Tier 3 Law Students Are Hotter: A Correction
The title of our recent photo post should have been “Tier TWO Law Students Are Hotter.” According to several commenters, the pictured students are from St. John’s Law School, rather than New York Law School. Since we didn’t chat with these students about their law school — we erroneously assumed the conference attendees were all from NYLS — we will take these commenters’ word for it.
For the record, St. John’s is a tier two law school. It’s ranked #80 by U.S. News — again, for whatever those rankings are worth. You can debate that in the comments if you like.
Here was the other comment that caught our eye:
As one of the people actually pictured above, I want to let everyone know that Lat took our pictures under false pretenses. We specifically asked him if he was from NYLS and if he was taking our pictures for publicity purposes—and he said that he was. What a liar. I’m glad that the bloggers here are so honest and reliable.
We have multiple responses:
(a) We have no way of verifying whether this commenter is in fact one of the pictured students. But we can tell you that we NEVER represented ourselves as (i) from NYLS or (ii) a publicity photographer.
Subject us to a lie detector test; ask the videographer if he kept his recording equipment running after the end of the panel, and grab his footage; seek whatever verification you can. We did NOT claim to be publicity photographers from NYLS. If this commenter is in fact one of the pictured students, he or she misheard us.
(b) Considering the equipment we were using — a small, crappy, non-professional camera — one would have to be a MORON to mistake us for a publicity photographer. There was a REAL publicity photographer at the various events — a woman with a large, fancy camera — who made herself conspicuous throughout the day. The flash on her camera annoyed John Osborn at the luncheon talk.
(c) Another reason no one would confuse us for a publicity photographer is that we were typing vigorously on a laptop, rather than taking photographs, during all of the panels. The ACTUAL publicity photographer, mentioned above, was running around the room with her top-of-the-line camera, crouching and clicking, crouching and clicking. Which is what publicity photographers do.
(d) No publicity photographer would chit chat and hobnob with conference attendees as much as we were doing. It would be gross dereliction of photographic duty.
(e) Assuming arguendo these allegations are true — which they are NOT — it would be irrelevant.
Here’s why. Let’s say we HAD been a publicity photographer from NYLS. Where would these pictures have ended up? In the photographer’s private wank collection?
No. The photos would have wound up ON THE INTERNET. A publicity photographer who keeps his pictures in a drawer, instead of making them publicly available, would be a pretty poor publicity photographer.
So if this commenter is in fact one of the pictured students, we have an apology to offer:
We’re sorry you misheard us. And we’re sorry you’re an unobservant moron.
That’s all. We will not say anything further about this “controversy.” Thank you.
(67) 
Comments
Are there any "unreleased" photos of White Girls With Asian Guys?
"In the photographer's private wank collection?"
You toss this phrase out as if it's common knowledge that EVERY photographer has a "private wank collection." I was not aware of this.
Anyone who wishes to enlighten me should do so.
Every guy has a "private wank collection," whether or not he's a photographer!
Please don't let this stop you from going to other legal events, taking pictures of cute people and posting them on your blog. I look forward to viewing and being in such future posts.
Ah, so the distinction between a photographer and a non-photographer is that the former has both a public wank collection and a private wank collection...
Let's not be crude people. Show some class.
No! Assuming arguendo that misrepresentation was true, there is a vast vast VAST difference between having your photo up in some random, bland law school publicity mailing that no one cares about, ie "Law students X, Y, Z, smile at the 5th annual conference of NYLS Legal Citation Boredom, etc. etc. etc." ..... and having your photo plopped online up in a tabloid blog with commentary SOLELY about how attractive the subjects are, and a comments field practically begging readers to give their own assessment on the subjects' attractiveness, in a scroll on the left side of the screen.
Also, like, if some young clean-cut asian guy came up to me when I was at a law school event clicking away even with a small digital camera, I too would assume it was for publicity purposes (some law review alumni mailing, etc.) It's not the Oscars or a movie premiere. I wouldn't consider it "moronic" to think you were just some random law review editor taking pics for the alumni newsletter.
You know how contrary your readers are, Lat (case in point, I admit, this post!). If you say they are hot, you KNOW someone will post and will explain in excruciating, embarassing detail why they are not, for all their friends to see. It's humiliating. These people are NOT celebrities.
8:27, that's exactly what I meant!
the fact that they are not celebrities undercuts any public figure defense to the impending DEFAMATION suit for sullying the reputaton of tier two students by calling them TTTs. lat, you are on notice!
"Considering the equipment we were using -- a small, crappy, non-professional camera -- one would have to be a MORON to mistake us for a publicity photographer."
true enough. you looked like a prospective 1L.
