Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TTom

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13
51
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:43:03 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.

52
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:29:48 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.

53
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 23, 2009, 01:02:30 PM »
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



54
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 23, 2009, 11:31:17 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.

55
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 22, 2009, 09:18:52 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.

56
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 22, 2009, 04:26:58 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.

57
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 22, 2009, 03:27:08 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.

58
Recommendations / Re: LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation
« on: February 21, 2009, 10:14:10 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.

59
Law School Applications / Re: REJECTED, ETC. TODAY
« on: February 21, 2009, 05:25:01 PM »
Waitlisted at Duke, really I'm kind of surprised about it.  Was expecting a rejection.

tcwhat,

I saw your lsn profile. What did you get arrested for?

60
General Board / Re: Lets cut the crap and take action!
« on: February 21, 2009, 02:53:18 PM »
Thank you for reading. I am a 2L at a school ranked between Yale and Cooley. I have read LSD from the time I decided started studying for the lsat. This is my first post.

I am so sick of people posting about thier class rank (if you dont get a job through OCI get your ass in gear and go find a job!), debt load, and school rank (for example, Hey guys I am ranked in the top 15/26th of the class and am on moot court please tell me what my job prospecs are?) 

My main female dog is when people female dog about the debt load they are taking on. My debt load is also very high. I will have about 110K and if my summer employer offers me a job I will make 70K with a 10k raise each year. Money will be tight!

I wanted to make this post a forum for action not a forum to female dog even more! So those of us that feel a little over our head with the student debt lets brainstorm about ideas that can make us an extra couple hundred $ a month to take a little pressue off.

You should sell your car and ride a bike everywhere. Maybe get rid of your cable. Oh, and stop eating out so much.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13