LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation

[CTL]

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..

[WheelsUp]

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.

[TTom]

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.

[Jeepstress]

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.

[ak2ca]

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.

[ak2ca]

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.

[LawDog3]

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!

[LawDog3]

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.

[LawDog3]

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.   

[LawDog3]

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.