would have signed and wrote it but I couldnt wait. Of course I didnt want to get caught but I dont know what to do at this point.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 02:12:47 PM
Its possible that schools could rescind. I would check around lsac or call and see if they have a policy for this sort of thing so you know what you're dealing with.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: tcwhat on February 17, 2009, 02:13:35 PM
That's fair. Do you think that my offers will be rescinded? I never meant for this to happen. I wasnt trying to be deceitful. He would have signed and wrote it but I couldnt wait. Of course I didnt want to get caught but I dont know what to do at this point.

Your offers could be rescinded and probably should be at this point.

What you may want to do is ask your boss if he would first actually write a letter of recommendation for you to have it on file with then LSAC. Then have him call the schools you've been accepted at to clear up the situation if he's willing and if they're willing to listen.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:21:03 PM
Thanks. I will ask him to actually write a letter so that LSAC could have it on file and I will call LSAC this evening to find out what the consequences are. I spoke to him about it today and he told me to send in an appeal so hopefully he will agree to help me out and write a letter.

Like I said, I wasnt trying to be deceitful but he is a very busy attorney and had mediations, depositions, and then a long vacation so I didnt want to nag him about it. I shouldnt have done it but I didn't think that it would be a big deal.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:22:20 PM
Its possible that schools could rescind. I would check around lsac or call and see if they have a policy for this sort of thing so you know what you're dealing with.

Thanks. That helps. Hopefully, I will still be admitted.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 02:24:41 PM
I would imagine it should help you if your professor says he instructed you to write the letter and files an appeal. Good luck
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:29:35 PM
I would imagine it should help you if your professor says he instructed you to write the letter and files an appeal. Good luck

Thanks. I appreciate your help.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 17, 2009, 02:38:56 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.

My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.

TTom
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 02:48:32 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.

My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.

TTom

Thanks for the name calling and put downs. If you are not going to offer constructive advice, then why bother? You must have nothing better to do.

If you read the rest of the post, you would maybe have a better understanding of why I did what I did. He allows me to sign his name on almost a daily basis so it didn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't need to defend myself by saying that I am not a bad person.

I made a huge mistake, but I suppose that you are exempt from those. I accepted that what I did was wrong and I am trying to fix it.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 17, 2009, 02:55:52 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.

My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.

TTom

Thanks for the name calling and put downs. If you are not going to offer constructive advice, then why bother? You must have nothing better to do.

If you read the rest of the post, you would maybe have a better understanding of why I did what I did. He allows me to sign his name on almost a daily basis so it didn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't need to defend myself by saying that I am not a bad person.

I made a huge mistake, but I suppose that you are exempt from those. I accepted that what I did was wrong and I am trying to fix it.

I reject your comments.

First, my advice was constructive. Maybe not for you, but for the legal profession.

Second, there is NO justification for what you did. None.
 
Third, you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.

Fourth, I have never, ever, made such a "mistake" in my entire life and I am betting that 99% on this board haven't as well.

Fifth, it wasn't a mistake. You knew what you were doing.

Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: nola504 on February 17, 2009, 03:02:02 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.



My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.

TTom

Thanks for the name calling and put downs. If you are not going to offer constructive advice, then why bother? You must have nothing better to do.

If you read the rest of the post, you would maybe have a better understanding of why I did what I did. He allows me to sign his name on almost a daily basis so it didn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't need to defend myself by saying that I am not a bad person.

I made a huge mistake, but I suppose that you are exempt from those. I accepted that what I did was wrong and I am trying to fix it.

I reject your comments.

First, my advice was constructive. Maybe not for you, but for the legal profession.

Second, there is NO justification for what you did. None.
 
Third, you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.

Fourth, I have never, ever, made such a "mistake" in my entire life and I am betting that 99% on this board haven't as well.

Fifth, it wasn't a mistake. You knew what you were doing.

Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.

Thanks again for all of your helpful comments! You dont have to contact the schools because LSAC already has. Have a great evening.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 17, 2009, 06:00:28 PM
I asked my boss to write a letter of rec and he said he would do it. As time progressed, he never did it and went out of town. He told me to write it and he would sign it.

The deadline was approaching so I wrote it and sent it off without having him review it. LSAC contacted him and he said that he would have wrote it but didnt. Now I am under invsetigation. I already have three acceptance letters but I know that the offers will be rescinded when they hear about this.



My options are to appeal via letter or do nothing. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Two points:
First, you're an idiot.
Second, I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse. Seriously, forging a signature on a letter of recommendation? You should never be allowed to practice law.

TTom

Thanks for the name calling and put downs. If you are not going to offer constructive advice, then why bother? You must have nothing better to do.

If you read the rest of the post, you would maybe have a better understanding of why I did what I did. He allows me to sign his name on almost a daily basis so it didn't seem like a big deal to me. I don't need to defend myself by saying that I am not a bad person.

I made a huge mistake, but I suppose that you are exempt from those. I accepted that what I did was wrong and I am trying to fix it.

I reject your comments.

First, my advice was constructive. Maybe not for you, but for the legal profession.

Second, there is NO justification for what you did. None.
 
Third, you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.

Fourth, I have never, ever, made such a "mistake" in my entire life and I am betting that 99% on this board haven't as well.

Fifth, it wasn't a mistake. You knew what you were doing.

Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.

Thanks again for all of your helpful comments! You dont have to contact the schools because LSAC already has. Have a great evening.

That makes my day!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: heartbreaker on February 17, 2009, 06:16:23 PM
Honestly, OP. I don't know what exactly you're expecting. Quite frankly, even if you miraculously make it into a law school, you're going to have quite a lot of trouble with the character and fitness portion of the bar.

It would have been one thing if you signed a letter he wrote, just in order to get it out. I could buy that as a "mistake." You WROTE yourself a letter of recommendation and signed his name. Really? How do you expect to explain that away? Do you think you're the first and only person to experience problems with LOR writers? You have ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for doing what you have done.

In my opinion, you deserve to have your admissions rescinded. You were purposefully deceitful, not just dishonest, and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: SASS on February 17, 2009, 06:44:44 PM
Just a thought . . . This letter must have been pretty extravagant to prompt LSAC to call the sender.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 17, 2009, 06:46:54 PM
Just a thought . . . This letter must have been pretty extravagant to prompt LSAC to call the sender.

I was wondering that made them call your recommender...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: AJaKe on February 17, 2009, 07:34:55 PM
Just a thought . . . This letter must have been pretty extravagant to prompt LSAC to call the sender.

I was wondering that made them call your recommender...

Seconded, I am curious as well.

I don't think an appeal by the recommender is going to help tbh.  It is understood that a percentage of recs are actually written by the student, because recommenders are lazy shites.  But to write your own and then sign it yourself...  If you get accepted to ANY school, I will honestly be surprised.

I can not say I want to wish you luck, but I do feel really bad for what was obviously a huge error in judgment.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: iamluke20 on February 18, 2009, 07:27:51 AM
Just a thought . . . This letter must have been pretty extravagant to prompt LSAC to call the sender.


LOL!!! I know this is not a funny topic but OP must have really went all out on that letter! So funny to me. I doubt they call many of the reccomenders.  This letter must have been something crazy.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 18, 2009, 08:47:19 AM
Here's another question along this line of thought. I'm applying for a 1L summer internship. I have an older LOR from a former boss of mine with whom I've since lost contact. What are your opinions on taking the old LOR, not changing a single word of it (save for the name of the position sought), and sending it off. Please note that I have NOT done this. But I'm contemplating it since it's a great LOR and I don't have contact with the guy anymore.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 18, 2009, 08:59:53 AM
Here's another question along this line of thought. I'm applying for a 1L summer internship. I have an older LOR from a former boss of mine with whom I've since lost contact. What are your opinions on taking the old LOR, not changing a single word of it (save for the name of the position sought), and sending it off. Please note that I have NOT done this. But I'm contemplating it since it's a great LOR and I don't have contact with the guy anymore.

I think it depends on the context of how you received the letter. If your old boss said, "You did such great work that I'd like to give you a LOR in .pdf format that you can use in the future..." Then it would be acceptable.

This does not sound like your situation. Either contact him and ask permission, or don't use it. Otherwise you're asking for a world of hurt. 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 18, 2009, 09:06:39 AM
TTom, I'm afraid you're right. This former boss is really relaxed, and I know he wouldn't care. It'll just be a pain for both him and me, b/c I've got to find his contact info again and he'll have to sign it. Lol, but it's not worth the risk.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 18, 2009, 09:07:53 AM
You weren't thinking about signing his name on it were you?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: csi on February 20, 2009, 03:39:34 PM
I'm a 0L so you can take my comment as you will, but Nola even IF your acceptances still stand I would seriously take some time to contemplate how badly you want to practice law.

You could be spending three years of your life, working like a dog, come out with a mountain of debt and fail to pass the bar. From what I have read on this forum, even the smallest of fabrications on law app seem to haunt ppl years down the line when it comes to passing the bar. Your situation is obviously much more serious with clear intent so do you want to take on that risk?

Good luck. I do hope things work out for you. Even though this is one event and does probably is the tip of the iceberg to the rest of your character, people do make mistakes. As long as you learn from it and take the consequences then all is good.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 20, 2009, 07:22:58 PM
I'm a 0L so you can take my comment as you will, but Nola even IF your acceptances still stand I would seriously take some time to contemplate how badly you want to practice law.

You could be spending three years of your life, working like a dog, come out with a mountain of debt and fail to pass the bar. From what I have read on this forum, even the smallest of fabrications on law app seem to haunt ppl years down the line when it comes to passing the bar. Your situation is obviously much more serious with clear intent so do you want to take on that risk?

Good luck. I do hope things work out for you. Even though this is one event and does probably is the tip of the iceberg to the rest of your character, people do make mistakes. As long as you learn from it and take the consequences then all is good.

You're incredibly nice, CSI. I'm not quite sure though why you'd really wish nola luck. Do we really want people like nola in the profession? Let's get beyond the fact that what nola did was incredibly dishonest, unethical, etc... It's just plain horrible judgment. It's a malpractice suit and disbarment just waiting to happen.

TTom
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Pop Up Video on February 20, 2009, 10:47:22 PM
I wasnt trying to be deceitful.

 ???

Isn't that exactly what you were trying to do?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: one4theteam on February 21, 2009, 10:05:53 AM
If anything, I think Nola should get out of this how to show he/she can suck up to a mistake and leave it at that.  Two things bother me:

1)  A lot of justification going on here.  Like someone said, Nola isn't the first and won't be the last person to encounter problems with a letter of rec.  The whole "deadline was coming" approach sounds like an excuse.  If for whatever reason this topic ever comes up in an interview, I'd skip that approach.  Attorneys hate excuses.

2)  Attorneys also aren't too fond of people who can't get things done.  "I was afraid to nag him" = I was afraid to ask him to take care of business.  Goodness, if you can't get things moving on your own law school application how are you expected to get opposing counsel or a judge to get things done for your client.  Or even get your client or your partner in your firm to get things done for your client?

Consensus is, one big screw up.  My advice is to own up to it.  Excuses and justidifications work when you're 12.  I think you'll be able to spin this one better if you take a more age-appropriate approach.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: EarlCat on February 21, 2009, 10:51:54 AM
You could be spending three years of your life, working like a dog, come out with a mountain of debt and fail to pass the bar. From what I have read on this forum, even the smallest of fabrications on law app seem to haunt ppl years down the line when it comes to passing the bar. Your situation is obviously much more serious with clear intent so do you want to take on that risk?

OP, judgments of your actions aside, this is probably the most important response to your post.  If you even get into law school, you need to contact the ABA and determine whether, in the absence any other kind of misconduct, you will be eligible to sit for the bar.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on February 21, 2009, 10:55:10 AM
Yes. But I was running out of time and he lets me sign his name for lots of office related stuff.

Your boss shouldn't be an attorney either.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Mitchell on February 21, 2009, 11:51:59 AM
I wasnt trying to be deceitful.

 ???

Isn't that exactly what you were trying to do?

+1
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 21, 2009, 12:03:04 PM
You could be spending three years of your life, working like a dog, come out with a mountain of debt and fail to pass the bar. From what I have read on this forum, even the smallest of fabrications on law app seem to haunt ppl years down the line when it comes to passing the bar. Your situation is obviously much more serious with clear intent so do you want to take on that risk?

OP, judgments of your actions aside, this is probably the most important response to your post.  If you even get into law school, you need to contact the ABA and determine whether, in the absence any other kind of misconduct, you will be eligible to sit for the bar.

I agree with this. However, it's not the ABA that nola would need to check with, but the state's governing body that oversees bar admission. (Whether it be the state's highest court or the state bar association, it depends on the state).
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: EarlCat on February 21, 2009, 07:50:17 PM
I agree with this. However, it's not the ABA that nola would need to check with, but the state's governing body that oversees bar admission. (Whether it be the state's highest court or the state bar association, it depends on the state).

You're right.  I stand corrected.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 21, 2009, 08:14:10 PM
I agree with this. However, it's not the ABA that nola would need to check with, but the state's governing body that oversees bar admission. (Whether it be the state's highest court or the state bar association, it depends on the state).

You're right.  I stand corrected.

I didn't mean to correct you! I just figured that, on the off chance, nola might want to contact somebody to figure out if it was even worth pursuing anymore. I have a feeling the state bar, providing remedial measures are taken, will let him/her still sit. Too bad. We need to clean up the profession.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 21, 2009, 08:56:21 PM
There have been some very judgmental comments about the OP. I agree that the OP made a mistake. But we do not know the relationship the OP has with his boss. I know that some of my former bosses would have no problem with me drafting up my own LOR and perhaps even signing it (presuming, as the OP mentioned, the broad signing authority in the past). However, I've also had bosses who are very strict about those things. Frankly, I've seen many worse things than the OP's conduct that did not prevent entrance into the legal profession. For example, failure to mention on a law school application a former drug charge or honor code violation. Only to have it confessed after admission into law school. These things can get cleared up. These young folks are just starting their legal profession. They can easily be seen as correctable first time offenses, and we hope they never happen again. They better not, at least! First-time offenses are not necessarily indicative of a permanent ethical flaw. For example, the OP's mistake is far different from a long-time partner who has been consistently forging documents. So, please, let's reserve the comments about the OP's worthiness of becoming a lawyer.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 21, 2009, 09:30:24 PM
1) Get a lawyer...have him get a sworn affidavit with your boss amplifying the statements he made to LSAC during the phone call. But his ability to do this will hinge on the call not having been recorded.

2) Have your boss admit that he told you to write the letter and that he told you to sign it. Have him swear that he endorses EVERY SINGLE REMARK in the letter and that you did not exaggerate your accomplishments in any way.

3) Just for good measure, your boss could add that you left out some good things he would have wanted added. Lastly, have him affirm that he did receive and read a copy of the letter or had a copy read to him, before or while it was being sent. Wasn't he out of town?

It's mostly up to your boss to save you. He can change his statements as long as the only thing the LSAC has is a "phone interview"...and provided they didn't advise your boss that they were recording the call and then do so.

But you need to at least speak to a lawyer...QUICKLY. NOW!! Protect your offers. See if you can get this thing halted at the LSAC level without any reporting to the schools, you might be able to do it.

What tipped off the LSAC? What made them call your boss, anyways? Did they cross-check against your essays for sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, etc?   

Another question...why didn't you at least have a coworker or heck...your sister or somebody sign the letter? LSAC probably recognized your handwriting. They obviously do random verifications, but there's no reason LSAC should be able to detect a student-written letter.

And your boss must not have been much of an advocate when they called him. My boss would surely have known what to say had they called him. You clearly did not cover your bases.

A lesson to all: "When you take a dump, don't forget to wipe."

I'm still rooting for you to come out ahead, if only because it doesn't sound like you would have just forged a letter w/o your boss's promise.

Or would you have?