8:35 - but Lat just said that there was no misrepresentation. That's kind of the point.
"8:35 - but Lat just said that there was no misrepresentation. That's kind of the point."
No it's not. The point is this: A random clean-up young guy comes up to you, a bunch of besuited law students, at a DRY DULL LEGAL CITATION event at NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, and he's got a digital camera, and he asks politely to take your picture.
What assumption would you make from this?
1.) That he's probably some student or admissions office guy from NYLS taking your pic to memorialize the fact that this dull event occurred, for some law school publication, alumni mailing, recruitment event, or other untawdry, quite run-of-the mill reason.
2.) That's he's a "legal gossip blogger" who will put you up on his site, comment in boldface type on your looks, and invite a free-for-all on your appearance.
Obviously, the only sane conclusion to draw it that the photographer and his reasons are some variation of #1. In fact, to call someone a moron for not selecting #1, in fact, is, in my view, kind of moronic.
In this day and age, you should assume that a photo of you taken by a stranger could wind up anywhere. Including an internet gossip site. Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. These T2 students should be flattered people are drooling over them.
The said TTT students should be happy they even were featured on this site, since no one really cares about them in the legal profession anyway.
The fact that they travelled from STTT Johns to NY(no U)LS for said conference is indicative of how pathetic they are.
Lat is an unethical douche.
9:10...That attitude will serve you really well in the legal profession. I hope you keep it to yourself when you're given an assignment by the numerous partners at V5 firms from law schools like Brooklyn, Cardozo, St. John's, Loyola, etc. I suspect though that you won't be able to-----the TTTness of your self-important personality will shine through.
Whatta bunch of crybabies... maybe if it had been entitled "check out these trolls" you'd have a point.
Yes, those students SO should have seen this coming. I don't know HOW many times a random picture of my NON-FAMOUS visage has shown up on a website to be mercilessly dissected, like I'm Jennifer Aniston or something.
That was sarcasm by the way.
I wonder if Lat has opened himself up to a tort suit for the invasion of the right of publicity of these students?
See, e.g. publaw.com/rightpriv.html
Essentially, you have the right to control the commercial use of your likeness. The law varies by state, and some states only extend the right to publicity to celebrities. (But see California, for instance, which has a much broader law.)
It seems at least arguable though that 1) this is a commercial, for-profit website that 2) used these students' likenesses without their permission and 3) commercially benefits from the use of their likenesses (through increased traffic, leading to more ad revenues, etc.) and 4) did not use them in connection with any news or public interest story.
Now, each of these points could be argued (and just finding proper jurisdiction would be an adventure). But how fun would it be to do all this in a courtroom! A lawsuit like this could significantly push Internet/1A law forward. And Lat could cover it from the defendant's chair. The meta is overwhelming!
Earl, I agree. As you know, several right of publicity cases have held that there is no liability for using a non-public figure's image to illustrate a news story, even if the subject of the photo wasn't actually doing the thing the news story talks about (e.g., drug use). It's crazy, but that's what courts have held.
However, that just begs the question raised under element 4 -- is this site "news"?
"We specifically asked him if he was from NYLS"
How mad do you think that David was when he saw this comment? A YLS grad mistaken for a NYLS student. Excellent.
Loyola 2L hasn't a sense of irony....
And former Chief Justices of Supreme Court are showing up in the comments. Pretty sweet.
why at every opportunity do many insecure (and often relatively less successful) students seek validation for their mundane lives and lack of intellectual prowess by making broad generalizations based on the artificial published rankings of other peoples' schools?
on second thought, doesn't that question just answer itself?
Lat, why do you even descend into the muck like this? Who exactly is crying out for photographs of law students at some random CLE seminar? Isn't there enough news out there to keep you occupied? One day when you've got a lawsuit on your hands, hopefully you'll be able to look back and say, "It was still worth it." I know I wouldn't.
Descending into the muck is good for the blogs' hit count. Many of Lat's hits come from the muck (aka xoxohth.com)
CJ Burger, I think that exactly where all the fun would be in a suit -- whether this site qualifies as news. (Or is it the particular item that must qualify?? If a newspaper runs a "Picture of the Week" -- no caption, no connection to any news story -- and shows some guy stuffing his face with ice cream, does that escape through the news or public interest exemption? Or does he have a suit?)
Lat can certainly point to a lot of news-y stuff on this site. The majority of posts, in fact. But this particular post seemed just gratuitous.
