LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation

[ak2ca]

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...

[LawDog3]

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. 

[LawDog3]

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.

[Terrible Ivan]

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.

[Scentless Apprentice]

^^ 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..

[Miguel Bain]

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.

[LawDog3]

^^ 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.

[TTom]

 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.

[LawDog3]

 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.

[TTom]

 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.