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 21, 2009, 09:33:22 PM
If anything, I think Nola should get out of this how to show he/she can suck up to a mistake and leave it at that.  Two things bother me:

1)  A lot of justification going on here.  Like someone said, Nola isn't the first and won't be the last person to encounter problems with a letter of rec.  The whole "deadline was coming" approach sounds like an excuse.  If for whatever reason this topic ever comes up in an interview, I'd skip that approach.  Attorneys hate excuses.

2)  Attorneys also aren't too fond of people who can't get things done.  "I was afraid to nag him" = I was afraid to ask him to take care of business.  Goodness, if you can't get things moving on your own law school application how are you expected to get opposing counsel or a judge to get things done for your client.  Or even get your client or your partner in your firm to get things done for your client?

Consensus is, one big screw up.  My advice is to own up to it.  Excuses and justidifications work when you're 12.  I think you'll be able to spin this one better if you take a more age-appropriate approach.

He's got bigger problems than that. He's got at least three bona fide admission offers he needs to protect, and it would be best if he could get the LSAC to call off their dogs. He needs a lawyer.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 21, 2009, 09:40:50 PM
LawDog has a point. This is a huge deal. And you've got to protect your future career. Think about how much you've invested into your education to get to this point. But the big question is this: how helpful will your boss be in overcoming this problem? If the amount of help your boss offered for the LOR is any indication, he might not be willing to stick his neck out there for you.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 22, 2009, 01:27:08 PM
LawDog & Wheels,

Even IF nola's boss was completely cool with nola just making up a letter and forging his name to it, that doesn't make it any better. It's still terrible judgment.

And some of your suggestions about how to "correct" the situation are no better. Are you really suggesting that nola's boss should lie to LSAC and say that everything nola did was authorized? Because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

I thought nola's judgment was awful but your guys' judgment is pretty poor as well.

Bottom line, nola should own up to what he/she did. No more lies. No more stories. No more trying to get out of it.

It's disgusting that you two would even want someone who committed such a despicable action to get out of the consequences by piling more crap on the pile.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: EarlCat on February 22, 2009, 01:39:09 PM
Are you really suggesting that nola's boss should lie to LSAC and say that everything nola did was authorized?

What's wrong with the one person capable of authorizing the action authorizing it?  I mean, I don't know what kind of attorney would authorize an employee to sign the attorney's name, but if that's what he did...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 22, 2009, 01:44:36 PM
LawDog & Wheels,

Even IF nola's boss was completely cool with nola just making up a letter and forging his name to it, that doesn't make it any better. It's still terrible judgment.

And some of your suggestions about how to "correct" the situation are no better. Are you really suggesting that nola's boss should lie to LSAC and say that everything nola did was authorized? Because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

I thought nola's judgment was awful but your guys' judgment is pretty poor as well.

Bottom line, nola should own up to what he/she did. No more lies. No more stories. No more trying to get out of it.

It's disgusting that you two would even want someone who committed such a despicable action to get out of the consequences by piling more crap on the pile.

I suggest you watch Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson in Changing Lanes. Let's see how you feel when you've got to defend a murderer in four or five years. Or a company you represent has falsified documents to get a government contract, just to cover a timeline because the original, legitimate documents got lost.

If he owns up to this, he's finished, because of the timing. He is at a juncture where he knows or should have known better. No law career. Submitting a false document to a major authority will mean the end of his potential career. The BAR, LSAC...they'll think, "Okay, this future Assistant D.A. will potentially falsify documents to get a person locked up." And maybe the OP doesn't deserve to go to law school. But that's for lawyers and judges and the LSAC to decide, not us.
 
You forget that his boss originally promised him a letter of recommendation. And, yes, he DID make a huge mistake in writing it himself.

The OP isn't even a very good criminal. He didn't even have the good sense to have someone else put their fingerprints on the stationary he mailed in and sign the letter. His prints were probably prominent, and that was a clue. The LSAC checks prints on stationary and envelopes, and everyone should know that. But prints, alone, don't catch a cheater, b/c he does work there and he has reason to touch the stationary. So they checked the signature and, low and behold, the handwriting matched his LSAT signature. A lousy criminal should stay a lousy criminal and just live an honest life. That's why there's hope for this guy. One mistake.

Plus, NOBODY in this game is beyond reproach. Lawyers lie...judges lie...clerks lie...law schools lie big time, sending in inflated stats to the ABA to keep their rankings...cops lie constantly. The people who lie least frequently and tell the smallest, least destructive lies are the ones we are willing to live with. But, at some point, YOU will LIE during your career. You will do something that another person can judge to be unethical or even illegal; it is a mathematical certainty. That's the society we live in. And no, it isn't acceptable, in the sense that we should just ignore it. But it happens.

You have probably had a job before. Have you never taken anything from the workplace that didn't belong to you? A pen? Paper? Wrongfully placed long distance phone calls? Spent company dollars in a way not intended by the company? Those are all technical examples of theft. And let me ask you this: Are you sure that you, and none of your friends, have not told your recommenders what to say in your letters? Technically, if that's the case, the recommender is not writing the recommendation alone; you are helping write it.

Some people would consider THAT dishonest...at least, people who have not told their recommenders anything at all. There are degrees of criminality...things aren't all black and white, and if you think they are, law school is going to change you. I have had one summer of law school "exposure" and I already think differently. What do you think happens after three years? Morally, ethically, you'll be in a place you don't expect, I can promise you that. Law = Mostly Grey. That's why it's so intersting.

Cut the guy a break. Many undergrad cheaters have made good lawyers. Many shoplifters have made good lawyers. Theives or liars can turn their lives around. I think the guy was extremely desperate, and I doubt he would ever try this again. But he didn't cover his bases. He should have advised his boss of what he was doing, so there wouldn't have been a surprize. His boss is an attorney, so he should avoid lying, but he CAN SPIN the situation. I AM SUGGESTING SPIN. As far a LSAC is concerned, the OP is a "criminal", but every criminal has a right to a defense. If you were his lawyer, what would YOU do?  
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 22, 2009, 02:26:58 PM
Are you really suggesting that nola's boss should lie to LSAC and say that everything nola did was authorized?

What's wrong with the one person capable of authorizing the action authorizing it?  I mean, I don't know what kind of attorney would authorize an employee to sign the attorney's name, but if that's what he did...

EarlCat,

The point is that nola's boss didn't authorize him to write a letter and sign his name to it. And, even if he did, nola shouldn't have taken him up on such an offer.

LawDog,

Your reply gave me a good laugh but that was about it. Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: EarlCat on February 22, 2009, 04:45:48 PM
EarlCat,

The point is that nola's boss didn't authorize him to write a letter and sign his name to it. And, even if he did, nola shouldn't have taken him up on such an offer.

It's controversial, but it wouldn't be the first time a party authorized an action retroactively.  And no, I wouldn't have taken him up on such an offer either, and I question the professionalism of a boss who would have offered it in the first place.  That being said, if the boss says he approves of everything in the letter and has authorized OP to sign his name, then give that to LSAC and whoever else and see what happens.

I have a hunch OP is screwed anyway.  Law schools have to turn down lots of qualified applicants each year... why would they turn someone down just to give OP that seat?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 22, 2009, 05:37:32 PM
TTom, your response never really addressed the merits of my or LawDog's arguments. One thing that has not been refuted is that this is a first-time offense at the very start of the OP's legal career. Reform IS possible. And I doubt the OP will EVER do anything like this again. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very different offense than a seasoned lawyer who has been forging documents repeatedly.

Second, TTom, you have mischaracterized my position, and I believe LawDog's as well. Never once did we defend the OP. We both admit that what he did was stupid, unethical, and should never happen again. However, there are two sides to this issue. All I'm saying is 1) the OP made a big ethical mistake 2) reform is possible at this stage in the OP's career and 3) the OP deserves a vigorous defense b/f his whole career could be destroyed.

As a law student, I can second what LawDog mentioned. Success in law school (and ultimately the law) depends upon seeing BOTH sides to any situation. The law is rarely black and white. Now, I admit that the OP doesn't have too many arguments going in his favor, but he does have some, and he deserves a defense. I would NOT go so far as coaching the OP's boss to state lies. The boss probably wouldn't go along with it anyway. But if there is anything that the boss can say, so long as it's true, that can help the OP, then it ought to get out there. It's not our job to decide, as TTom has done, if the OP is worthy to be a lawyer.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 22, 2009, 05:55:21 PM
Are you really suggesting that nola's boss should lie to LSAC and say that everything nola did was authorized?

What's wrong with the one person capable of authorizing the action authorizing it?  I mean, I don't know what kind of attorney would authorize an employee to sign the attorney's name, but if that's what he did...

EarlCat,

The point is that nola's boss didn't authorize him to write a letter and sign his name to it. And, even if he did, nola shouldn't have taken him up on such an offer.
LawDog,

Your reply gave me a good laugh but that was about it. Thanks for playing.

Wait a minute. You're wrong. Many recommenders (including some very esteemed profs) ask the students to write their own letters. The recommender then edits the letter for vernacular, sentence structure and punctuation, but leaves the content/substance of the letter relatively untouched. He/she seasons the letter with some amplification and may remove or add a few thoughts, and voila! The letter gets sent. It's not unusual for students to write their own letters. The OP got into trouble when he signed it and apparently didn't let his boss know what he had done; it appears that his boss was completely taken off-guard by LSAC's call. And like I said, those fingerprints...

I bet people didn't even know the LSAC did that. This is one of the reasons they pull fingerprints at testing, so they can scan and cross-check. It's another piece of evidence.

This is complicated, but it's a good test-case. Is this an authorized letter or not? It depends on the boss. But I stand by my position. The OP deserves a defense, and he is innocent until proven guilty. If you love the law as much as WheelsUp does and I do, you have to hold on to those principles. We are merely strategizing as to HOW the OP can defend himself if a charge is filed. And the LSAC will have to give him a hearing if he chooses that option. They can't just railroad him; that's denying due process.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 22, 2009, 06:15:46 PM
Yup, it's a very common practice for a boss/professor to have the student write the LOR. These are busy people who get LOR requests all the time. My boss didn't even make changes. He just read and signed. I see NO moral issue with that AT ALL. The professor/boss had ample opportunity to say, "Uh, I don't agree with such and such, let's change that." And if they don't agree with the LOR, THEN THEY DON'T SIGN THE DOCUMENT. Some people (for example, JFK's book Profiles in Courage) pay authors to completely write a book for them. Part of the deal is that the ghost writer will get no acknowledgment, and the book is to be passed off as the famous person's. Such things are quite common.

On a side note, LawDog, if you're right about the finger print test, that's crazy! I don't put it past the LSAC to run a fingerprint test. But there are certainly alternative explanations for why only the applicant's prints would be on the LOR. Again, I guess this brings us back to the original point, the OP deserves all possible arguments in his defense.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 22, 2009, 06:25:34 PM
Yup, it's a very common practice for a boss/professor to have the student write the LOR. These are busy people who get LOR requests all the time. My boss didn't even make changes. He just read and signed. I see NO moral issue with that AT ALL. The professor/boss had ample opportunity to say, "Uh, I don't agree with such and such, let's change that." And if they don't agree with the LOR, THEN THEY DON'T SIGN THE DOCUMENT. Some people (for example, JFK's book Profiles in Courage) pay authors to completely write a book for them. Part of the deal is that the ghost writer will get no acknowledgment, and the book is to be passed off as the famous person's. Such things are quite common.

On a side note, LawDog, if you're right about the finger print test, that's crazy! I don't put it past the LSAC to run a fingerprint test. But there are certainly alternative explanations for why only the applicant's prints would be on the LOR. Again, I guess this brings us back to the original point, the OP deserves all possible arguments in his defense.

Well, just remember, though, the print test would have to align with the other factors...inconsistent writing sample, same signature, etc. And the LSAC does see all of the other documents when you upload them...resume, etc. So it's possible something in the letter didn't mesh with his profile. It's also possible that the OP was just one of those random screens that get done, and he got caught. That's why I made sure my bosses and profs wrote my letters. I just couldn't risk it. Funny, I did replace the stationary at my job, and I made my boss put his pawprint all over the paper before and after signing it. And I made sure the secretary put hers on the envelope.

Tell me the OP didn't use his own paper, from his dorm room...lol...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 22, 2009, 07:18:52 PM
Guys,

I have no doubt that many supervisors/bosses etc. have people write drafts of recommendations that they then edit and sign if they find them agreeable. This is NOT what happened. Nola's boss did not ask nola to write a letter.

My complaint is that a few people on this thread have offered advice on how to fix nola's problem in ways that involve deception. One person even suggested that nola's boss contact the LSAC and tell them that he authorized nola to write, sign and send the letter. Clearly, that's NOT what happened. More deception and unethical behavior is not the answer.

And as for the person who suggested I watch Changing Lanes, thanks for the absurd suggestion. Are you suggesting, for example, that if a client hasn't signed a verified complaint and the deadline for filing is coming that an attorney wouldn't be faulted for signing his client's name?

And I have a problem with people characterizing this as a "mistake." This was no mistake. It was both unethical, probably illegal, and a huge error in judgment.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 22, 2009, 07:46:42 PM
I think we share some common ground here. The OP's conduct was all of the above: a mistake, unethical, and deceptive. TTom, you've quite vigorously covered why it's unethical and deceptive. I think mistake is also a fitting definition, because it was bad judgment and the wrong choice. Perhaps when I say "mistake," you think I mean to say "honest mistake." That's not what I mean. Ironically, you use virtually the same definition for "mistake" when you said, "a huge error in judgment" as a description of the OP's behavior. I don't really know what better word describes that than a "mistake."

As far as deception to cover for the OP's mistake, I don't support that. But, as LawDog repeatedly explained, I support any defense that attempts to spin the facts in the OP's favor. That's the center of the adversarial method. Each side presents the facts most favorable to their side. LSAC or the ABA, or maybe even ultimately a court-room setting will decide what they think is the "truth."
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 22, 2009, 09:24:26 PM
Guys,

I have no doubt that many supervisors/bosses etc. have people write drafts of recommendations that they then edit and sign if they find them agreeable. This is NOT what happened. Nola's boss did not ask nola to write a letter.

My complaint is that a few people on this thread have offered advice on how to fix nola's problem in ways that involve deception. One person even suggested that nola's boss contact the LSAC and tell them that he authorized nola to write, sign and send the letter. Clearly, that's NOT what happened. More deception and unethical behavior is not the answer.

And as for the person who suggested I watch Changing Lanes, thanks for the absurd suggestion. Are you suggesting, for example, that if a client hasn't signed a verified complaint and the deadline for filing is coming that an attorney wouldn't be faulted for signing his client's name?

And I have a problem with people characterizing this as a "mistake." This was no mistake. It was both unethical, probably illegal, and a huge error in judgment.

No, I am saying don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. And, in Changing Lanes, Ben Affleck's character interviews a prospective associate who appears wide-eyed and altruistic. Affleck gives him the job, just to debunk his idealism. He tells his future protege to come back and try to spew that idealism after a few months on the job. And yes, you should pay attention to the circumstances surrounding the signing of that document.

Never say what you will/won't do until you're in a position to DO or NOT DO it. If you were in the OP's shoes, you might have done the same thing. He didn't write this letter out of the blue. His boss promised it to him. I get the sense that he had to keep pressing his boss for the letter, and his boss was just too busy to write it.

If that was the case, his boss should have either made time, let the OP write it himself or told him to go elsewhere. His boss did none of those things, so he should back him up on this one. Do you really think the OP should lose his career over a stupid letter?

I don't know if the OP's letter was responsible for getting him into school or not. But letters are rarely useful enough to sway a committee one way or the other, and I can guess that, given the choice, many applicants wouldn't bother to submit them if they weren't required. This is why GWU does not require letters.

Again, moral questions aside, what is the OP supposed to do? He has to mount some kind of defense or explanation. If he doesn't, chances are that he'll never be a lawyer, or he'll be waiting a very long time to reapply...like a decade or more. This could be serious.

