Law School Discussion

I think a lot of this back and forth between LawDog and his contenders is really about what law school should be all about (LawDog's position) vs. what law school usually really is (many of the others in this discussion.)

What Law Should Should Be
Law school should be a place for those who 1)have a genuine interest in the law and 2) are seriously considering the practice of law. I say this not out of idealistic reasons for the greater good of society or whatever. But, in reality, if you're not interested in the law, law schools gonna suck. As a 1L myself, I can easily assure you of that. I'm sure that even those who haven't attended law school know this quite well. Thus, for those bankers or last-minute uh-I-don't-know-what-to-do-with-my-life folks, law school will be a miserable 3 years. I believe you should be seriously considering the practice of law, because that's what your degree will most likely bring you - a law firm job, or government attorney, or whatever. HOWEVER, I don't think you need to attend law school dead set that you WILL practice law or do something that will even relate to the law. There are many people who benefit from learning to think like an attorney or wish to learn critical thinking, but will ultimately return to their original business. I have a few colleagues at school who were former MDs, police officers, psychologists, you name it. They may return to their old careers because that's what they want after considering a career in the law, but their life is greatly enhanced by the skill sets learned at law school - albeit that's an expensive price to pay to learn those skill sets. Lol. But some people are all about life experiences rather than the bottom line.

What Law School Actually Is
I'm afraid I will have to part ways a bit with LawDog. Law school admissions, unfortunately, is all too much about numbers. Where LawDog mentions certain types of people that each law school seeks, while this is true, I believe these situations serve as tie breakers between applicants with similar numbers. But, the guy with better numbers will virtually always win out (save a few rare exceptions that are so insignificant that you should never count on them). If you don't believe me, please read Anna Ivey's book on Law School Admissions as well as Law School Confidential's interview with the Dean of Admissions at Cornell. Now, the only situation where numbers will not always win is for URMs. But, alas, this is a whole different discussion. Because law schools are so numbers driven, you will get those academics who are just smart but they have no real passion for the law. You may even get bankers. But it doesn't matter, so long as they did well on the LSAT and GPA. If you want to read some interesting stuff on whether LSAT and GPA should be an admission criteria, you should read a recent entry on Above the Law that discusses a new proposed version of the LSAT. It tests the top skills that a practicing lawyer needs. It's basically a down-and-dirty lawyer aptitude test designed to sift out unsuccessful lawyers.

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.

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

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.

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.”