SECOND... to say HLS is a bunch of assholes

Millionth! to find the dude incredibly lame. "claims to be a virgin"...wow. Somebody put him out of his narcissistic misery.

Crespo isn't the editor who blew up this Note in the initial go-round.

All Harvard Law Review editors are virgins.

At least he is honest about it.

TWO Oxfords? Grossed out by sex? Sounds like a human disaster.

4:52 - This Note didn't get blown up - it got published.

4:55, even wearing ONE oxford shirt to the gym is one oxford too many.

Who DOES that?

I wear 2 Oxfords to work to make myself look more muscular. But doing that at the gym is just odd.

Guys at my HLS used to wear two Oxfords all the time; it was no big deal.

stop hating on HLS because you didn't get in.

How long until FratStud mentions that guys at his high school used to wear two Oxfords to the gym all the time and it was no big deal?

5:09 here -- Never mind, I've got my answer.

You're saying Andrew Crespo, despite his liberal reputation and somewhat activist orientation (I believe he's committed to public defender work) vetoed this piece of trash?

And then Robert Allen, the new president, who I thought is viewed as a moderate, and who's a Sears Prize winner regarded for his brilliance, APPROVED it? Why in the hell would Allen approve something this pathetic, as one of his first editorial decisions in office? It makes no sense to me. Review editors, comment please?

(5:24 p.m.)

One more thing: since the Review keeping quiet about everything, why don't editors who actually care about editorial standards feed info (anonymously, if necessary) to one of the bloggers behind the new blogs Lat's linked to. They seem pretty worked up.

Obviously I don't mean Phil's blog (if it is Phil) -- the clown blog and the dude who says his grandfather started the Review (I assume he's exxagerating; I thought Brandeis started it). I'm thinking some inside info, ideally docuements, implicating the people who screwed this up would help with a housecleaning.

Just a thought. Certainly wouldn't want anyone to fail to comply with any of the rules on disclosing Law Review info which Lat publicized lat year!

This story shows with stark clarity that the only people who love circlejerks more than lawyers are bloggers.

Hey, on Prettier Than Napolean there's a mysterious comment by an HLS student saying that it's obvious to everyone who the note author is -- but she doesn't think anyone should disclose the name, at least now, because the author should be given a chance to come forward:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670

What's the big deal? On Phil's note, within hours everyone knew it was Phil. Anyone know who it is? If so, spill the beans! Might be someone else with a hat collection, or with a psychological disorder which reminds me of the character Jerry "Hands" Espenson on Boston Legal, who would make for good fun in comments!

SERIOUS QUESTION:

Who is *less* employable, (1) Phil Telfeyan, OR (2) former AG Alberto Gonzales?

5:40: While Phil's Note may be a crime, it is not, strictly speaking, a felony. Cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 606 (Hatch Act), 1001 (false statements within federal jurisdiction), 1503 (obstruction of justice), 1505 (obstruction of Congress), 1621 (perjury).

Phil's less employable, because at least Gonzales can get a gig speaking at a high school graduation:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15746.html

BTW, I was stunned by the rumor that Phil may have gotten the Janice Rogers Brown clerkship by pretending to be a conservative. Boy, did she buy a pig in a poke!

(Aside: someone commented on one of Lat's earlier posts that Brown managed to hire the only other HLR editor who was involved in a scandal on his note)

(5:46)

One final thing -- I think Lat's treading in dangerous waters (maybe that's the wrong metaphor) in writing: "There are rumors that he may have presented himself as being more conservative than he actually is during the clerkship application process."

Suppose Phil didn't do anything wrong. Suppose Brown swears under oath that Phil was 100% up front about being a liberal, and she hired him because she likes diversity. I don't think Lat can avoid libel exposure just by saying he was only passing along "rumors."

5:40: Note author is Chiraag Bains.

On Ames moot court team, hence no plagiarism issue.

Perfectly normal, nice guy, so nothing to gossip about. Find someplace else to troll.