What in the world do you think a criminal defense attorney does? What do you think a corporate lawyer does? They spin, they fib, they bluff, and they sometimes even "lie without actually 'lying'" (if possible); it's a fact of life. That's the sick thing about the legal field, we are supposed to be moral authorities, but, half of the time, our jobs are to make people believe almost anything but the truth. You'd better accept this ugly fact or your not going to be very effective. 

I do not condone lying; it's wrong. I do not condone falsifying documents. But once you have made your deal with the devil, you have to try to correct it and minimize the damage w/o losing your shirt. I sincerely believe this guy will never do anything like this again.

OP! Call an attorney, and then come back and tell us what he said. 

He's already been busted, so being honest won't help him...AT ALL. He needs his boss and a lawyer to defend him. 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 05:33:12 AM
"Never say what you will/won't do until you're in a position to DO or NOT DO it. If you were in the OP's shoes, you might have done the same thing."

"They spin, they fib, they bluff, and they sometimes even "lie without actually 'lying'" (if possible); it's a fact of life. That's the sick thing about the legal field, we are supposed to be moral authorities, but, half of the time, our jobs are to make people believe almost anything but the truth. You'd better accept this ugly fact or your not going to be very effective."

Absolutely golden tidbits. Well said. It's the schizophrenia problem of lawyers (i.e. moral authority/the dirt of real practice). And this schizophrenia starts right in law school. Law school teaches about ethics and how to be good little lawyers. Yet, at the same time, many schools will do anything to fib the numbers in order to manipulate the US Rankings. (See http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/06/28/baylor) This article reported on misleading data form one law school. It doesn't even cover the massive amount of deception that goes into employment statistics.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 06:42:44 AM
I've never been in a position to hide a guy's body after I killed him.  Does that mean I can't judge people who do that?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 07:31:46 AM
I've never been in a position to hide a guy's body after I killed him.  Does that mean I can't judge people who do that?

 ;D

Oh relativism...you lose again. 

I just wanted to come on here to throw a couple tomatoes at the OP.  Go home!  Maybe you should go to business school and put those Machiavellian tendencies to good use.  I can then take you to the cleaners later...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 08:00:23 AM
I've never been in a position to hide a guy's body after I killed him.  Does that mean I can't judge people who do that?

 ;D

Oh relativism...you lose again. 

I just wanted to come on here to throw a couple tomatoes at the OP.  Go home!  Maybe you should go to business school and put those Machiavellian tendencies to good use.  I can then take you to the cleaners later...

Should he start looking into wheelchairs and white cats?

Yes.  If he/she doesn't already have a facial scar, I would recommend he/she obtain one asap.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 09:31:17 AM
Guys,

I have no doubt that many supervisors/bosses etc. have people write drafts of recommendations that they then edit and sign if they find them agreeable. This is NOT what happened. Nola's boss did not ask nola to write a letter.

My complaint is that a few people on this thread have offered advice on how to fix nola's problem in ways that involve deception. One person even suggested that nola's boss contact the LSAC and tell them that he authorized nola to write, sign and send the letter. Clearly, that's NOT what happened. More deception and unethical behavior is not the answer.

And as for the person who suggested I watch Changing Lanes, thanks for the absurd suggestion. Are you suggesting, for example, that if a client hasn't signed a verified complaint and the deadline for filing is coming that an attorney wouldn't be faulted for signing his client's name?

And I have a problem with people characterizing this as a "mistake." This was no mistake. It was both unethical, probably illegal, and a huge error in judgment.

No, I am saying don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. And, in Changing Lanes, Ben Affleck's character interviews a prospective associate who appears wide-eyed and altruistic. Affleck gives him the job, just to debunk his idealism. He tells his future protege to come back and try to spew that idealism after a few months on the job. And yes, you should pay attention to the circumstances surrounding the signing of that document.

Never say what you will/won't do until you're in a position to DO or NOT DO it. If you were in the OP's shoes, you might have done the same thing. He didn't write this letter out of the blue. His boss promised it to him. I get the sense that he had to keep pressing his boss for the letter, and his boss was just too busy to write it.

If that was the case, his boss should have either made time, let the OP write it himself or told him to go elsewhere. His boss did none of those things, so he should back him up on this one. Do you really think the OP should lose his career over a stupid letter?

I don't know if the OP's letter was responsible for getting him into school or not. But letters are rarely useful enough to sway a committee one way or the other, and I can guess that, given the choice, many applicants wouldn't bother to submit them if they weren't required. This is why GWU does not require letters.

Again, moral questions aside, what is the OP supposed to do? He has to mount some kind of defense or explanation. If he doesn't, chances are that he'll never be a lawyer, or he'll be waiting a very long time to reapply...like a decade or more. This could be serious.

What in the world do you think a criminal defense attorney does? What do you think a corporate lawyer does? They spin, they fib, they bluff, and they sometimes even "lie without actually 'lying'" (if possible); it's a fact of life. That's the sick thing about the legal field, we are supposed to be moral authorities, but, half of the time, our jobs are to make people believe almost anything but the truth. You'd better accept this ugly fact or your not going to be very effective. 

I do not condone lying; it's wrong. I do not condone falsifying documents. But once you have made your deal with the devil, you have to try to correct it and minimize the damage w/o losing your shirt. I sincerely believe this guy will never do anything like this again.

OP! Call an attorney, and then come back and tell us what he said. 

He's already been busted, so being honest won't help him...AT ALL. He needs his boss and a lawyer to defend him. 

This will be my last response and its pretty obvious you're never going to agree with me; I'm tilting at windmills.

But... the suggestion that I shouldn't judge the OP because I haven't been in the OP's shoes is absurd. There is a reason I'm not in the OP's shoes. I'm ethical and have good judgment.

You're argument boils down to this: You shouldn't judge people that are unethical and have poor judgment unless you're unethical and have poor judgment (otherwise you don't know what it's like to be in their shoes). This, of course, is pura mierda.

Once, again, thanks for the Changing Lanes suggestion. Do you learn all your life lessons from watching crappy Ben Affleck movies? Please, tell me, what did you learn from Gigli and Armageddon?

I'm done. 

TTom

ps If you think corporate lawyers and defense attorney's are allowed to "fib," you have a serious misunderstanding of the rules of professional conduct. You might want to check those out.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 10:00:17 AM
TTom, I'm sorry, but you've really strawmanned LawDog's argument. You've never really hit the substance of anything we've said. I don't want to speak entirely for LawDog, because he's quite good at defending himself. But here's what I at least think:

1. You really can't know what you would do unless you were in the OP's situation. TTom's response: I have good judgment. I would have never put myself in that position. I'm ethical.

Fair enough, but it is precisely because you never have been in the OP's shoes that you cannot say for sure what you would do. If you found yourself in a last second situation, and the only thing that prevented you from applying to law school was one LOR, and if you didn't get that LOR in you couldn't attend law school for an entire year, could you really say you wouldn't do something that the OP did? Especially given the level of comfort that you have with your boss in signing with his name? Again, you would argue that you would never be in that situation in the first place. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're in it. And you've got to deal with it. You can't really know what you would do. As a future attorney, you will have to deal with compromising situations that your "good judgment" will not be able to avoid. You'll be in the thick of things, and I'd be interested to see in 10 years whether your ironclad character will be so apt to condemn other people.

2. The OP's legal career has only begun. Reform is still possible. After seriously dealing with the possibility of never having a legal career, I don't think the OP will ever do this again. If the OP repeated this, we have an even more serious issue, because it's indicative that the OP is not willing to change. TTom, you never responded to this argument, and it still stands.

3. The OP deserves a serious defense that uses everything at his disposal to present the facts in the most favorable light. I wouldn't go so far as coaching the OP's boss to tell lies. HOWEVER, if the boss read that letter and likes what he read, I don't see anything wrong with the boss telling LSAC,in effect, "Yes, this LOR is accurate and correct. I authorize this letter and have previously allowed the OP broad signing authority on all documents. If I wasn't so busy, I would have written something very similar." 

TTom is right in that you shouldn't use deception to cover for the OP, but I agree with LawDog in the sense that the definition of "deception" is very tricky business. This is a very mature understanding of things that requires legal experience to truly understand. TTom never really addressed this concept of how the truth can be a blur other than knocking LawDog's suggestion of seeing certain movies and saying that he has a "serious misunderstanding." 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 11:02:30 AM
TTom, I'm sorry, but you've really strawmanned LawDog's argument. You've never really hit the substance of anything we've said. I don't want to speak entirely for LawDog, because he's quite good at defending himself. But here's what I at least think:

1. You really can't know what you would do unless you were in the OP's situation. TTom's response: I have good judgment. I would have never put myself in that position. I'm ethical.

Fair enough, but it is precisely because you never have been in the OP's shoes that you cannot say for sure what you would do. If you found yourself in a last second situation, and the only thing that prevented you from applying to law school was one LOR, and if you didn't get that LOR in you couldn't attend law school for an entire year, could you really say you wouldn't do something that the OP did? Especially given the level of comfort that you have with your boss in signing with his name? Again, you would argue that you would never be in that situation in the first place. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're in it. And you've got to deal with it. You can't really know what you would do. As a future attorney, you will have to deal with compromising situations that your "good judgment" will not be able to avoid. You'll be in the thick of things, and I'd be interested to see in 10 years whether your ironclad character will be so apt to condemn other people.

2. The OP's legal career has only begun. Reform is still possible. After seriously dealing with the possibility of never having a legal career, I don't think the OP will ever do this again. If the OP repeated this, we have an even more serious issue, because it's indicative that the OP is not willing to change. TTom, you never responded to this argument, and it still stands.

3. The OP deserves a serious defense that uses everything at his disposal to present the facts in the most favorable light. I wouldn't go so far as coaching the OP's boss to tell lies. HOWEVER, if the boss read that letter and likes what he read, I don't see anything wrong with the boss telling LSAC,in effect, "Yes, this LOR is accurate and correct. I authorize this letter and have previously allowed the OP broad signing authority on all documents. If I wasn't so busy, I would have written something very similar." 

TTom is right in that you shouldn't use deception to cover for the OP, but I agree with LawDog in the sense that the definition of "deception" is very tricky business. This is a very mature understanding of things that requires legal experience to truly understand. TTom never really addressed this concept of how the truth can be a blur other than knocking LawDog's suggestion of seeing certain movies and saying that he has a "serious misunderstanding." 

I can say, with certainty, that I never would have written my own LOR and forged the "writers" name. I don't need to be in anybody else's shoes to know this. Your claim to the contrary is absurd. I'm sure you can come up with some ridiculous hypothetical in which everyone would write and forge a signature - but this isn't the case.

Wheels, I appreciate your diplomatic approach, but there's no common ground here. Deception is not "tricky business." I wish you luck not getting disbarred.

TTom


Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: 'blueskies on February 23, 2009, 11:08:32 AM
After reading this thread, I'll volunteer
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
Hey LawDog- I'm curious about the whole LSAC dusting your LORs for fingerprints thing. 

Where did you hear this?  Do you know of specific cases, or are you just assuming that's why they take the thumb print at the LSAT administrations?  I'm all for conspiracy theories, but this one caught me by surprise.  I'm wondering because it seems like an awful lot of expense/trouble for the LSAC to incur--whether it's random or on applications that seem suspect.  I was under the impression that they took your thumb print at the LSAT to compare in case of accusations of cheating/having someone take the test for you, that it was for comparison if needed.  Thank god I wasn't even in the room when my LORs were printed and sent out! 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: heartbreaker on February 23, 2009, 12:09:39 PM
Hey LawDog- I'm curious about the whole LSAC dusting your LORs for fingerprints thing. 

Where did you hear this?  Do you know of specific cases, or are you just assuming that's why they take the thumb print at the LSAT administrations?  I'm all for conspiracy theories, but this one caught me by surprise.  I'm wondering because it seems like an awful lot of expense/trouble for the LSAC to incur--whether it's random or on applications that seem suspect.  I was under the impression that they took your thumb print at the LSAT to compare in case of accusations of cheating/having someone take the test for you, that it was for comparison if needed.  Thank god I wasn't even in the room when my LORs were printed and sent out! 

This may come as a shock you, but LawDog was, as per usual, full of *&^% when talking about LSAC dusting for fingerprints.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 12:12:28 PM
This may come as a shock you, but LawDog was, as per usual, full of *&^% when talking about LSAC dusting for fingerprints.

 :D
Thanks, I haven't seen enough of LawDog's stuff to know whether it was total bs or not.  Thought it sounded kooky, which is why I asked.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:19:44 PM
Well...ok. I'll make my last comment(s).

First, thank Wheels. I have never had a co-advocate like you. Nice teammin' witcha!

TTom, we do not have a skewed sense of ethics...the only question we are asking is, "Once someone has clearly screwed up, what does he do? What does his lawyer or advocate do?" And we will all be confronted with these types of questions when we are in practice within a few years. Stop your moral high-horsing and start asking some real questions. Get to the real issues:

Major issue: Whether or not the OP committed an LSAC conduct irregularity in the form of forgery

Sub-issue: Whether the OP has a right to "due process" in the event the LSAC charges him with an irregularity

Si2) Whether or not the boss promised to write the OP a letter of recommendation

Si3) Whether or not repeated verbal promises to provide the recommendation gave the OP the right to write the letter himself, a common proceedure in graduate applications, once his boss could not/did not write the letter

Si4) Whether or not his boss's neglect to write the letter indicated a staunch refusal to endorse the OP v. a simple "oversight"
 
Si5) Whether or not the OP's signing of the document, where, in the regular course of his duties, the OP has signed many other documents for his boss, who is also the prospective recommender, constitutes forgery, given that his boss was out of town at the crucial time  

Si6) Whether a boss's after-the-fact endorsement of a letter is sufficient to make a letter of recommendation legitimate

Si7) Whether or not the LSAC's phone interview constitutes sworn testimony that the OP's boss can amend or amplify

Si8) Whether or not, in gaining admission to three schools, the OP gained a significant advantage in submitting the  letter in question

Si9) Whether the action rises to the level of seriousness necessetaing irregularities reports to the OP's prospective schools, recision of any offers or withdrawals of applications, and irregularities reports to the ABA and state BAR authorities

Regarding the moral issue(s):

I have had lots of exposure to lawyers and I have already witnessed them doing things I know they never, ever thought they'd do. They have defended people they never thought they'd defend. I watched a Black lawyer defend a white supremacist in Seattle.

I watched a lawyer for a major government authority reveal a secret in a particular case (and he was supposed to be neutral) to an aggrieved complainant because he found out his superiors had given a break to a real estate company in a discrimination suit. In that case, the attorney decided to fight fire with fire because he knew the parties were being railroaded out of their case, probably due to a payoff. He could have been disbarred for it. (Do not ask me how I know about the case...but I know)

The attorney knew it was wrong, no matter what. But he also didn't want two people who had already been illegally evicted to get screwed by the government, as well. That case was the last one that attorney (soured on working for the agency) took for the government; he left for a corporate position.  

I concede these things:

1) The OP screwed up

2) He is likely going to be charged with an irregularity

3) There may be little justification for what he has done, and he may not get to be a lawyer

4) And if he doesn't, it will be his own fault

But, he's pretty-well busted, so owning up to the violation will be a serious mistake, and it won't get him anywhere. The LSAC is probably smelling blood.

TTom needs to concede these facts:

1) The OP is entitled to fight the case if he so chooses.

2) He is entitled to defend himself, and he will need representation to do it.

If he wins, he deserves to win. If he loses, he deserves to lose, I have no problem saying that.

Now, how does he do it? That's the only question I am trying to answer. HOW DOES THE OP PUT UP A GOOD, PLAUSIBLE DEFENSE?  

As a future attorney, that is the question you should be asking, as well, and it concerns me (and probably Wheels) that you don't.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:26:30 PM
Let me ask you this: If the LSAC used fingerprints for anything other than the identification of applicants at the testing sites, would they tell anyone? And, if the fingerprints are not even used at the site in 999,999 times out of a million, what do you think they use them for?

