LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation

['blueskies]

After reading this thread, I'll volunteer

[PaleForce]

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! 

[heartbreaker]

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.

[PaleForce]

This may come as a shock you, but LawDog was, as per usual, full of *&^% when talking about LSAC dusting for fingerprints.

 
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.

[LawDog3]

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.

[LawDog3]

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.

[CTL]

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?

[TTom]

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.

[non parata est]

LSAC dusts for fingerprints.

I don't see any evidence for that.

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

Did I get the SparkNotes right?

[LawDog3]

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.