5:24: Bob Allen did not approve this note; it was approved before his tenure by a delegee of Crespo. Allen would have had to take extraordinary steps to kill the note, which he reportedly considered doing. I heard that Phil gave Allen a false and misleading sob story about his family (and cried!) to prevent him from doing so. Bob Allen is not to blame for this fiasco. He blew up Alex's note, which reportedly was even worse.

6:45: Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while?

Hey, 6:50, Give me your phone # so I can come find you and we can discuss who is going to stop talking.

(5:24 back)

6:41, thank you for the clarification, if indeed your statements are accurate.

I'm a former HLR editor, from way back, and was surprised by the idea that this awful May note was somehow killed by the outgoing president, and then revived by the incoming president -- especially given what I've read (in the Record and on blogs) about Crespo being a leftist, and Allen not being controversial, and being really smart.

My recollection is that for a May note, a draft had to be in by January, and it had to be in pretty solid shape by February, so the outgoing president would be in charge. So what you say about Crespo pushing it through, and Allen merely not killing it, makes total sense.

Still, I have to say -- and I say this with all due respect to Allen, though I don't personally know him -- that Allen shoulders the main responsibility because he had at least two solid months to consider whether to kill Phil's note, and he didn't kill it. The whole point of having an executive structure, with the president at the top, is to have someone charged with upholding the scholarly standards of the review, and prepared to kill pieces as necessary to do that. To borrow a phrase from Phil's note, Allen failed to "do the right thing at every moment."

(6:56 back)

I don't condone 6:45's tenor, but I do have some FREE ADVICE FOR PHIL.

Phil, if Lat's summary is to be believed, you've let 2 weeks go by without responding to any of his e-mails.

There are two key points here: (1) you haven't confirmed or denied whether you authored the note; and (2) you haven't confirmed or denied whether you authored the blog in support of the note (dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com).

Really, to stop looking absolutely insane to everyone, you need to confirm or deny each of these points. You look like a complete idiot in refusing to do that. Especially if you didn't author the blog, you look like you're confirming your authorship by saying nothing (especially given the comment of a HLS student on Concurring Opinions that (s)he heard a rumor you were authoring the blog while not admitting it, to maintain the option of pretending it wasn't yours -- which seems to be exactly what's going on here).

I don't think you need to do more than address these 2 points. I think people can understand why you don't want to dwell on all this stuff.

To make this easy on you Phil, I suggest that you can clear away this matter by simply e-mailing Lat, using your harvard.edu e-mail account, either the number 1, 2, 3, or 4, with the number you select corresponding to the following list of answers on the two key points:

1. "I authored the note, and the blog."

2. "I authored the note, but not the blog."

3. I didn't author the note, but I authored the blog."

4. "I authored neither the note nor the blog."

Phil, I assume the answer is either 1 or 2. Just e-mail whatever the number is to Lat, and we can be done with this!

(6:56 back yet again)

I've now looked past 6:45's bad language, and seen that he's making a substantive mistake.

I don't read 6:25 as saying that Bains authored the note which everyone (but Phil) says Phil wrote. It seems clear Phil wrote that.

I read 6:25 as responding to 5:40's question about who wrote THE OTHER NOTE in the May issue which now has come under attack (on the new Harvard Law Review Review blog Lat links to). He's saying Bains authored that one -- and that it's okay, because Bains was on the moot court brief, so he was plagiarizing from himself; plus, Bains unlike Phil is a normal guy, so there's nothing to gossip about.

This is confusing, even to me, but the bottom line is I don't think anyone's trying to pin the blame on Bains for Phil's note.

You're like Fox News.

You start stirring something up enough and then it becomes "the controvery." There is absolutely no controversy here. This was legitimate, interesting piece.

Whenever someone says anything the least negative about big law firms, you get your panties in a bunch. I suggest you either change the name of your blog to reflect the fact that your goal is to promote big, corporate firms (such as "Above the BigLaw") or stop acting as an apologist for them.

Two points:

First, at least it sounds like Phil won't be reproducing.

Second, to answer 5:40(2)'s question, Phil is more employable. And his folly was writing a crappy note, so crappy that all the world took notice. But still. Twentysomething writing a Note that makes him look like a brainless, sloppy douchebag vs. AG AG...well...doing what he did as AG? No comparison.