Are you kidding me? They clearly don't discard them, especially with so many re-takers. They want to make sure that a 140 scorer doesn't pay some genius to take his test for him a year later. So, they keep your prints. That much we know. Now, if they suspect someone of submitting false documents, would they not use every single resource at their disposal in getting at the truth?

Obviously, they use them to identify fake examinees, but come on...do you really think you can call the LSAC and ask: "Hey...do you guys use fingerprints to cross-check stationary ands detect fake letters of recommendation?"

Of course they will tell you no. But I don't buy it.

If that's the case, maybe I'll just call GWB and ask him about all of the national security protocols our government uses. After that, I'm going to call my local police and ask where every camera in our city is located. After that, I'll ask the FBI where persons under the witness protection act live.

Come on...you guys cannot be that stupid.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 12:27:28 PM
Let me ask you this: If the LSAC used fingerprints for anything other than the identification of applicants at the testing sites, would they tell anyone? And, if the fingerprints are not even used at the site in 999,999 times out of a million, what do you think they use them for?

Obviously, they use them to identify fake examinees, but come on...do you really think you can call the LSAC and ask: "Hey...do you guys use fingerprints to cross-check stationary ands detect fake letters of recommendation?"

Of course they will tell you no. But I don't buy it.

If that's the case, maybe I'll just call GWB and ask him about all of the national security protocols our government uses. After that, I'm going to call my local police and ask where every camera in our city is located. After that, I'll ask the FBI where persons under the witness protection act live.

Come on...you guys cannot be that stupid.

So now anyone who doesn't believe conspiracy theories is stupid?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
Well...ok. I'll make my last comment(s).

First, thank Wheels. I have never had a co-advocate like you. Nice teammin' witcha!

TTom, we do not have a skewed sense of ethics...the only question we are asking is, "Once someone has clearly screwed up, what does he do? What does his lawyer or advocate do?" And we will all be confronted with these types of questions when we are in practice within a few years. Stop your moral high-horsing and start asking some real questions. Get to the real issues:

Major issue: Whether or not the OP committed an LSAC conduct irregularity in the form of forgery

Sub-issue: Whether the OP has a right to "due process" in the event the LSAC charges him with an irregularity

Si2) Whether or not the boss promised to write the OP a letter of recommendation

Si3) Whether or not repeated verbal promises to provide the recommendation gave the OP the right to write the letter himself, a common proceedure in graduate applications, once his boss could not/did not write the letter

Si4) Whether or not his boss's neglect to write the letter indicated a staunch refusal to endorse the OP v. a simple "oversight"
 
Si5) Whether or not the OP's signing of the document, where, in the regular course of his duties, the OP has signed many other documents for his boss, who is also the prospective recommender, constitutes forgery, given that his boss was out of town at the crucial time  

Si6) Whether a boss's after-the-fact endorsement of a letter is sufficient to make a letter of recommendation legitimate

Si7) Whether or not the LSAC's phone interview constitutes sworn testimony that the OP's boss can amend or amplify

Si8) Whether or not, in gaining admission to three schools, the OP gained a significant advantage in submitting the  letter in question

Si9) Whether the action rises to the level of seriousness necessetaing irregularities reports to the OP's prospective schools, recision of any offers or withdrawals of applications, and irregularities reports to the ABA and state BAR authorities

Regarding the moral issue(s):

I have had lots of exposure to lawyers and I have already witnessed them doing things I know they never, ever thought they'd do. They have defended people they never thought they'd defend. I watched a Black lawyer defend a white supremacist in Seattle.

I watched a lawyer for a major government authority reveal a secret in a particular case (and he was supposed to be neutral) to an aggrieved complainant because he found out his superiors had given a break to a real estate company in a discrimination suit. In that case, the attorney decided to fight fire with fire because he knew the parties were being railroaded out of their case, probably due to a payoff. He could have been disbarred for it. (Do not ask me how I know about the case...but I know)

The attorney knew it was wrong, no matter what. But he also didn't want two people who had already been illegally evicted to get screwed by the government, as well. That case was the last one that attorney (soured on working for the agency) took for the government; he left for a corporate position.  

I concede these things:

1) The OP screwed up

2) He is likely going to be charged with an irregularity

3) There may be little justification for what he has done, and he may not get to be a lawyer

4) And if he doesn't, it will be his own fault

But, he's pretty-well busted, so owning up to the violation will be a serious mistake, and it won't get him anywhere. The LSAC is probably smelling blood.

TTom needs to concede these facts:

1) The OP is entitled to fight the case if he so chooses.

2) He is entitled to defend himself, and he will need representation to do it.

If he wins, he deserves to win. If he loses, he deserves to lose, I have no problem saying that.

Now, how does he do it? That's the only question I am trying to answer. HOW DOES THE OP PUT UP A GOOD, PLAUSIBLE DEFENSE?  

As a future attorney, that is the question you should be asking, as well, and it concerns me (and probably Wheels) that you don't.


WHAT?

Things are starting to make sense to me. Are you even in law school LawDog? And if so, what year and what school?

You obviously haven't studied the model rules of professional conduct.

 Further, you obviously haven't taken constitutional law. Why in the world would LSAC be required to give due process? What are you even talking about? Has the 14th Amendment suddenly incorporated due process against LSAC? Sorry if I didn't read that SCOTUS opinion.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, you're full of poo.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: LawDog
LSAC dusts for fingerprints.

Quote from: Paleforce
I don't see any evidence for that.

Quote from: LawDog
Yeah, but you can't prove 100% that they DON'T do it; therefore, they do.  Stupid.

Did I get the SparkNotes right?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:37:19 PM
Let me ask you this: If the LSAC used fingerprints for anything other than the identification of applicants at the testing sites, would they tell anyone? And, if the fingerprints are not even used at the site in 999,999 times out of a million, what do you think they use them for?

Obviously, they use them to identify fake examinees, but come on...do you really think you can call the LSAC and ask: "Hey...do you guys use fingerprints to cross-check stationary ands detect fake letters of recommendation?"

Of course they will tell you no. But I don't buy it.

If that's the case, maybe I'll just call GWB and ask him about all of the national security protocols our government uses. After that, I'm going to call my local police and ask where every camera in our city is located. After that, I'll ask the FBI where persons under the witness protection act live.

Come on...you guys cannot be that stupid.

So now anyone who doesn't believe conspiracy theories is stupid?

Anyone who has watched the way our country operates, as a whole, and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stupid. Anyone who watched GWB run the country and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stupid. Anyone who knows about our FBI and our CIA tapping phones and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stiupid. Anyone who has seen several judges get indicted on conspiracy charges by falsely jailing adolescents for exceptionally long terms, so that the custodial agency could profit from the government, and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, is stupid.

But the LSAC's use of fingerprints wouldn't even be defined as "conspiracy"; it's simple surveillance. I would not see anything out of the ordinary in their use to track cheaters. We do supply those prints voluntarily. The LSAC can use them however it wants.

Do you also not believe that the State BAR DOESN'T get a copy of your prints to cross-check with theirs and the police agencies when you apply for the BAR?

This is simple. And my version of events is more likey than yours. You best believe that the LSAC uses those prints for more than detecting imposter examinees.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 12:40:27 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: LawDog
LSAC dusts for fingerprints.

Quote from: Paleforce
I don't see any evidence for that.

Quote from: LawDog
Yeah, but you can't prove 100% that they DON'T do it; therefore, they do.  Stupid.

Did I get the SparkNotes right?

 :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:42:55 PM
Let me tell you. Schools cannot kick students out without a hearing...can they? NO! In "for cause" states, employers cannot fire employees without proving their allegations...correct?

No...I am an 0L. I have NOT have ConLaw, but I have common sense. The LSAC is not going to charge this kid without offering him an appeal option or a hearing...bet on it.

And you misstated my logic:

I did not say "you cannot prove that it doesn't happen,. so it does happen". NOT MY LOGIC

I am saying, "You have more evidence that it does happen than evidence that it doesn't, so don't dismiss it until you can prove that it doesn't happen. Moreover, you are better off assuming that it does." MY LOGIC!

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 12:43:03 PM
Let me ask you this: If the LSAC used fingerprints for anything other than the identification of applicants at the testing sites, would they tell anyone? And, if the fingerprints are not even used at the site in 999,999 times out of a million, what do you think they use them for?

Obviously, they use them to identify fake examinees, but come on...do you really think you can call the LSAC and ask: "Hey...do you guys use fingerprints to cross-check stationary ands detect fake letters of recommendation?"

Of course they will tell you no. But I don't buy it.

If that's the case, maybe I'll just call GWB and ask him about all of the national security protocols our government uses. After that, I'm going to call my local police and ask where every camera in our city is located. After that, I'll ask the FBI where persons under the witness protection act live.

Come on...you guys cannot be that stupid.

So now anyone who doesn't believe conspiracy theories is stupid?

Anyone who has watched the way our country operates, as a whole, and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stupid. Anyone who watched GWB run the country and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stupid. Anyone who knows about our FBI and our CIA tapping phones and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is stiupid. Anyone who has seen several judges get indicted on conspiracy charges by falsely jailing adolescents for exceptionally long terms, so that the custodial agency could profit from the government, and doesn't believe in conspiracy theories, is stupid.

But the LSAC's use of fingerprints wouldn't even be defined as "conspiracy"; it's simple surveillance. I would not see anything out of the ordinary ion their use to track cheaters. Wer do supply those prints voluntarily. The LSAC can use them however it wants.

Do you also not believe that the State BAR DOESN'T get a copy of your prints to cross-check with theirs and the police agencies when you apply for the BAR?

This si simple. And my version of events is more likey than yours. You best believe that the LSAC uses those prints for more than detecting imposter examinees.

The best part is that you're completely serious. Yikes.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:44:47 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 12:46:12 PM
Let me tell you. Schools cannot kick students out without a hearing...can they? NO! In "for cause" states, employers cannot fire employees without proving their allegations...correct?

No...I am an 0L. I have NOT have ConLaw, but I have common sense. The LSAC is not going to charge this kid without offering him an appeal option or a hearing...bet on it.

And you misstated my logic:

I did not say "you cannot prove that it doesn't happen,. so it does happen". NOT MY LOGIC

I am saying, "You have more evidence that it does happen than evidence that it doesn't, so don't dismiss it until you can prove that it doesn't happen. Moreover, you are better off assuming that it does." MY LOGIC!



You're right, sorry.  I thought you were flat-out, balls-up wrong according to X, but you're really flat-out, balls-up wrong according to Y.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 12:46:45 PM
Let me tell you. Schools cannot kick students out without a hearing...can they? NO! In "for cause" states, employers cannot fire employees without proving their allegations...correct?

No...I am an 0L. I have NOT have ConLaw, but I have common sense. The LSAC is not going to charge this kid without offering him an appeal option or a hearing...bet on it.

And you misstated my logic:

I did not say "you cannot prove that it doesn't happen,. so it does happen". NOT MY LOGIC

I am saying, "You have more evidence that it does happen than evidence that it doesn't, so don't dismiss it until you can prove that it doesn't happen. Moreover, you are better off assuming that it does." MY LOGIC!


I appreciate you admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. Finally.

What does employment law (which you clearly don't understand) have anything to do with the fact that the LSAC is a private organization and due process doesn't apply? [Btw, I'm not saying they don't give process, only that they wouldn't be required, unless they were the equivalent perhaps of a state actor... Oh, why am I even bothering. This is so far above your head LawDog.]



Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 12:47:30 PM
Best LawDog post ever.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 12:47:59 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Believing that there's not enough evidence to assert that LSAC is really CSI in disguise (omg!!!1 both have a "C" and an "S"!!!11) is not equivalent to blind faith in governments and corporations.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 12:49:35 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

I love the part about how they bought yachts with female deer! No way, that's INSANE!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 12:50:28 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

I love the part about how they bought yachts with female deer! No way, that's INSANE!

That's how the super rich roll.  They know that real liquidity is in female deer.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:52:04 PM
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:53:59 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Believing that there's not enough evidence to assert that LSAC is really CSI in disguise (omg!!!1 both have a "C" and an "S"!!!11) is not equivalent to blind faith in governments and corporations.

Yes, and believing that surveillance can extend beyond the stated measures publicized by an agency does not make me a "conspiracy theorist"...nor does it make me crazy...esp. given this country's history.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 12:55:11 PM
Lemme guess... you're going to law school because you "like to argue?"
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 12:56:14 PM
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

How about the possibility that they didn't know poo and just run a random audit, contacting people who provided letters to see if they were actually the one who sent it, and the OP just happened to get nabbed? Kind of like how the Department of Education double-checks people's information.

If you read ALL of my earlier posts, I already stated that possibility. READ! moreover, what does the LSAC do before they fire those calls? I will concede that I cannot prove the use of fingerprints if you concede that you cannot disprove their use.

And you must admit that a random audit catching a cheater is so unlikely...and the LSAC and schools know it. Audits are primarily used as a deterent...they don't actually expect to find anything because they know the odds are slim to none. Like I was saying, the OP didn't cover his bases. In any other similar situation, his boss would have had a copy of the letter sitting on his deskl when he got back into town, anyways.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 12:56:22 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Look, LawDog, I said I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories and I agree with you that there's plenty of reason to question the government's every move.  But, I was asking for specifics...facts, if you will.  You stated a few times in posts in this thread that the LSAC checks LORs for fingerprints, as though you had some kind of inside knowledge.  I was just asking for something that would resemble a basis for that statement.  I would have also accepted a conspiracy theory answer that identifies itself as such, like: "Well, I wouldn't put it past them.  They do have our thumb prints available to them.  But, I don't know, I'm just guessing."  Calling people stupid and naive for not agreeing with you may not be the best strategy for getting them to understand where you're coming from.   :-\
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: heartbreaker on February 23, 2009, 12:56:46 PM
Lemme guess... you're going to law school because you "like to argue?"

No, he wants to punish sketchy governments and corporations, just like Jack McCoy, duh.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 12:59:09 PM
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

I don't see how you can claim to know with certainty that your VERSION of the truth is more probable than ours.  By what standard do you determine which version is more likely?  You tell us that it is more likely that LSAC uses fingerprints in the manner you say, but how do you determine that it is indeed more likely?

I don't see how you can call us weak asses.  You keep changing your point, so there really isn't a debate.  You're just ranting about *&^% like usual.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 01:09:53 PM
That must be why it takes so long for LSAC to get anything done.

Maybe they're responsible for the huge backlog in forensics labs across the country. They must be collecting and cataloging DNA from our sweat, too!

You, my friend, are the reason the average man keeps getting screwed. The reason these corporations just got big handouts from the government and took vacations and bought yachts with the doe. Yes...that's it, this country is such a democracy. Our government is so honest, and corporations really do what they say they are doing.

So naiive.

Look, LawDog, I said I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories and I agree with you that there's plenty of reason to question the government's every move.  But, I was asking for specifics...facts, if you will.  You stated a few times in posts in this thread that the LSAC checks LORs for fingerprints, as though you had some kind of inside knowledge.  I was just asking for something that would resemble a basis for that statement.  I would have also accepted a conspiracy theory answer that identifies itself as such, like: "Well, I wouldn't put it past them.  They do have our thumb prints available to them.  But, I don't know, I'm just guessing."  Calling people stupid and naive for not agreeing with you may not be the best strategy for getting them to understand where you're coming from.   :-\

Ok dude, the reason I have some inside info on admissions is because I worked in undergrad admissions. The reason I have info on LSAC is because I also worked also for the Urban League for two years and dealt with the NAACP as a result (I have seen the files they keep on agencies and organizations like LSAC)...we look for discrimination in police agencies. I have done so much work with this stuff. Knowing something and being able to prove it are not the same thing. But one can still KNOW it, not from random belief or guess, but knowledge. When you work certain jobs, you get certain info. 

In law, there's a difference between knowing and proving. How did it go with Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men? "It doesn't matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove!" So there is a difference.