I also understand that, traditionally, all the right-to-publicity cases involve more direct use of a likeness -- e.g., selling a poster of a movie star w/o his permission. This is far more attenuated but -- as the last commenter noted -- the post was "good for the blog's hit count," and that makes it good for the blog's bottom line.
The closest analogue I can think to all this is Borat and Jackass (no, seriously.) There you have "artists" displaying non-famous people's likenesses and using it to sell a product. And, as Lat has so assidously noted, Borat is getting sued for the waiver he had people sign (and presumably needed.) Note also how Jackass blurs out the faces of a number of bystanders to the pranks -- even if they're not involved at all. This doesn't seem so different.
back to the nice legs on the blonde. anyone check for pantylines or is it all thongs?
I think misappropriating someone's likeness requires that their likeness actually be special to begin with (think Bowfinger). That's why the girls in the Girls Gone Wild suit didn't get anywhere. http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
I heard a story about some guy who was on the beach with his girlfriend in South Beach and she took her top off (that's legal there). Meanwhile, some sketchy guy with a digital recorder was panning the beach, and panned past her like 4 or 5 times. My buddy's response: whatever, free country. If you're exposing your breasts in public you shouldn't have any objection to it going online. People need to chill out.
You guys are complete assholes taking the picture of some law students who aren't public personalities then posting it on a website and opening up a discussion over their appearance which you know is going to invite negative comments.
It was simply a really ugly and mean thing to do to complete strangers.
People need to relax. The girls are pretty good looking, most people agree. They should take the compliments and be happy. You are not going to please everyone everytime.
I buy Lat's explanation and argument as to why anyone believing he was a publicity photog is not so observant. I go to these things at my school all the time. And the publicity photographer always has a very good camera and is usually better dressed than a number of the random other people floating around. Pretty conspicuous, the real publicity people...
"That's all. We will not say anything further about this "controversy." Thank you."
Very mature approach. Whether this is grounds for a civil suit aside, taking somebody's picture and posting it on this kind of website in this context is just plain shitty. I might add that there are pictures of people who aren't even looking at the camera and who likely had no idea their picture was being taken. As anon 8:35 pointed out, winding up "on the Internet" is entirely different than having your image posted with commentary about your attractiveness. It's pretty disingenuous to sidestep that.
The damage is already done - the least this dude could do is at least acknowledge that it sucks to have your appearance dissected by a bunch of law school/lawyer nerds.
3:02 a.m. - you need more sleep. And lose that smug sanctimony too.
8:54 p.m. - you need to get a life.
And yes, that blonde with the cleavage was a cutie. I'd enjoin her in a heartbeat!
-- ET
Well, at my law school, it wasn't out of the ordinary in the least to have someone snapping pics with a crappy camera for law school purposes (newsletters, alumni publications, bulletin boards, other boring type things, etc.)
The person who made the analogy to a topless beach is off the mark. OF COURSE someone who goes topless should be prepared for someone taking a prurient interest in their picture, and perhaps putting it on a porn site. I mean, duh.
There is absolutely no reason at all why these students should have "seen this coming." I wonder how the NYLS organizers of this event feel about this?
Lat = Legal Borat Man
Yes, the female law student with the glasses and "business suit" is very hot!
And they should be both flattered and glad that they were described as hot, and had their photos posted on this blog. Dog-faced lawyers don't make it in the real world. They become pro bono lawyers for Greenpeace or, alternatively, public defenders.
1. 8:35 and 9:40: There is no difference between photos winding up on some bland NYLS site or Above the Law.
a. Both are publicly accessible, to anyone in the world with an internet connection.
b. If the photos wound up on some bland NYLS site, and Lat wanted to comment snarkily on them, he would have just LINKED to the NYLS site (or done a screengrab of the NYLS photos and reposted them on ATL).
2. Lat didn't comment snarkily on the students; he praised them as hotties. They should be grateful to him for the free publicity.
3. Lat didn't identify these students by name. There is no violation of privacy, danger of the hotties being stalked, etc. (He even got their law school wrong the first time around.)
4. Are we going to mount class actions against Flickr, Facebook and Friendster because they also benefit, in terms of traffic and visibility, from posting random photographs of people?
(If "yes," then let's just shut down the internet today. The internet is all about turning "ordinary" people into public figures and celebrities, for better or worse.)
5. Anyone from a Tier 1 law school would have been smart enough to recognize that Lat wasn't a publicity photographer.
Come on, be real, 11:03. The "free publicity?" They are LAW STUDENTS. Not members of Good Charlotte. What do they need publicity for? And, yes, while any photo nowadays can in theory end up mocked on the internet, this is a commercial LEGAL NEWS AND GOSSIP BLOG, with plenty of readers -- not the same as somebody's random myspace page among the millions out there.