Not that I'm suggesting hiring Philly Boy, just theoretically someone should hire Phil more easily than AG AG. Easier to outgrow douchiness and develop solid work habits than rehab from a life of crime.

BASIC INFO ON "CHIGGER BRAINS"

The guy who outed Chiraag Bains as the author of the May note which plagiarized from the losing moot court brief says he's a normal, nice guy. Don't know him, but thought I should pull some quick stuff off google to see if it supports that view.

Everyone calls Phil just "Phil" because no one can remember how to spell his last name. Here, the problem is with the guy's first name. Can't keep track of that, so I propose he be called "Chigger Brains." If you can't make fun of the guy, make fun of the name!

Born in Canada to Indian parents; naturalized in 2000:
http://www.pdsoros.org/fellows.cfm?year=2005

Ayn Rand groupie -- to the point of making it to the semi-final round of a contest for best essay on The Fountainhead!:
http://www.aynrandnovels.com/AREssays.php?pagename=education_contest_winners_fount1998

Yale double major in "history and ethnicity, race & migration" (huh??). Also "enjoys plays, movies about lawyers, and old time radio programs." And nice picture of the dude! All here:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k13943&pageid=icb.page63526&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent189384&view=seqslideshow.do&viewParam_index=0

He also "enjoys playing basketball and honing his skills as a hip hop and bhangra DJ."
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/Summer/Summer02/galbraithstdts2002.htm

Is on the record that spelling is very important: "Spelling is, like grammar, a ligament in the body of language; it keeps the language together and keeps it working properly. Without spelling, people would not be able to fully and easily understand each other." Awesome insight!
http://www.wordsmiths.org.za/quotes.html

He's committed to criminal justice reform and combating institutional racism."
http://www.coro.org/site/c.nvI2IeNZJyE/b.2213029/k.B4D1/2004__2005_Coro_Fellows_in_New_York.htm

That's why, in 2003, he posed this vital question: " Is hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out, and going platinum?"
http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1870

Plans career in public service (cool photo):
http://www.bigsight.org/chiraag_bains

Signed pretentious letter in 2004 saying he doesn't like George Bush:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news/live/letter_0717.pdf

Likes helping sex offenders:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/admissions/2006/10/18/summer-at-the-southern-center-for-human-rights
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2008/03/ga-georgias-hb-1059-saga-of-legislative.html

Yeah, I guess he's pretty normal -- at least compared to Phil.

God, 6:45, you are an idiot.

Apparently Chiraag Bains authored the OTHER May 2008 note in the HLR about the ministerial exception to Title VII. That note lifted paragraphs wholesale from Chiraag's team's Ames moot court brief, which is unoriginal but not plagiarism (assuming he only quoted portions he wrote or had permission from the others).

Nevertheless, it seems pathetic that the HLR is publishing "something which was copied in part from a brief which was crafted in an advocacy posture for a moot court exercise in which the six students were assigned to argue for a predetermined result", and a losing brief at that.

In other words, the Harvard Law Review class of 2008 is a bit of a disaster.

No way the new President Allen approved this. Allen is about 6'6'' and a Sears Prize winner. No one crosses him.

(7:13)

8:07, I made this exact point at 7:13. Don't you bother to read posts which appear after posts you want to attack?

For what it's worth, I doubt Bains lifted ONLY research/analysis/language which he personnally authored, inasmuch as there were 6 people on the team. Did he really have permission from the others? Even if he did, he should have disclosed that this stuff was unoriginal, and also that the conclusion for which he argued had been randomly selected for him.

I agree on the disaster point. And it may have implications: I doubt the top officers of either year have helped their situation for teaching jobs, or U.S. Supreme Court clerkships (if some are still to be selected).

8:10:

He took over as president 3 months before this appeared. New presidents are responsible for the March, April, May and June issues (maybe not March; I forget).

The buck stops at Allen's desk. Whether he was weak (e.g., if Phil pleaded with him), or didn't understand the risk to the Review's reputation, at bottom it really doesn't matter why he let this through.