I know...KNOW the LSAC uses those prints for more than their stated purpose, and on some other levels, so do you and the others. It would not make sense to use them just for catching cheaters at the testing sites, because there are so few people willing to try anything that bold. So, the prints are a deterrent. But, do you really think the LSAC just discards them? And if not, how would they use them?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 01:15:42 PM
Dude. There is a compound in Montana with your f-ing name on it. :D

Also, I said that the OP's prints might have been used in addition to other evidence, not that his prints were the key!

So, that said, wise guys, you tell me how they knew abou the letter? Was it simply his handwriting? Tell me...since you all know so much. You tell me from beginmning to end how the LSAC sniffed that guy out.

And, even more importantly, tell me how this relates to my original argument, that the OP should defend himself.

I see rioght through you. Weak, asses...cannot beat me in a debate...so attack my credibility...with feeble arguments, I might add.

It really makes no difference HOW the LSAC caught the OP, we could fight about that forever; what counts is how the OP is going to proceed in defending himself. And he does have a right to a hearing. That's the topic of this post. Do yourselves a favor and stick to it.

I don't see how you can claim to know with certainty that your VERSION of the truth is more probable than ours.  By what standard do you determine which version is more likely?  You tell us that it is more likely that LSAC uses fingerprints in the manner you say, but how do you determine that it is indeed more likely?

I don't see how you can call us weak asses.  You keep changing your point, so there really isn't a debate.  You're just ranting about poo like usual.

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer.  
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 01:16:38 PM
If you 'know' something, but you can't persuade me with some sort of evidence (no, giving me anecdotal evidence is not enough...considering I could say I have the same experience.  It doesn't mean it's true), then I am not convinced that what you say is true.  

That is how debating works.  

You can't sit there and say, 'they are so naive.  I know this and the fact that they don't take my word for that is their loss.  Therefore, they are weak debaters, and I am awesome.'  To make a successful argument, you must persuade your audience with facts, evidence, and logic.  
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 01:17:03 PM
You say you worked in undergrad admissions and for the Urban League as though they were fact. Proof!

lol!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 01:17:39 PM
I have to go...but think about it. What should the OP do? That is what he came to ask.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Cool Beans on February 23, 2009, 01:18:18 PM
The op's obviously a really good guy.  The LSAC should stop busting his chops.  Sorry, won't do it again.  Let's not ruin lives here folks.  What he did wasn't even really dishonest.  He was just following the standards of conduct which his employer previous instituted.  No deceit, no harm.  Everyone needs to back the @#!* off.  Now.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 01:23:04 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Cool Beans on February 23, 2009, 01:27:10 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books!  ;)
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 02:28:02 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books!  ;)

You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 02:31:26 PM
You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Cool Beans on February 23, 2009, 02:32:47 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books!  ;)

I'm agreeing with you, dood.  Non patite esta should read a book because you speak the truth.  Are you so used with people arguing with you that you're not used to someone agreeing with you? 

The general lesson is never piss in a cup if you don't want them knowing everything about your genetic material.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Cool Beans on February 23, 2009, 02:34:52 PM
You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned

You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  No, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 02:39:28 PM
The op's obviously a really good guy.  The LSAC should stop busting his chops.  Sorry, won't do it again.  Let's not ruin lives here folks.  What he did wasn't even really dishonest.  He was just following the standards of conduct which his employer previous instituted.  No deceit, no harm.  Everyone needs to back the @#!* off.  Now.

Writing a letter and forging your boss's name without permission isn't "really dishonest"?

What standards of conduct are you talking about? Did his employer routinely have him write recommendation letters and sign other people's names?

Yeah there was deceit. Yeah, there's harm: It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 02:43:30 PM
If you 'know' something, but you can't persuade me with some sort of evidence (no, giving me anecdotal evidence is not enough...considering I could say I have the same experience.  It doesn't mean it's true), then I am not convinced that what you say is true.  

That is how debating works.  

You can't sit there and say, 'they are so naive.  I know this and the fact that they don't take my word for that is their loss.  Therefore, they are weak debaters, and I am awesome.'  To make a successful argument, you must persuade your audience with facts, evidence, and logic.  

And I would produce the proof, if that were the real issue at-hand. I have some evidence of fingerprint use beyond stated purpose, but it isn't really solid.

But your point is well-taken, you can reserve the right to reject, out-of-hand, any supposition not bolstered by evidence to your satisfaction. But, that doesn't mean your refutation will be any more solid.

It's just that I thought this whole thing was about helping the OP stay out of trouble. Certainly my ideas about THAT were correct.

My advice stands; the OP needs to speak with an attorney (one who specializes in Education Law - and there is such a field) and his boss, and come up with a strategy, BEFORE LSAC charges him. If he cannot get an attorney or a hearing, he should call the U.S. Dept. of Education and ask if they can refer him to a good Education Lawyer.  

He's entitled to submit evidence of his innocence and, if necessary, receive a hearing and defend against the LSAC's charges.  

"Due Process" extends beyond our criminal and civil courts. It is a "doctrine" as well as a "law" and a "constitutional right". Doctrines are nothing more than "ideals"/"principles" that inform the creation of public policy...that is it. Therefore, a university will enact due process before expelling a student for plagarism, and the LSAC must extend due process to any accused law applicant.

Good luck OP!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 02:46:18 PM
You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned

You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  No, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

So because police will use DNA during the course of an investigation where they suspect an individual, it therefore goes without saying that LSAC dusts letters for fingerprints, and the burden is on us to prove that it doesn't?

REALLY?

Here's what probably really happened: Nola wrote a suspicious letter, i.e., "Nola walks on water!," signed her boss's name, and sent it from her address or forgot to include the form that is supposed to be included by the letter writer.

Any suggestion that LSAC dusted for finger prints is retarded. And LawDog's claim that he has access to some secret files that documented LSAC's use of finger prints is pura mierda.

 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 02:56:19 PM


It's just that I thought this whole thing was about helping the OP stay out of trouble. Certainly my ideas about THAT were correct.

My advice stands; the OP needs to speak with an attorney (one who specializes in Education Law - and there is such a field) and his boss, and come up with a strategy, BEFORE LSAC charges him. If he cannot get an attorney or a hearing, he should call the U.S. Dept. of Education and ask if they can refer him to a good Education Lawyer.  

He's entitled to submit evidence of his innocence and, if necessary, receive a hearing and defend against the LSAC's charges.  

"Due Process" extends beyond our criminal and civil courts. It is a "doctrine" as well as a "law" and a "constitutional right". Doctrines are nothing more than "ideals"/"principles" that inform the creation of public policy...that is it. Therefore, a university will enact due process before expelling a student for plagarism, and the LSAC must extend due process to any accused law applicant.


You are retarded. I've come to that conclusion. It's really the only explanation.

You're throwing around a lot of words and ideas and you have no idea know what they mean. What "charges" are you talking about? This isn't a criminal proceeding. And where do you get this idea that he's "entitled" to submit evidence of his innocence? Is there a process you can cite? And please, stop invoking due process because you clearly have no idea what it means. A university is required to give due process if it's a public institution.

And as for hiring an "education" lawyer: You don't know what the F--- you are talking about. Please stop. Just make it stop.

 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  N, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

First of all, I never argued that things like this don't happen.  Once again, I love conspiracy theories and am generally distrustful of any government agency.  However, we're not talking about what happens in a police station!!  Stop watching Law & Order marathons for your check on reality!  Crime shows =/= real life.  (BTW: most police stations don't have the funds to collect and store random samples of DNA, some don't even have the resources to use DNA to help solve most crimes in their district and so the technology is reserved for the most heinous and well-publicized crimes.)

We were talking about LawDog presenting the idea that the LSAC actually dusts for fingerprints on LORs as "fact."  I wanted to know how LawDog came to this conclusion.  I was basically told "they do and you're naive if you don't think so."  Sorry, but that doesn't do much to convince me that the LSAC actually does this in practice.  It seems ridiculous that the LSAC (NOT a governmental institution) would take the time and money to dust LORs or other application materials just to double-check the app for authenticity.  What could they possibly hope to gain from this?  They get their fee regardless.  It wouldn't be worth the time and effort.  I'm sure that your LSAT signature and thumb print is compared to subsequent papers (like bar apps) to determine identity, but dusting an LOR is not the same thing.  It's nuts to say that the LSAC would act in exactly the same manner as a police force, if given the opportunity.  

Now, if the LSAC were a police force, do I think that they would use the voluntarily obtained fingerprints when searching for a match related to a crime?  Hell yes!  Should they is an entirely different question.
 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 04:02:40 PM
Wow, wish I hadn't stepped away from my computer for so long. This has been an interesting discussion, but I feel like it's been sidetracked a bit. At the end of the day, we don't know what LSAC does with the fingerprints. What's important is that the OP got caught. My guess is that he had written things in the letter that made LSAC really question its authenticity - as in, it was way over the top in praise. Lol, it's funny to think that might be the reason.

Anyway, I agree with TTom on one point. LSAC does not owe the OP any form of due process within its own structure. I understand LSAC has an appeals process, but I don't know much about it. But I imagine this appeals process is more about preserving LSAC's reputation as a legitimate organization than true justice. Outside of LSAC (as in, courts of law), I really don't know what the OP can do. Can he bring suit against LSAC, maybe a civil suit? I really don't know. But LawDog is right in that the OP needs legal representation ASAP. At least counsel can give the OP his options.


Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: just some guy on February 23, 2009, 05:48:03 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Didn't you give a sperm sample at the LSAT site? Because I know I had to.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: non parata est on February 23, 2009, 06:10:34 PM
History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Didn't you give a sperm sample at the LSAT site? Because I know I had to.

I thought that was for extra credit only...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 06:24:32 PM
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 06:30:06 PM
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”


None of that amounts to saying that the OP doesn't 'deserve' a defense.  He does.  He also deserves to have his admissions rescinded.  He also had no justification for doing what he did, etc.  We're making moral judgments - we're not a jury here, nor are we impeding his right to seek counsel. 

There is nothing contradictory about the things we have been saying and the beliefs we might have about his right to seek counsel.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 06:53:59 PM
I'm glad you have distinguished the two. I don't think some of our other colleagues have gone so far. But I am willing to argue that the OP may have had SOME justification to do what he did, albeit not a strong one. I don't think we know enough regarding the boss's previous level of authorization to the OP's actions to say that he is completely devoid of justification.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 23, 2009, 07:00:26 PM
Well, justification is often used interchangably in common parlance with 'reasoning', but justification is really a level of proof met by reasons.  So you can't really have SOME justification.  Logically, you either have justification, or you don't. 

I get where you're coming from, but I believe that the technical definition of justification, as it applies to philosophical and legal arguments, is as I've defined it.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 07:06:13 PM
Gotcha. I should say that the OP had SOME (one or more) reasons to do what he did. I don't know whether his reasons rise to the level of a justification.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 07:28:39 PM
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”


Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.




Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 23, 2009, 07:50:54 PM
I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 23, 2009, 08:25:23 PM
I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 23, 2009, 09:30:43 PM
Just wondering if WheelsUp=nola...anyone else?  Their only posts are all in this thread and it all seems a little suspect.  Apologies if this isn't the case.

/derail

As far as the "OP" goes- the only thing s/he can do is talk to a lawyer and try to protect their offers.  I've gotta say that I don't think it looks good, especially where the boss already told the LSAC that they didn't write the LOR.  Definitely interested in the details of how this turns out, though, let us know!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: tcwhat on February 23, 2009, 10:17:24 PM
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”


Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.




I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.


Jesus Christ I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're a troll or just an ass.

If you are not a troll nor an ass and are actually impassioned by Nola's malfeasance, you are making a mistake by judging Nola in a vacuum. It should be obvious why it's a problem to determine morally corrupt character on a single instance of poor judgment that is relatively minor.  If s/he was a serial killer, your passion would be vindicated, but I would think a reasonable person would need more evidence to leap from morally corrupt decision to morally corrupt character as you seem so eager to do.

And this ignores the notion that people have the capability of learning from their mistakes, but it seems in his perfection TTom is unaware of such a phenomenon.  For all we know, Nola will become the most ethically rigid and ethically just individual in the world because of this event.



Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: bloomlaw on February 23, 2009, 11:34:17 PM
And, yes, as LawDog mentioned, I'm concerned that we're the ONLY ones in this discussion that have even mentioned that the OP needs to seek out his legal options. This is his whole career on the line. I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say. There's a lot of facts we simply don't know, specifically about the level of authorization the boss has permitted the OP. What some have advocated is the equivalent of telling a criminal, "Well, you've committed a crime. You're a bad person, and I would never do what you did. You don't deserve a defense, because there is simply no justification for theft."  If you think this is an exaggerated analogy, here are a few lines from this ongoing discussion:

“… I don't want you as member of my profession. Lawyers already have a bad name and we don't need people like you making it worse…”

“you are a bad person. Bad people fake their own LORs and forge people's name. Yep.”

“Honestly, if I knew who you were I'd contact the schools that admitted you. Be thankful for that.”

“… you deserve to have your admissions rescinded…and if LSAC had never called your boss, you would feel no remorse.

 “…there is NO justification for what you did. None.”


Thanks for snipping all my quotes! Now here's one by you:

"I understand that the knee jerk reaction is to say, "we have enough lawyers, we don't need rotten ones." But that's not our position to say."

YES, IT IS OUR POSITION.

What do you not understand about that? The legal profession is self-regulating. We are the ones that will decide the rules of conduct that apply to our profession. It is our "position" to say "we don't need rotten" lawyers.

The people in law school now -us- will be the ones that sit on benches and committees that will write and interpret rules of professional conduct. Not some separate body of non-lawyers but the legal profession itself.

As lawyers to be we have every right to advocate on behalf of a better profession. A profession without people like nola.




I agree with you, TTom, up to a point. We WILL one day be those people. But we are not yet those people. We do not have the full experience, expertise, and understanding of the profession to say whether the OP will be a good lawyer or not. Nor do we know whether he'll be a rotten lawyer based on this one-time incident. As I've said many times before, and this still goes unrefuted, the OP's fate is not sealed. As far as we know, the OP has not shown a pattern of this behavior, and, given what little we know of this incident, I believe reform is still possible.

Secondly, we are not sufficiently in command of the facts to say whether the OP's conduct was justified. For this reason, among others, I believe that the OP deserves a vigorous defense that gets all the facts presented in the most favorable light possible. Heaven knows that LSAC will do what it can to present the opposite. As LawDog, Como te llamas, and I have said, the guy deserves a defense.

I've have never said that nola shouldn't try to defend him/herself. Only that I don't wish nola luck in succeeding, because I find nola's action indefensible.

Although I agree that we don't know "all the facts," there are NO facts that could reveal themselves that would justify what nola did. Seriously, what possible facts would justify making up a letter of recommendation and forging someone's name? Even IF nola's boss said nola could (and nola's boss did not give nola permission), this still would not have justified it.


Jesus Christ I'm having a hard time figuring out if you're a troll or just an ass.

If you are not a troll nor an ass and are actually impassioned by Nola's malfeasance, you are making a mistake by judging Nola in a vacuum. It should be obvious why it's a problem to determine morally corrupt character on a single instance of poor judgment that is relatively minor.  If s/he was a serial killer, your passion would be vindicated, but I would think a reasonable person would need more evidence to leap from morally corrupt decision to morally corrupt character as you seem so eager to do.

And this ignores the notion that people have the capability of learning from their mistakes, but it seems in his perfection TTom is unaware of such a phenomenon.  For all we know, Nola will become the most ethically rigid and ethically just individual in the world because of this event.


I'm with TC on this one. The funniest thing about this thread it TTom's belief that nola's mistake is the reason lawyers have a bad rap. I think lawyers have a bad rap because (somewhat correctly and somewhat incorrectly) they are seen as greedy, snobbish, elitist, and immoral.