And posting the photos of some rather typical-looking law students, proclaiming them "hotties," and having open comments below practically begs for them to be enthusiastically dissected and criticized on their looks. You know it, and I know it. It would be no more or less shitty to grab screencaps off some random law student's myspace and display them on here for an impromptu attractiveness critique.
People need to chill the fuck out. Most of the comments about these people were complimentary.
Is it me, or does Lat become an even bigger douche with each new post?
You know, the comments to this thread make me remember how much I hate law students. And how much I hate thinking about how big of a douche bag I was in law school like several of these indignant posters.
What is the fascination with calling everyone douches or douche bags?
Lat, I love to see the Diva in you come out. Your derision and dismissal is great! Comments like these:
We're sorry you misheard us. And we're sorry you're an unobservant moron.
That's all. We will not say anything further about this "controversy." Thank you.
would make Shanetta proud. Keep up the good work!
Wow Lat, don't have a hissy
Lawyers like to use the term "douchebag" because it's a misogynistic field.
I dunno: State law varies on the issue of whether you need to be a celebrity to bring a right of publicity claim. Some states require that, others don't. In my view, the better policy is that you do not need to be a celebrity. New York, unlike many other states, spells out the claim in a pair of statutory provisions; I believe they do not require celebrity status, but I'm sure Brennan will correct me if I'm wrong, he always does.
Legally speaking, why did Borat need to get releases from the frat boys and miscellaneous citizenry he filmed?
In light of 1:43's post, I suggest that the term "douchebag" be replaced by "Loyola2Lbag."
This seems to get the same point across, without the misogynistic undertones.
Lat/Perez,
Your reaction to criticism for posting those photos is priceless-- its exactly how I think a Yale Law School grad should feel inside-- bitchy, insecure and lonely.
You clearly are trying to turn this into a Perez Hilton type blog. Its pretty ridiculous. Only thing is, Lat-- Lawyers are not celebrities. They don't memorize some dumb lines, then party all night while snorting some lines, and then spend their lives alternatively shopping for chihuaha accessories or in rehab.
Its pretty disgusting to do what you did to those 2Ls, but what is PRICELESS is the pettiness that is starting to show through on this blog. You really are a little boy crying our for attention, arent you?
PS-- before you solicit critiques of the looks of others, why not post a photo of yourself in all of your back-hair/mole glory? We could call it: "Guess Whether This Mole Came From a TTT student or a V5 Associate!!!"
Suck it, Lat.
What the hell is V5? Is that like that V05 Hot Oil you put on your hair?
"Lawyers are not celebrities. They don't memorize some dumb lines, then party all night while snorting some lines, and then spend their lives alternatively shopping for chihuaha accessories or in rehab."
You haven't worked in BigLaw, have you?
Lat, to avoid this problem in the future, just wear a name tag at these events that says "Abovethelaw.com"
8ball,
You're probably right...
Doesn't make what Lat is doing any less pathetic...
The topless analogy is sound: when you display yourself publicy, you don't have a privacy interest anymore, absent some sort of harassment, stalking, etc., which is qualitatively distinct.
And above commentator who mentioned that these pictures could have ended up on any website was exactly right. When you put something ONLINE that's what happens: the only difference b/w this site and the NYLS site is that people actually read this one.
Why not do this, Lat? Go to every tier-1 school website and copy the student pictures. Paste them on your website and talk about how ugly/hot/smart/stupid-looking they are. Make up little blurbs for what they're thinking (come to think of it, doesn't Leno or Conan do something like this? And how come nobody cares then--a lot more people watch late night than read this blog).
This would obviously be perfectly legal so long as you stayed within fair use (parody!), and show the prickly bastards on this website how utterly moronic their position is. Is it really necessary for lawyers to think that every aspect of human interaction should wind up the subject of a civil suit? Come on, people.
Ew, Lat is hairy-backed and moley?!
Anybody else have info on Lat's looks?
And yes, I'm a student at a tier 1 school and if my photo ended up here and people said I was ugly, I'd be sad. I'm also sad when girls reject me, when my car breaks down, and when the Mexican place I like doesn't deliver b/c they're too busy. Seriously, we only live once, try to deal...
4:07, if you were a real lawyer you'd figure out how to sue the girls, the car dealer and the Mexican place all in one RICO action.
"Only thing is, Lat-- Lawyers are not celebrities."
Isn't treating lawyers as celebrities, uh, the whole point of this blog?!
Lat, you were initially correct.