Yeah, he's 6-6, but he's real skinny, and has no muscle. Bet even Phil could beat him up. Maybe Phil DID beat him up -- maybe that's how Phil got the note published!

8:14, yes I (8:07) read your post. Heaven forbid two different Internet posts contain criticisms of the same person! Also note that my post expands upon some other points that your 7:13 post did not address, while your 7:13 post contained some ideas that I did not write.

Speaking of clerkships, who's Crespo clerking for? Just curious ...

Gotta post the full text of Chigger Brains's hip-hop piece in the 2/28/2003 Yale Herald (quote about half-naked girls posted 8:03):

Hip-hop's unsung Stars blaze for genre

BY CHIRAAG BAINS

en we look back at music 20 years from now, how will we remember turn-of-the-century hip-hop?
Maybe we'll think of how the lyrical genius Ja Rule dominated three of the six songs on the Hot
97 playlist. Or perhaps we'll recall how that charming cartoon minstrel Cita told her B.E.T.
audience to "deal with baby mama drama and keep those hoochies away from your man." Is
hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out,
and going platinum? Is hip-hop Puff dropping his latest moniker on the remix, ruining decent
songs with voiceover whispers of "I told you we won't stop" and "They call me Diddy"?

Sometimes, it really seems that way. Certainly, hip-hop is a diverse culture and its music a
heterogeneous form of expression that defies neat definitions. But the past several years of
commercial music have been pretty disappointing. Despite significant gains made in fusing
American rap and international music, mainstream hip-hop has been strikingly stale and generally
devoid of any serious message.

How many songs can J. Lo put out trying to prove to us that money hasn't changed her and she's
just as "real" as before? How many tracks about hating his mother can Eminem release? These are
hot club songs, but hip-hop has got to be about more than catchy hooks and beats you can grind
to.

As any dedicated hip-hop head will tell you, the music goes far beyond what we're seeing on
MTV or hearing on our local radio station. There is plenty of creative, meaningful music out
there, in the underground and in that nebulous space between underground and commercial
hip-hop. Some of these artists—most recently Mos Def, The Roots, and Common—have broken
through to wider audiences. Others, such as rap duo Binary Star, have yet to enter the
mainstream.

In Nov. 2000, Binary Star, the collaboration of artists One Man Army and Senim Silla, introduced
the world to Masters of the Universe. A remixed version of their limited supply 1999 release
Water World with a few extra tracks, it was one of the most original releases since the early
1990s. As one of the best hip-hop albums I have ever heard, Masters distinguished the duo as two
of hip-hop's greatest MCs.

While you won't find any club hits on the album, you will be blown away by the lyrical mastery
displayed track after track. Binary goes right at their listeners on the opener, "Reality Check,"
letting them know are about the music, not the money: "It ain't all about economy/So the fact that
all these whack MCs is makin' Gs don't bother me/Honestly, my number one policy is
quality/Never sell my soul is my philosophy."

Binary further explores this theme in "Honest Expression," calling out rappers who pretend to be
thugs: "I ain't hardcore, I don't pack a nine millimeter/Most a y'all gangsta rappers ain't hardcore
neither/Whoever get mad, then I'm talkin' 'bout you/Claim you fear no man, but never walk
without crew." But this is by no means a self-righteous, player-hating production. The artists tell a
chilling story of fatal attraction in "Glen Close" and set a horror story to a deliberate, haunting
drumline in "Wolf Man Jack." The album is made complete by an inside look at the MCs through
their personal experiences with prison in "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."

The beats are nothing out of the ordinary, but combined with creative piano loops on multiple
songs, they provide a refreshing alternative to the heavy-hitting Neptunes bass lines that are
currently featured up and down Top 40 radio. The beats conspire with Binary's effortless and
unrelenting flow to hyponotize listeners and lock them into the content of the rhymes.

Masters of the Universe is one of those rare albums you can play through to the end without
skipping over a single track. This is the kind of album you go out and buy—even though you
might have some trouble finding it.