Nola screwed up. Nobody is arguing that. But it's not like he/she manipulated the LSAT score or GPA illegally. They simply stretched the line of ethical conduct too far, trying to convince themselves that what they were doing wasn't wrong. Not commendable or even correct, but something that happened none the less. I feel for them. It's a mistake I could have easily made, or anybody else for that matter, in some equally in/signficant aspect of life. I probably have, and TTom probably has too, even though he likely will never admit it.

I've made millions of mistakes, many of them illegal. We all have. And that's what made me so sad- its the people like TTom, the people who literally believe in right and wrong, who really think that good people don't make heinous, horrible mistakes, and who are so willing to judge others, talking about their high ethical standards as they do so(which most of the time aren't any higher or lower than the person they're judging). Sadly, I'm there are way more TToms in the world than I'd personally hope for.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 11:38:43 PM
Como te llamas,you make excellent points, really. We are ALL right here...EACH OF US IS CORRECT.

I have tempered several of my arguments with "moral arguments aside". Hell, I have even said that the OP did this to himself. But come on...no law school or law career for a funky letter that was at least halfway approved? We don't know if that letter even gave the OP an advantage because we don't know if it was viewed by the schools.

I have seven letters, and each school gets a different set of them, depending on which personal statement (I have three that I tweak for the schools) each school receives. How do we even know that the school viewed that letter? And at GWU officials may or may not have looked at all b/c GWU doesn't require letters.

But until all of the facts come out, we won't know what the appropriate punishment is. For example, what if the OP has done something else to really make his supervisor mad and his supervisor is getting even. Or what if the LSAC has lied to call the OP's bluff. It's entirely possible that his boss actually copped to authorizing the letter but the LSAC didn't buy it. And does the OP still work for his boss? If my employee falsified a letter in my name, I would fire him.  Apparently that hasn't happened.

There are still questions to answer. I question whether the OP's boss really sold him out. My guess is that the OP is really sunk. But we watched O.J. walk (the first time), GWB escape impeachment and Clay Bennett steal the Seattle Sonics and lie under oath about it. I never say never.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 23, 2009, 11:53:08 PM
You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  N, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

First of all, I never argued that things like this don't happen.  Once again, I love conspiracy theories and am generally distrustful of any government agency.  However, we're not talking about what happens in a police station!!  Stop watching Law & Order marathons for your check on reality!  Crime shows =/= real life.  (BTW: most police stations don't have the funds to collect and store random samples of DNA, some don't even have the resources to use DNA to help solve most crimes in their district and so the technology is reserved for the most heinous and well-publicized crimes.)

We were talking about LawDog presenting the idea that the LSAC actually dusts for fingerprints on LORs as "fact."  I wanted to know how LawDog came to this conclusion.  I was basically told "they do and you're naive if you don't think so."  Sorry, but that doesn't do much to convince me that the LSAC actually does this in practice.  It seems ridiculous that the LSAC (NOT a governmental institution) would take the time and money to dust LORs or other application materials just to double-check the app for authenticity.  What could they possibly hope to gain from this?  They get their fee regardless.  It wouldn't be worth the time and effort.  I'm sure that your LSAT signature and thumb print is compared to subsequent papers (like bar apps) to determine identity, but dusting an LOR is not the same thing.  It's nuts to say that the LSAC would act in exactly the same manner as a police force, if given the opportunity.  

Now, if the LSAC were a police force, do I think that they would use the voluntarily obtained fingerprints when searching for a match related to a crime?  Hell yes!  Should they is an entirely different question.
 

In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 24, 2009, 12:03:05 AM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney whpo has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

Let's have strategy talk if you care to engage me. Forget your own morals, lawyers have to disregard that. First rule of a lawyer: what we think or know really doesn't matter; it's what we can prove that counts.

so...I've posed the question. What can you prove? What would you attempt to prove, and why?

How would you defend the OP if he were your client?

Would you make a quid pro quo with the LSAC...no law school attendance for five years, withdraw all applications...LSAC no irregularities report. Would you file a temporary injunction and sue to have the LSAC drop its investigation? I don't even know if that can be done. Would you put a gun to the boss's head and tell him to go to bat for his protege? Or would you tell OP to throw himself on the mercy of the LSAC?

What would you do? Let's have some ideas.   
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 24, 2009, 07:48:00 AM
Como te llamas,you make excellent points, really. We are ALL right here...EACH OF US IS CORRECT.

I have tempered several of my arguments with "moral arguments aside". Hell, I have even said that the OP did this to himself. But come on...no law school or law career for a funky letter that was at least halfway approved? We don't know if that letter even gave the OP an advantage because we don't know if it was viewed by the schools.

I have seven letters, and each school gets a different set of them, depending on which personal statement (I have three that I tweak for the schools) each school receives. How do we even know that the school viewed that letter? And at GWU officials may or may not have looked at all b/c GWU doesn't require letters.

But until all of the facts come out, we won't know what the appropriate punishment is. For example, what if the OP has done something else to really make his supervisor mad and his supervisor is getting even. Or what if the LSAC has lied to call the OP's bluff. It's entirely possible that his boss actually copped to authorizing the letter but the LSAC didn't buy it. And does the OP still work for his boss? If my employee falsified a letter in my name, I would fire him.  Apparently that hasn't happened.

There are still questions to answer. I question whether the OP's boss really sold him out. My guess is that the OP is really sunk. But we watched O.J. walk (the first time), GWB escape impeachment and Clay Bennett steal the Seattle Sonics and lie under oath about it. I never say never.

BS
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 24, 2009, 07:48:21 AM
You two are missing the point, doods.  If you're in a police station and drink a cup of water, boom, they have your DeeEnnAye.  Does this not happen?  Ever?  Can you argue that this never happens?  N, you can't.  So LawDog's right.  It occurs and the burden of proof to argue the frequency or probability of the action is on everyone in this thread.  Boom, you've been lawyered.

First of all, I never argued that things like this don't happen.  Once again, I love conspiracy theories and am generally distrustful of any government agency.  However, we're not talking about what happens in a police station!!  Stop watching Law & Order marathons for your check on reality!  Crime shows =/= real life.  (BTW: most police stations don't have the funds to collect and store random samples of DNA, some don't even have the resources to use DNA to help solve most crimes in their district and so the technology is reserved for the most heinous and well-publicized crimes.)

We were talking about LawDog presenting the idea that the LSAC actually dusts for fingerprints on LORs as "fact."  I wanted to know how LawDog came to this conclusion.  I was basically told "they do and you're naive if you don't think so."  Sorry, but that doesn't do much to convince me that the LSAC actually does this in practice.  It seems ridiculous that the LSAC (NOT a governmental institution) would take the time and money to dust LORs or other application materials just to double-check the app for authenticity.  What could they possibly hope to gain from this?  They get their fee regardless.  It wouldn't be worth the time and effort.  I'm sure that your LSAT signature and thumb print is compared to subsequent papers (like bar apps) to determine identity, but dusting an LOR is not the same thing.  It's nuts to say that the LSAC would act in exactly the same manner as a police force, if given the opportunity.  

Now, if the LSAC were a police force, do I think that they would use the voluntarily obtained fingerprints when searching for a match related to a crime?  Hell yes!  Should they is an entirely different question.
 

In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

BS
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 24, 2009, 07:48:46 AM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney whpo has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

Let's have strategy talk if you care to engage me. Forget your own morals, lawyers have to disregard that. First rule of a lawyer: what we think or know really doesn't matter; it's what we can prove that counts.

so...I've posed the question. What can you prove? What would you attempt to prove, and why?

How would you defend the OP if he were your client?

Would you make a quid pro quo with the LSAC...no law school attendance for five years, withdraw all applications...LSAC no irregularities report. Would you file a temporary injunction and sue to have the LSAC drop its investigation? I don't even know if that can be done. Would you put a gun to the boss's head and tell him to go to bat for his protege? Or would you tell OP to throw himself on the mercy of the LSAC?

What would you do? Let's have some ideas.   

BS
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 24, 2009, 10:25:09 AM
In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

Ugh.  There really is no hope for you.  And now I'm bored of the whole thing and arguing with someone who is clearly disconnected from reality.   
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 24, 2009, 11:42:50 AM
In LSAC's eyes, this IS a crime. What are we to think, that crime is only defined as wrongs done under police jurisdiction? Crime is crime. You somewhat undermine your own argument. They have this tool at their disposal and you dismiss outright their inclination to use it. Obviously it's not too expensive for the LSAC to scan a print, because they clearly have to save them in order to bust imposters on the re-take tip. If suspicion arises, they have to verify identities after the fact, somehow.

And, I posited that they keep those prints because they do. They will check them if your score rises 20 points, bet on it. That's why they hold all files of test-takers with score increases of 15 points or more. What are they doing during that hold? And I know for a fact that they do hold such scores because I was one of them. My score went from 145 to 151 to 166. LSAC held my file for verification. Is the use of fingerprints in the OP's case such a stretch?   

Look, once and for all, maybe LSAC didn't have to use his prints. But they very well could have. That is still my point on the prints.

Ugh.  There really is no hope for you.  And now I'm bored of the whole thing and arguing with someone who is clearly disconnected from reality.   

Yeah. But it wouldn't be boring if we could talk about some ideas instead of arguing this corny stuff about prints.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: EarlCat on February 24, 2009, 02:08:03 PM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 24, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.

What would be the point of trying to have an intelligent conversation about the law with LawDog?

I'm not bashing LawDog because of his ignorance -hey, he's a 0L, he shouldn't be expected to know concept like crime, and charge, and due process, etc. I'm bashing LawDog because he insists on claiming he's not ignorant.

LawDog, why can't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 24, 2009, 03:02:07 PM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.

What would be the point of trying to have an intelligent conversation about the law with LawDog?

I'm not bashing LawDog because of his ignorance -hey, he's a 0L, he shouldn't be expected to know concept like crime, and charge, and due process, etc. I'm bashing LawDog because he insists on claiming he's not ignorant.

LawDog, why can't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
 

I take offense. I'm a 0L and I know that LawDog is ignorant on concepts like crime, charge and due process.

Apologies! But I certainly wouldn't fault you if you didn't.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 24, 2009, 04:14:23 PM
Thank you, I'm glad to see people joining this discussion who are not placing moral condemnation on the OP. LawDog and I were the lone defenders here for a while.

To answer an earlier post, no, I am not Nola. Lol. I can see how you might think that since I've tried to argue with some of his protagonists. I created an account simply to ask about my own LOR question related to a 1L summer job. Then I got wrapped up into this thread. I've really enjoyed the arguments
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 24, 2009, 11:02:51 PM
OK everybody. I have one question for each future attorney who has posted here: "How would you defend Nola?"

This post didn't get enough love.

What would be the point of trying to have an intelligent conversation about the law with LawDog?

I'm not bashing LawDog because of his ignorance -hey, he's a 0L, he shouldn't be expected to know concept like crime, and charge, and due process, etc. I'm bashing LawDog because he insists on claiming he's not ignorant.

LawDog, why can't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
 

You sound so stupid...you are actually boring me. If someone doesn't know what they're talking about, produce the evidence from...wherever, and shut them up. But don't keep saying they are wrong and calling their arguments BS if you can't back it up.

First, as a prospective lawyer, your first instinct should have been to figure out how the OP could defend himself or at least negotiate. He made it clear that the LSAC was on his back. But, you just condemn the guy. Great defense attorney you'll make. Some guy (guilty or innocent) walks into your office and asks for help. You ask him what happened and give him a lecture. Then send him on his way. GREAT! That's what we need. Self-righteous, arrogant, apathetic attorneys.

I DO know what I am talking about. The terms you speak of are nothing but concepts, and they apply in a variety of situations.

And "crime"..."due process"...etc...you obviously have limited concepts of those terms. You need to broaden your scope. A crime is any wrong perpetrated against an entity or individual...period.

Are the Student Conduct Committee proceedings at any university NOT examples of "Due Process"? Cases from both sides present cases before sanctions can be metted out. There is usually a judge or a panel of judges...possibly a jury of "peers". Now, if you have not been behind the scenes at the LSAC, you would not know that these dynamics do not exist.

I, on the other hand, can say with strong confidence that they do exist, because the LSAC would not want to "charge" (i.e., accuse!) an applicant of an irregularity w/o giving him the opportunity to defend himself or offer controverting evidence. This, i know. I also know that anyone who has debated me on these points (quite unsuccessfully, I might add) will not make a very good attorney.

I win, every time I step into a courtroom. I have written briefs that have saved my friends from eviction, I have argued on my own behalf for expungement of an assault case that was on my record (something that impressed at least one dean at a top law school), I have gotten senior managers at large real estate companies fired by stating potential cases of discrimination. I am preparing the brief for a federal discrimination case.

And this has happened within the last three years. And...up until December, I had as much law school experience as any 1L on LSD  (the website, not the drug!) or TLS. Did you forget that I attended Georgetown for a semester and took first year courses AND EXAMS? That's more than any other 0L. Oh...did I neglect to tell you that I received the highest grade in my Legal Writing course? Oh...and I also earned an A+ in Appellate Advocacy and won "Best Argument" at our Moot Court Competition that summer. My opponent, whom I beat, went to GULC and made Law Review.

Out of everyone here, I am quite certain that I am the only person who has gone head-to-head against an Assistant D.A. in a live courtroom, and WON! I did it myself arguing "undue hardship" caused by the State of Washington. The A.D.A. could not believe that I wrote a brief that beat her. I didn't even have to argue my case; I rested after that joke tried to argue. She hadn't done her research and she got embarrassed. The other lawyers in the court gave me high-5's on the way out. 

About seven times during undergrad, I argued successfully for raised grades, sometimes based on technicalities like the wording of the syllabi, other times with substantive arguments.

It is YOU and any other pundits who knows not what he speaks of. I cannot wait to meet some of you in Moot Court. And I am going to identify myself after I cream you, b/c I don't lose.   

 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 25, 2009, 07:42:18 AM
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 07:48:45 AM
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.

If I am talking out of my ass...PROVE IT! And i do not think it is ok to write fake letters and forge signatures. But the law is 75% about language, my friend, and with that reality comes the prospect that our laws are flawed and open to interpretation. Any fair process, then, dictates that the language of any law be scrutinized at every possible turn, including those that apply to the education field. Like any crime, "forgery" has "legal elements" (do you even know what a "legal element" is?). I am not yet familiar with them, but I am certain there is room for interpretation in at least one of them. And ambiguities in any law creates openings for controversy. This is why i asked how you would defend the OP. Not one of us even knows whether or not there is a relevant precedent concerning, for example, "after-the-fact endorsements" in situations like this. Therefore, you cannot dismiss, out-of-hand, the prospect that the OP's boss may be able to remedy the situation.

We have established the fact that no one on this post knows for 100% certain whether the LSAC does/does not use fingerprints to bust potential fraudsters. Yet, we know they collect and save them...for...nothing, according to some posters here. But, I concede on that point. So let's assume they don't take the fingerprints from the stationary to bolster their investigative efforts and catch forgers.

What justification do you have for assuming that the OP will not be given an opportunity to defend himself should he be charged?

And if he WILL be given an opportunity, should he just sit on his hands and wait for the hammer to drop without possibly saving his own career, or should he get proactive and build a defense?
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 25, 2009, 08:54:37 AM
It Fs up our entire profession having people like the OP in it.

This...  I mean... What can even be said about this comment?  It's golden.

Also, I'm now convinced that not only are you flame, but that you must not be in law school yet.  You couldn't have sat through even a month of law school and think that what you're saying is anything but tripe.  You're comparing the OP's "LSAC misconduct" to legal malpractice... I mean, no matter what you want to say about the kid's judgment, that comparison is just absolutely gaga.  It's nonsensical.  It's not even crazy; it's just meaningless.  (And it requires just absolutely wild extrapolations about his "moral character," into which none of us has any meaningful insight... but in any event is neither here nor there, because the whole thing is just such a gobbledygook proposition.)