Tier 1=Y, S, H Tier 2=C, N, C TTT=all others
See the end of Section 51, "Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit
any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law." There are established rights of the press to publish newsworth stories. This is one such instance. David is providing news coverage of where the hotties are. He even included photographic evidence with his coverage of this important current event.
If any of you pictured above think that what's written here is offensive, you should know that this is what all your peers are secretly saying and thinking behind your back. Also, I'd bugger the brunette's behind in a moment. Way too much blonde love in this thread.
This shouldn't have been deleted as a double post--it belongs in both places as it is applicable in both places.
New York’s Civil Rights Law (available at this site: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS)
§ 50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for
advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait
or picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
§ 51. Action for injunction and for damages. Any person whose name,
portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising
purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first
obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the
supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so
using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the
use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries
sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have
knowingly used such person's name, portrait, picture or voice in such
manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section fifty of
this article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages.
But nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to
prevent any person, firm or corporation from selling or otherwise
transferring any material containing such name, portrait, picture or
voice in whatever medium to any user of such name, portrait, picture or
voice, or to any third party for sale or transfer directly or indirectly
to such a user, for use in a manner lawful under this article; nothing
contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any
person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography,
from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the
work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person,
firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been
given by the person portrayed; and nothing contained in this article
shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from
using the name, portrait, picture or voice of any manufacturer or dealer
in connection with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured,
produced or dealt in by him which he has sold or disposed of with such
name, portrait, picture or voice used in connection therewith; or from
using the name, portrait, picture or voice of any author, composer or
artist in connection with his literary, musical or artistic productions
which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait, picture or
voice used in connection therewith. Nothing contained in this section
shall be construed to prohibit the copyright owner of a sound recording
from disposing of, dealing in, licensing or selling that sound recording
to any party, if the right to dispose of, deal in, license or sell such
sound recording has been conferred by contract or other written document
by such living person or the holder of such right. Nothing contained in
the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit
any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law.
See Westlaw for case cites that could create significant liability.
i need some help. here's my situation: i'm going to law school, i live in NYC (husband is here for career purposes), in five years i want to move down south and have a fulfilling but not superprestigious career. I've been offered a very generous scholarship from NYLS, have been accepted at Tulane, and am waiting to hear from Brooklyn (who I don't expect to give me a penny, if they even let me thru the door). Am I screwing myself by going to a third-tier school? Please advise.
12:18: Just an opinion, but people say you can get jobs in NYC from NYLS. If that is the case, go there, work for 2 years at a good firm and use that experience to lateral. L2L says you screw yourself by going to a T3 school, but if you have decent grades and a good attitude you can get a good job from any school. Better schools will sell better particularly at some firms, but I do not think its an absolute necessity.
David's take on the T2 and T3 law student body reminds me of a 19th century explorer remarking on the rude beauty of the primitives on his return to civilization.
It's not just patronizing but also breathtakingly sophomoric. If T1 students are selected on pure intellect and spiritual worthiness, that's where all the ugly smart people must end up right?
On the other hand, it was worth an afternoon laugh, so thank-you David.
WMO,
There is effectively no difference in placement between a tier 2/3 school like Brooklyn or NYLS and a low level tier 1 like Tulane. Top 10% graduates of all three schools will get good jobs, the rest will get a pile of debt and a $50k job at a sweatshop firm. http://nycinsurancelaw.googlepages.com/salarychart
The only school you should give up your NYLS scholarship for is one of the top 17 or so schools. These schools place at least 33% of their students in good jobs. The very high ranked schools place all of their students in good jobs.
Most importantly, seriously consider your decision to spend three years of your life on a law degree. Do REALISTIC cost-benefit analysis and see if it's worth it.
L2L
Anonymous - as to your NYLS scholarship, does it renew automatically, or is it contingent on your academic performance? I ask because my law school was very generous with scholarships, but very strict about taking them away if you fell even a percentage point out of the required ranking range.
This is something to take very seriously in that you could lose your scholarship after your first year at NYLS. I went to a local NYC law school and, fortunately, did not listen to people who assured me I'd kick ass simply because I was at a local law school - it is far from easy to be at the top of the class at these places, believe me. The stupidest assumption people make is that because they're at Cardozo, Brooklyn, NYLS, etc. instead of NYU or Columbia they'll simply ascend to the top of the class.
My $.02? If you know you want to be in the South, go to Tulane or another southern school. Regions tend to favor their own regional schools and can be very parochial about that kind of thing. Tulane is also national enough to bring you back to NYC, if need be.