Binary Star is a reminder of what true hip-hop is and what mainstream hip-hop could be. There is
something redeeming about almost everything hip-hop has given us, but I'm growing weary of the
same old tired rhymes and misogynistic gangsta posturing. Imagine a music industry in which
listeners got a balance between mindless tracks with dope beats and deep lyrical masterpieces.
Though One Man Army and Senim Silla have yet to announce plans for another joint project, a
plethora of other talented MCs are out there. When we start demanding to hear them and move
beyond this bling-bling phase of hip-hop, we will unleash a world of potential that has been
suppressed for too long.

Chiraag Bains is a senior in Morse College.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1870

Sorry, that version was messed up. This is easier to read:

Hip-hop's unsung Stars blaze for genre

BY CHIRAAG BAINS

When we look back at music 20 years from now, how will we remember turn-of-the-century hip-hop? Maybe we'll think of how the lyrical genius Ja Rule dominated three of the six songs on the Hot 97 playlist. Or perhaps we'll recall how that charming cartoon minstrel Cita told her B.E.T. audience to "deal with baby mama drama and keep those hoochies away from your man." Is hip-hop poppin' a bottle of Cristal, filling your music videos with half-naked girls, getting iced out, and going platinum? Is hip-hop Puff dropping his latest moniker on the remix, ruining decent songs with voiceover whispers of "I told you we won't stop" and "They call me Diddy"?

Sometimes, it really seems that way. Certainly, hip-hop is a diverse culture and its music a heterogeneous form of expression that defies neat definitions. But the past several years of commercial music have been pretty disappointing. Despite significant gains made in fusing American rap and international music, mainstream hip-hop has been strikingly stale and generally devoid of any serious message.

How many songs can J. Lo put out trying to prove to us that money hasn't changed her and she's just as "real" as before? How many tracks about hating his mother can Eminem release? These are hot club songs, but hip-hop has got to be about more than catchy hooks and beats you can grind to.

As any dedicated hip-hop head will tell you, the music goes far beyond what we're seeing on MTV or hearing on our local radio station. There is plenty of creative, meaningful music out there, in the underground and in that nebulous space between underground and commercial hip-hop. Some of these artists—most recently Mos Def, The Roots, and Common—have broken through to wider audiences. Others, such as rap duo Binary Star, have yet to enter the mainstream.

In Nov. 2000, Binary Star, the collaboration of artists One Man Army and Senim Silla, introduced the world to Masters of the Universe. A remixed version of their limited supply 1999 release Water World with a few extra tracks, it was one of the most original releases since the early 1990s. As one of the best hip-hop albums I have ever heard, Masters distinguished the duo as two of hip-hop's greatest MCs.

While you won't find any club hits on the album, you will be blown away by the lyrical mastery displayed track after track. Binary goes right at their listeners on the opener, "Reality Check," letting them know are about the music, not the money: "It ain't all about economy/So the fact that all these whack MCs is makin' Gs don't bother me/Honestly, my number one policy is quality/Never sell my soul is my philosophy."

Binary further explores this theme in "Honest Expression," calling out rappers who pretend to be thugs: "I ain't hardcore, I don't pack a nine millimeter/Most a y'all gangsta rappers ain't hardcore neither/Whoever get mad, then I'm talkin' 'bout you/Claim you fear no man, but never walk without crew." But this is by no means a self-righteous, player-hating production. The artists tell a chilling story of fatal attraction in "Glen Close" and set a horror story to a deliberate, haunting drumline in "Wolf Man Jack." The album is made complete by an inside look at the MCs through their personal experiences with prison in "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings."

The beats are nothing out of the ordinary, but combined with creative piano loops on multiple songs, they provide a refreshing alternative to the heavy-hitting Neptunes bass lines that are currently featured up and down Top 40 radio. The beats conspire with Binary's effortless and unrelenting flow to hyponotize listeners and lock them into the content of the rhymes.

Masters of the Universe is one of those rare albums you can play through to the end without skipping over a single track. This is the kind of album you go out and buy—even though you might have some trouble finding it.