So anyway, you're a 0L, which makes calling the law "your profession" just that much more awesome.  (Or, to be fair, maybe you just have no idea how to express yourself.  If you're not a 0L but are in fact a TTT 2L with Asperger's, I apologize.)

If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

As for LawDog, he's talking out his ass about fingerprinting, using words he doesn't understand while refusing to admit he doesn't understand them, and claim that we, as future lawyers, should be trying to figure out how to get nola off the hook. That's F-ing absurd. And if you think it's not, you should probably go into practice with LawDog. That would make one hell of a law firm.

I'm done with this thread. Your comments have been preserved and anybody who cares to read them can.

If I am talking out of my ass...PROVE IT! And i do not think it is ok to write fake letters and forge signatures. But the law is 75% about language, my friend, and with that reality comes the prospect that our laws are flawed and open to interpretation. Any fair process, then, dictates that the language of any law be scrutinized at every possible turn, including those that apply to the education field. Like any crime, "forgery" has "legal elements" (do you even know what a "legal element" is?). I am not yet familiar with them, but I am certain there is room for interpretation in at least one of them. And ambiguities in any law creates openings for controversy. This is why i asked how you would defend the OP. Not one of us even knows whether or not there is a relevant precedent concerning, for example, "after-the-fact endorsements" in situations like this. Therefore, you cannot dismiss, out-of-hand, the prospect that the OP's boss may be able to remedy the situation.

We have established the fact that no one on this post knows for 100% certain whether the LSAC does/does not use fingerprints to bust potential fraudsters. Yet, we know they collect and save them...for...nothing, according to some posters here. But, I concede on that point. So let's assume they don't take the fingerprints from the stationary to bolster their investigative efforts and catch forgers.

What justification do you have for assuming that the OP will not be given an opportunity to defend himself should he be charged?

And if he WILL be given an opportunity, should he just sit on his hands and wait for the hammer to drop without possibly saving his own career, or should he get proactive and build a defense?

Preserved.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 08:55:22 AM
Forgery Defined: A person who makes, utters, or alters a writing in such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity imposing a legal liability with the purpose of deceiving or injuring another is guilty of forgery in its contemporary sense

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3474tl3l563vrk1/

Elements:

1) Makes, Utters or alters a writing

2) In such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity

3) Purpose of deceiving

Ok, so we have something that looks like three "elements" (disclaimer: I may not have broken them as legally done)

Q1. Did the OP "make" the document? That is to be decided. We do not know whether his boss previously told him what he would like to put in the prospective letter, whether the OP took notes on these points in the presence of his boss and saved them. And it will be up to the LSAC, and possibly a judge or jury to debate this point. But 'make" is a vague term that might be exploitable in a defense. My guess is that the OP probably DID make the writing.


Q2. Did he do so in a way that would convey a false impression of its authenticity? Well, what does "authentic" mean?

accurate, actual, authoritative, bona fide, certain, convincing, credible, creditable, dependable, factual, faithful, for real, genuine, legit, legitimate, official, original, pure, reliable, sure, true, trustworthy, trusty, twenty-four carat, valid, veritable

"Genuine" means not fake or counterfeit - or sincerely felt or expressed, while "authentic" means conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and trust

This is murky. The praise and accolades the OP may have expressed in the letter may have been genuinely felt by the boss, even if he did not scribe them on the final copy of the letter. They certainly could have been true, factual, dependable and all of those things. This, too may/may not be exploitable. But, clearly the OP constructed the letter in a way that indicated falsity, probably with too much praise, vernacular, sentence structure and punctuation too similar to his own AND/OR...I have to say it, those dredded fingerprints. My guess is that the OP loses on this point, too.

Q3. "Purpose" of "deceiving". Did the OP intend to deceive the LSAC and/or schools? Or did he intend to write what his boss would have written, and promised to write, had he gotten off of his lazy ass? If the OP told the truth as his boss would have stated it (and admittedly intended to state it) in the substance of the letters, then, by their nature, the accolades themselves are not deceptive. Element three also requires deception. What "degree" of deception would be necessary? If the accolades are true, the deception is only in the written signature.

Here is a different example. I could say I believe, based on my knowledge, that the Lakers won their last game. Now, the Lakers may have actually won their last game, but to maintain the veracity of my statement, what level of knowledge must I have? I may not have seen or heard the game; I may not have spoken to anyone about the game, I may not have seen the news or have any other reliable indicator that would give me that "knowledge"...other than the fact that the Lakers are on a huge win streak.

If the Lakers won their last game, would I be lying, then?  To what degree am I being deceptive if what I actually say is true? The Lakers did win, and my level of "knowledge" may be left up to interpretation on the matter b/c a hunch based on a win streak may be good enough for some, but not others. Others may want "proof".

But, if you remember my diatribe on proof earlier in this post, proof is a sufficient condition for knowledge, but knowledge in NOT a sufficient condition for proof. This means one can "know" something without being able to "prove" it.

Based on that standard, I can say I knew the Lakers won the game without proving it. And if they won, I am not a liar.

Same with that signature. If the OP's boss gave him indications of what he actually would have written, how deceptive are the OP's statements? And how deceptive is the signature?

Now...all of these arguments are not likely to help the OP, but this is how we must think, as future lawyers. Break the elements of an offense apart and dissect them..analyze them before making a judgement. Make arguments. This is exactly what a law prof. will ask of you...spot issues (as I did earlier), dissect elements and make arguments.  
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 25, 2009, 09:14:59 AM
Forgery Defined: A person who makes, utters, or alters a writing in such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity imposing a legal liability with the purpose of deceiving or injuring another is guilty of forgery in its contemporary sense

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3474tl3l563vrk1/

Elements:

1) Makes, Utters or alters a writing

2) In such a way as to convey a false impression concerning its authenticity

3) Purpose of deceiving

Ok, so we have something that looks like three "elements" (disclaimer: I may not have broken them as legally done)

Q1. Did the OP "make" the document? That is to be decided. We do not know whether his boss previously told him what he would like to put in the prospective letter, whether the OP took notes on these points in the presence of his boss and saved them. And it will be up to the LSAC, and possibly a judge or jury to debate this point. But 'make" is a vague term that might be exploitable in a defense. My guess is that the OP probably DID make the writing.


Q2. Did he do so in a way that would convey a false impression of its authenticity? Well, what does "authentic" mean?

accurate, actual, authoritative, bona fide, certain, convincing, credible, creditable, dependable, factual, faithful, for real, genuine, legit, legitimate, official, original, pure, reliable, sure, true, trustworthy, trusty, twenty-four carat, valid, veritable

"Genuine" means not fake or counterfeit - or sincerely felt or expressed, while "authentic" means conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and trust

This is murky. The praise and accolades the OP may have expressed in the letter may have been genuinely felt by the boss, even if he did not scribe them on the final copy of the letter. They certainly could have been true, factual, dependable and all of those things. This, too may/may not be exploitable. But, clearly the OP constructed the letter in a way that indicated falsity, probably with too much praise, vernacular, sentence structure and punctuation too similar to his own AND/OR...I have to say it, those dredded fingerprints. My guess is that the OP loses on this point, too.

Q3. "Purpose" of "deceiving". Did the OP intend to deceive the LSAC and/or schools? Or did he intend to write what his boss would have written, and promised to write, had he gotten off of his lazy ass? If the OP told the truth as his boss would have stated it (and admittedly intended to state it) in the substance of the letters, then, by their nature, the accolades themselves are not deceptive. Element three also requires deception. What "degree" of deception would be necessary? If the accolades are true, the deception is only in the written signature.

Here is a different example. I could say I believe, based on my knowledge, that the Lakers won their last game. Now, the Lakers may have actually won their last game, but to maintain the veracity of my statement, what level of knowledge must I have? I may not have seen or heard the game; I may not have spoken to anyone about the game, I may not have seen the news or have any other reliable indicator that would give me that "knowledge"...other than the fact that the Lakers are on a huge win streak.

If the Lakers won their last game, would I be lying, then?  To what degree am I being deceptive if what I actually say is true? The Lakers did win, and my level of "knowledge" may be left up to interpretation on the matter b/c a hunch based on a win streak may be good enough for some, but not others. Others may want "proof".

But, if you remember my diatribe on proof earlier in this post, proof is a sufficient condition for knowledge, but knowledge in NOT a sufficient condition for proof. This means one can "know" something without being able to "prove" it.

Based on that standard, I can say I knew the Lakers won the game without proving it. And if they won, I am not a liar.

Same with that signature. If the OP's boss gave him indications of what he actually would have written, how deceptive are the OP's statements? And how deceptive is the signature?

Now...all of these arguments are not likely to help the OP, but this is how we must think, as future lawyers. Break the elements of an offense apart and dissect them..analyze them before making a judgement. Make arguments. This is exactly what a law prof. will ask of you...spot issues (as I did earlier), dissect elements and make arguments.  


Preserved.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 25, 2009, 09:21:15 AM
LawDog, this is roughly similar to a first-year legal memo. You've shown the elements and how the OP may or may not meet those elements. The state of Pennsylvania (which is where LSAC is located) or the other states (where the OP may have made a potential offense) may each have a definition of forgery (either in the common law or by statute). Thus, each state may use different elements for forgery (or maybe the tort of fraud). But you've got the general idea: break down the elements, and show arguments that cut both ways. This is what memo writing and law school exams are all about.

TTom, are you still making arguments in good faith? If you're done, fair enough, just be done. But I'm not sure how all of the retorts to Lawdog's arguments of either "BS" or "Preserved" are furthering the dialogue.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 25, 2009, 09:30:45 AM
LawDog, this is roughly similar to a first-year legal memo. You've shown the elements and how the OP may or may not meet those elements. The state of Pennsylvania (which is where LSAC is located) or the other states (where the OP may have made a potential offense) may each have a definition of forgery (either in the common law or by statute). Thus, each state may use different elements for forgery (or maybe the tort of fraud). But you've got the general idea: break down the elements, and show arguments that cut both ways. This is what memo writing and law school exams are all about.

TTom, are you still making arguments in good faith? If you're done, fair enough, just be done. But I'm not sure how all of the retorts to Lawdog's arguments of either "BS" or "Preserved" are furthering the dialogue.

I'm really not concerned with having a dialogue with LawDog. I'll give him credit for trying to break forgery down into elements, although his interpretation of those elements is absurd. Not to mention that LSAC is neither charging nola with criminal forgery nor has the capability to do so.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: CTL on February 25, 2009, 11:21:38 AM
If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

"Legal ethics" is so far removed from your extrapolations about the OP's character that, again, you're just being nonsensical.  You're not just talking apples and oranges; you're talking apples and cinder blocks.

And, yeah, I took the class.  You're not even a law student.  I mean, I guess you're going to have to take my word for it.

Actually, TTom is a 2L at a TT school.  Anyone who does a quick search of his posts could have gleaned that..
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 25, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
I would venture to say that even if you've taken legal ethics, you still don't really know about the rubber-meets-the-road ethics of real practice. I think once you've practiced for a while, you start to see just how blurry that ethical line can get.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 25, 2009, 01:10:37 PM
I would venture to say that even if you've taken legal ethics, you still don't really know about the rubber-meets-the-road ethics of real practice. I think once you've practiced for a while, you start to see just how blurry that ethical line can get.

You've got to be kidding. Are you suggesting that faking a letter and forging someone's name involves a blurry ethical line?

Yikes.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Jeepstress on February 25, 2009, 01:58:40 PM
TTom, I couldn't agree with you more!

I, like the OP, work for a boss who would have been happy to have me sign off on the LOR that he sent to LSAC, but in the interest of keeping things extremely professional I didn't go near his LOR until he wrote it, mailed it to LSAC, and then gave me a copy of it.  He's the one who decided to share the copy; I never even asked to see it.  I went out of my way to avoid the boss's LOR for me.  I treated the LOR as something sacred and I wouldn't have dreamed of writing it and sending it to LSAC under any circumstances.  No way.  It's wrong. 

TTom is right on here.

Character is forever.  The OP clearly has none.  The only good that can come from this situation will be if all law schools rescind the offers that they already extended to the OP and then the OP pursues a new career that's more suitable, i.e.,  something that doesn't require honor, integrity, or a conscience.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: ak2ca on February 25, 2009, 02:33:44 PM
If I recall the original post correctly the boss did not expressly tell the OP to write it, sign his name (not sure if this is he/she -- sorry!) and send it. The OP did this of his own volition because he tired of waiting for the boss to send it and because he had habitually signed the boss' name in the past. However, when LSAC called the boss the boss denied writing it, which I think insinuates that the boss wasn't actually aware that it had been submitted on his behalf. This is the part that seems fishy to me...

Personally, I find this to be an example of unethical behavior and I think the OP needs to answer for it. If the boss was really on board and everything was on the up and up (i.e., the boss had reviewed the letter and ok'd his name to be signed to it -- I've worked for politicians, I know that there are often ghost-writers for rec. letters) he wouldn't have thrown the OP under the bus when LSAC called.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: ak2ca on February 25, 2009, 03:03:33 PM
You're right. The boss did ask him to write it. I find it frustrating when recommenders ask others to write a letter for them. Is it really so hard and time consuming to take 20 minutes and write a letter of rec? Even so, the letter should have been reviewed by the boss and signed by him. I agree that there's a possibility that the OP may be leaving out some information that would have triggered a LSAC check. It makes you wonder if this was a random spot check or if they found something that made them question the authenticity... This is probably more common that we'd like to imagine.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 03:35:20 PM
If nola thinks it's okay to write fake letters and forge names, then yes, this behavior will lead to censure and possibly disbarment. This is not uncommon. The fact that you don't know this is scary. I'm not sure why you're have a difficult time understanding this. Have you taken legal ethics?

"Legal ethics" is so far removed from your extrapolations about the OP's character that, again, you're just being nonsensical.  You're not just talking apples and oranges; you're talking apples and cinder blocks.

And, yeah, I took the class.  You're not even a law student.  I mean, I guess you're going to have to take my word for it.

Actually, TTom is a 2L at a TT school.  Anyone who does a quick search of his posts could have gleaned that..

That's hitting below the belt guys...what diff. does it make? TTom is going to be a lawyer, and, hopefully, he will grow into a good one. We can bust each other's chops every day, but this intellectual and psychological warfare should be a simple marketplace of ideas (no matter how conventional or kooky) that makes us all better. I welcome the dissent, but we should resist making assumptions about innate intelligence or personal worth, though we all get exasperated and do it. 

Did I just defend my adversary? lol!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 03:41:30 PM
LawDog, this is roughly similar to a first-year legal memo. You've shown the elements and how the OP may or may not meet those elements. The state of Pennsylvania (which is where LSAC is located) or the other states (where the OP may have made a potential offense) may each have a definition of forgery (either in the common law or by statute). Thus, each state may use different elements for forgery (or maybe the tort of fraud). But you've got the general idea: break down the elements, and show arguments that cut both ways. This is what memo writing and law school exams are all about.

TTom, are you still making arguments in good faith? If you're done, fair enough, just be done. But I'm not sure how all of the retorts to Lawdog's arguments of either "BS" or "Preserved" are furthering the dialogue.

I'm really not concerned with having a dialogue with LawDog. I'll give him credit for trying to break forgery down into elements, although his interpretation of those elements is absurd. Not to mention that LSAC is neither charging nola with criminal forgery nor has the capability to do so.

The LSAC will ________ Nola with/of providing a false document for the purpose of securing at least one seat in a future admissions class at an ABA approved law school. As a result of this ________ he will be subject to an "irregularities and misconduct" report to all ABA approved law schools, the American Bar Association and each state BAR, as well as that of the District of Columbia.

What word do you input? 

A charge is a charge! Or if you want to use "accuse"/"accusation", so beit. WTF are you talking about? If a school accusing you of cheating, you have been "charged"...if the LSAC accuses someone of forgery, they have been charged with "non-criminal" forgery, but still forgery. But if you want to get technical, it would be a form of fraud if the OP had been awarded scholarships on the basis of that letter. As I said, the terms apply in different situations and contexts. Get off of the semantics. And, yes, I disclaimed the "breaking down of those elements" as quite likely wrong. I had 3 minutes to analyze them. But I can show you another example of my work...one that earned me an A+ on a legal writing assignment at Georgetown if you'd like to see it. It was a fact-pattern on a drunken burglary.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 03:59:21 PM
I would venture to say that even if you've taken legal ethics, you still don't really know about the rubber-meets-the-road ethics of real practice. I think once you've practiced for a while, you start to see just how blurry that ethical line can get.

They don't get it Wheels. They don't understand how once an offense is broken into elements, as every offense has to be, the ambiguities of each word within each element are subject to several interpretations, predicated on the following: Long-standing, established legal definition, widely held beliefs of a community or society, the context under which the offense is committed, and other factors.

What is "intent"? What does "reasonable" mean? How about "timely or "purpose"? Yhese are some of the most vague, yet frequently used words in legal elements.

Elements of Battery:

1) Touching

2) That is intentional

3) That harms or offends the "alleged victim" 

How do you define "touch". If I barely touch a guy with a light tap on the street to ask him which train I catch and he doesn't like it, should he call the cops? Have I committed a crime? It was intentional, I did touch him, and he can decide if he was offended or harmed...right?

Wrong! The first and third elements are somewhat vague because their definitions change with context. Even the second, intent, is left up to interpretation. In the case of the third element, the alledged victim would be held to what one refers to as the "reasonable person" standard, i.e., is the victim offended to the degree that a reasonable person would be under the same circumstances?

But who defines what is "reasonable" and according to what standard? Is it based on the culture of the city in which the offense takes place? How about the neighborhood? What if it's a rich, Black neighborhood or a poor Mexican one, does that make a difference? And should/shouldn't the culture of the offender matter? If we don't decide on that point, we don't sufficiently address the issue of "intent".

Think for a minute...you guys are getting a hint of how your thinking will have to change whence you enter law school.

Do you see how something that appears Black and White can spin into a tedious exercise in analysis, symantics and speculation? That's LAW folks!

The OP isn't quite as busted as you may think. He has a hell of a battle, but don't count him out. Be lawyers about this. I know you are not lawyers, but you might as well practice thinking like lawyers.   
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 04:21:49 PM
You're right. The boss did ask him to write it. I find it frustrating when recommenders ask others to write a letter for them. Is it really so hard and time consuming to take 20 minutes and write a letter of rec? Even so, the letter should have been reviewed by the boss and signed by him. I agree that there's a possibility that the OP may be leaving out some information that would have triggered a LSAC check. It makes you wonder if this was a random spot check or if they found something that made them question the authenticity... This is probably more common that we'd like to imagine.


+1

There are cultural, "widely held beliefs" questions raised by your post, as well as one regarding the technical definition of "write".

Does one have to put pen to paper or actually key in the words? Or can he have someone else do it and still claim to be the writer? Based on a strict definition, we should all be in trouble and several professors should lose their jobs? What percentage of a document has to be "written" or physically "scribed" by a prof. before we say he actually wrote it?

The fact that (as I stated at the very beginning) it is "common practice" (common: another vague legal term) for recommenders to ask students to write their own letters matters a bit. Hypothetically, how can LSAC bust someone who frequently signs his boss's name on other documents for writing and signing a letter of recommendation, in the context of a situation in which students are frequently asked to write their own letters, but not sign them? 

Again, if I were a betting man, I might bet against Nola, but I am trying to propose some defense.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: ak2ca on February 25, 2009, 05:17:06 PM
I realize that ghost writing letters is very common practice -- even forging signatures. I know very few politicians, CEOs or Executive Directors who write their own correspondence. The issue here for me is that the OP didn't let the recommender review the letter and approve it before he signed and sent it out. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the whole writing and forging of signature if the boss approved it. In his position as employee do you think he just scribes anything he wants on the office letter head and signs his boss' name to it? That's the only time this could possibly be "justified," since it would be accepted behavior in that relationship, but even then doesn't it defeat the purpose of letters of recommendation?

Honestly, I'm struggling to come up with any defense besides thoughtlessness and looking for a way to sneak something through the system. This was not a mistake, it was intentional. I feel for the OP because everyone does things that they later regret, but this is a serious lapse of judgement and it will result in serious consequences that may include not being admitted to law school. That's life. Judgement counts.

Getting letters of recommendation is a pain in the a$$ sometimes, but everyone has to suck it up and deal with it. If the OP's boss wasn't able to submit one on time, or review and approve the document that the OP drafted, then he should have found someone else.

Ok, I'll get off my high horse now...
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 06:48:56 PM
I realize that ghost writing letters is very common practice -- even forging signatures. I know very few politicians, CEOs or Executive Directors who write their own correspondence. The issue here for me is that the OP didn't let the recommender review the letter and approve it before he signed and sent it out. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the whole writing and forging of signature if the boss approved it. In his position as employee do you think he just scribes anything he wants on the office letter head and signs his boss' name to it? That's the only time this could possibly be "justified," since it would be accepted behavior in that relationship, but even then doesn't it defeat the purpose of letters of recommendation?

Honestly, I'm struggling to come up with any defense besides thoughtlessness and looking for a way to sneak something through the system. This was not a mistake, it was intentional. I feel for the OP because everyone does things that they later regret, but this is a serious lapse of judgement and it will result in serious consequences that may include not being admitted to law school. That's life. Judgement counts.


I am feeling you on the bolded part. I said that the OP wasn't very good at what he was doing. But this is the most exciting post i have ever been on, because it has forced all of us to ask crucial questions: 1) "Where does judgement stop and lawyering start?" and 2) "Is the line between the two blurred?"

For me, and I am sure some will disagree on this, the task to becoming a good advocate, no matter what type of attorney you are, is being able to ask the right questions...the tough ones. Those lawyers who confront the tough questions will win more often than not, or at least be better-prepared to win.

That tedious work is the essence of the profession we are entering. I think that's why some ppl were offended by TTom and a few others because the task at-hand was not to judge the OP; it was to offer some ideas. He presented us with a beautiful opportunity to have a really good dialohue, and it has taken place amid some unnecessary flaming and bickering. But I think it is still useful.

I do not love murderers, but some day, i may be called upon to defend one. I have to prepare for that reality. Someday, I may have to defend a corporation that wants to tear down a park in a poor, urban neighborhood...and I have to be prepared for that reality. Wer have to check our prejudices at the door, even in the most ridiculous of situations. That's all I have been trying to say the entire time.

I am pulling for the OP more than rooting against him b/c he is young and made a mistake..and I believe in redemption. That is not a prejudice, that is a humanist perspective. And we are allowed to err on the side of humanism. 
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 25, 2009, 07:08:12 PM
Tell you something else ak2ca. You say the OP's action was "intentional". What was his intent in writing the letter? Do we really know that? Does it even matter to LSAC? Would it matter to a court?

Was it to satisfy the minimums law schools ask for? Did he intend to mislead the adcoms into thinking he was more dynamic than he was? Making that assessment would require viewing all of the letters.

I have a letter in my file that is two paragraphs long and only suplements information in my essays and other LOR's...that's it. It's for verification and does not cite any accolades, and it gives faint praise, at best. It is the only letter out of my seven total, that I have viewed. It is supplementary; it verifies ONE KEY FACT in my essays and other letters. That's it. Does such a letter bolster my file in a significant way? Who knows?

Does the OP's letter bolster his file, or does it reinforce something legitimate other recommenders have already said? Or, does the letter explain some periods of absence from school because he had to work? That would be pretty innocuous.

We do not know what is in the letter, thus we can only speculate on "intent". As for "intent to mislead", again, we would have to know what OP's boss actually believes, sanctions, etc. Maybe there's no misleading going on.

And the schools may not have even seen the letter, yet. There are offenses where the simple "attempt" is enough to sustain the accusation, and others where simple intent (like the cadet who bought and smoked a dime-bag of Oregano in A Few Good Men instead of the Marijuana he intended to buy) is not enough to waste time on.

Is this one of those offenses? Probably not.

Having a hard time defending OP is understandable, but set your prejudice aside and try...just do it for YOU. It's a great exercise. And it is one you will have to do on exams and essays, and in moot court very soon.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Terrible Ivan on February 25, 2009, 09:20:24 PM
This thread has a good blend of the hilarious and the sad. Plenty of law students and non-law students dishing legal advice, writing legal memos using thesauri, and berating the OP both right and left. Sure, we come to LSD for insight, ideas, and feedback, but seriously, a public message board and 'legal advice' just don't mix. The model rules for professional conduct suggest only one decent response to the OP: get a lawyer.

Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on February 25, 2009, 10:36:22 PM
^^ Nodding.

This thread is an absolute crack up. I keep muttering in my head "f'n lawyers"...

Lawdog, you sound like all the j-off attorneys I've watched spew BS about the silliest things. "Quid pro quo with the LSAC"..HAHA!! You're gonna fit it in just fine at the courthouse. I find it scary that you actually think you're right.

I'm starting to think I'm too moral for this law stuff..

The funniest thing is that the OP stopped posting after like the first page or two..and the discussion rages on. I think you guys almost have it figured out..
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Miguel Bain on February 25, 2009, 10:39:52 PM
I actually created an account just so I could post on this thread.  

From a 1L at a good law school, let me just say that some of the people here absolutely disgust me.  

OP messed up, that's been established.  He came on here looking for advice and what do some of you do?  Bash the living hell out of him.  Jesus, get off your soapboxes.  TTom, you must be one of the most self-righteous people I've ever seen.  Get over it.  You said that people like the OP give lawyers a bad name.  Well, I think it's people like you that give LAW STUDENTS a bad name.  Snarky, condescending, generally unpleasant to be around, and a whole host of other negative stereotypes.

Also, please do not ever refer to the legal profession as YOUR profession.  You're not a lawyer, you don't have a JD, and you're probably not even a law student yet.  Can I call myself an astronaut having never set foot into NASA?  

And give me a break - you speak of the law as though you know something about it.  You know nothing.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 26, 2009, 12:12:18 AM
^^ Nodding.

This thread is an absolute crack up. I keep muttering in my head "f'n lawyers"...

Lawdog, you sound like all the j-off attorneys I've watched spew BS about the silliest things. "Quid pro quo with the LSAC"..HAHA!! You're gonna fit it in just fine at the courthouse. I find it scary that you actually think you're right.

I'm starting to think I'm too moral for this law stuff..

The funniest thing is that the OP stopped posting after like the first page or two..and the discussion rages on. I think you guys almost have it figured out..

Yeah, we jacked his post. But now you're part of the robbery. And why would the guy want to read ppl repeatedly saying he f*cked up? Look...quid pro quo is just jargon, dude, and I did kind of use it for comedy (it means trade-off in layman's terms). I notice people have not been able to substantively attack my arguments. They talk about me and say I don't make sense but they produce no evidence to back up their remarks. And they won't...just like you won't. This post is an important one b/c some 0L's seem to have the wrong mindset going into law school. They have to be truly open to multiple points of view.

And the real law students on the post have validated at least a good portion of what I have said.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 26, 2009, 08:30:40 AM



 He had the guy's express permission to write and send the thing. me light on whether he deserves a pass for this or not.



Jesus,

Did you read the thread? Nola did NOT have express permission. Nola didn't even have implied permission. Nola had no permission to either write or forge her bosses name to the LOR. That's why I maintain my position.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: LawDog3 on February 26, 2009, 12:40:44 PM



 He had the guy's express permission to write and send the thing. me light on whether he deserves a pass for this or not.

Are people assuming some implied or expressed permission was given or talking in hypotheticals? I don't know. I am curious as to whether Nola will defend himself. I think we are beating a dead horse now with our arguments. Let's leave this alone until he comes back. I want to know how serious this thing gets.



Jesus,

Did you read the thread? Nola did NOT have express permission. Nola didn't even have implied permission. Nola had no permission to either write or forge her bosses name to the LOR. That's why I maintain my position.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: TTom on February 26, 2009, 02:05:30 PM



 He had the guy's express permission to write and send the thing. me light on whether he deserves a pass for this or not.

Are people assuming some implied or expressed permission was given or talking in hypotheticals? I don't know. I am curious as to whether Nola will defend himself. I think we are beating a dead horse now with our arguments. Let's leave this alone until he comes back. I want to know how serious this thing gets.



Jesus,

Did you read the thread? Nola did NOT have express permission. Nola didn't even have implied permission. Nola had no permission to either write or forge her bosses name to the LOR. That's why I maintain my position.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on February 26, 2009, 04:10:19 PM
^^ Nodding.

This thread is an absolute crack up. I keep muttering in my head "f'n lawyers"...

Lawdog, you sound like all the j-off attorneys I've watched spew BS about the silliest things. "Quid pro quo with the LSAC"..HAHA!! You're gonna fit it in just fine at the courthouse. I find it scary that you actually think you're right.

I'm starting to think I'm too moral for this law stuff..

The funniest thing is that the OP stopped posting after like the first page or two..and the discussion rages on. I think you guys almost have it figured out..

Yeah, we jacked his post. But now you're part of the robbery. And why would the guy want to read ppl repeatedly saying he f*cked up? Look...quid pro quo is just jargon, dude, and I did kind of use it for comedy (it means trade-off in layman's terms). I notice people have not been able to substantively attack my arguments. They talk about me and say I don't make sense but they produce no evidence to back up their remarks. And they won't...just like you won't. This post is an important one b/c some 0L's seem to have the wrong mindset going into law school. They have to be truly open to multiple points of view.

And the real law students on the post have validated at least a good portion of what I have said.

Lawdog, you misunderstood me. I know perfectly well what quid pro quo means. It means "this for that", and I found it nothing less than asinine that you would suggest it as an opportunity for some kind of negotiation with the LSAC. To me, it's not quite acknowledging the poor judgment that was exhibited by the OP.

But thus is the practice of law, if thats what you're trying to get at with your "multiple view" thing. Listen, I spent many hours in court in the last year, and I've seen some pretty sad arguments. I've thought to myself..how can I knowingly spew BS to a judge or to a jury..or bring up some crazy hypothetical, when I know in my heart and head that it's BS. For me, it's a difficult thing to do. For others, they dont mind.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: WheelsUp on February 26, 2009, 04:40:03 PM
This has been a great discussion,  and I appreciate most of the comments. We pretty much have all agreed to this:

1. The OP did something unethical, wrong, unprofessional, etc.
2. The OP deserves some kind of a defense against LSAC (even TTom has admitted this)

We are pretty divided on this:

1. Whether the OP's conduct reflects a serious flaw in moral character.
2. Whether the OP's conduct should preclude him from the legal profession.


I may have missed some other points. Please feel free to expound.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 26, 2009, 04:42:21 PM
Dear god- will someone please lock this damn thread?!
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: tcwhat on February 26, 2009, 04:59:46 PM
Dear god- will someone please lock this damn thread?!

I second this - the crazy in this thread is reaching epic levels.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: Jamie Stringer on February 26, 2009, 05:28:12 PM
I know I'm going to be the a-hole who bumps this thread again, but it must be said...

I feel pretty confident that the OP was just a terrible flame to incite this kind of mass reaction while s/he sits back and laughs.  And the worst part is that s/he got their way because this thread has reached 18 pages of crazy-go-nuts.
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: bloomlaw on February 27, 2009, 04:24:15 PM
I was watching the Lion King, and Scar was singing his "i will be king" song, and he used "quid pro quo".. it made me think of lawdog's ridiculous use of it in this thread, and I laughed
Title: Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
Post by: PaleForce on February 27, 2009, 04:27:45 PM
I was watching the Lion King, and Scar was singing his "i will be king" song, and he used "quid pro quo".. it made me think of lawdog's ridiculous use of it in this thread, and I laughed

LMAO  :D

I know exactly the scene you're talking about!  "Be prepared!"