Binary Star is a reminder of what true hip-hop is and what mainstream hip-hop could be. There is something redeeming about almost everything hip-hop has given us, but I'm growing weary of the same old tired rhymes and misogynistic gangsta posturing. Imagine a music industry in which listeners got a balance between mindless tracks with dope beats and deep lyrical masterpieces. Though One Man Army and Senim Silla have yet to announce plans for another joint project, a plethora of other talented MCs are out there. When we start demanding to hear them and move beyond this bling-bling phase of hip-hop, we will unleash a world of potential that has been suppressed for too long.

Chiraag Bains is a senior in Morse College.

(7:13)

8:30, I didn't accuse you of plagiarizing my earlier post on Bains being the author of the 2nd note, not the 1st note . I accused you of being lazy and not having read it.

Regarding Bains, why are people dragging him through the mud now? I can't keep these stupid "scandals" straight. It should come as no surprise that a number of student pieces are not top-rate scholarship; virtually all of them are first publications. It is pretty mean-spirited and pathetic to pile on these poor students who had the guts to put something out there and get it published. Also, if Bains is indeed a huge Ayn Rand fan, doesn't this fact undermine the thesis of Lat and his anonymous commenters that the Harvard Law Review has been taken over by left-wingers?

I am a current HLR editor. The author of the ministerial exception note is not Chiraag, so people should probably stop posting stuff about him...

"Mean spirited and pathetic to pile on these poor students"? Give me a break.

When you publish something, you invite peer review. That's the whole point of publication, to let your work fend for itself in the marketplace of ideas. This note was shit, and it deserves to be trashed. This is grad school, not high school. Every published piece should be publishable. There are no academic training wheels.

Was it written by Elizabeth Barchas then? Somehow I doubt she would stoop to publish something with such low standards.

If it is written by neither Elizabeth Barchas or Chiraag Bains, and I'm certain the other team members are not secretly editors on the HLR, then I think we got ourselves a case of AMES-BRIEF-PLAGIARISM-GATE!

9:27: Look, all the HLR editors know who wrote this, and several hours ago an HLR editor outed Bains at the editor; said he was on the Ames team; said he was a normal said -- so that there was nothing further to say.

It makes no sense that an HLR editor would name Bains as the author if that wasn't true. Therefore, I have to assume Bains is the author. Your claim that Bains is the author comes only after various derogatory comments have been made about Bains, which is what I'd expect from someone who is trying to protect Bains.

I think people will (at least I will) regard Bains as the author unless and until the Review officially announces that someone else is the author.

9:38: The problem here is there is no accountability, because editors at the review like Phil and Bains are able to hide behind the "unsigned notes" rule, figuring they won't get attacked for scholarly lapses.

(9:46)
I meant your claim that Bains ISN'T the author comes only after Bains has been ridiculed, which is a little to late to be credible.

Since I'm not a HLR editor, I guess people will cut me some slack.

The person who "outed" him earlier on this blog did not claim to be an HLR editor. It wasn't him. You can believe me or not. But it simply wasn't him.

(9:46)

Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.

So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:

1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.

2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).

This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.

As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.

So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.

9:27/9:53, you're starting to sound like Shaggy in It Wasn't Me.

Your blanket denial is worthless. Give an explanation or tell us who it actually is.

9:53: Who was it? If you're trying to correct the record, and especially since you're anonymous, you advance your case (and credibility) by naming the actual author.

Alternatively, if you just want to credibly state for the record that Bains is not the author, you should publicly identify yourself, and e-mail Lat using your harvard.edu account, to confirm that you're actually who you say you are. I think the readers will trust an on-the-record statement from an editor that Bains is not the author, because they would doubt that you would publicly lie when any such lie would eventually be established through other sources.

In other words, if you identify yourself, you can clear Bains of being the author and thus spare him abuse you're worried about -- and you can do so without naming the actual author.

The only reason I can think of for you NOT identifying yourself in this way is if, in fact, you're trying to clear Bains of being the author when, in fact, he is the author.

Final point -- alternatively, if you don't want to get publicly involved, just call and/or e-mail Bains and tell him to immediately e-mail Lat with his harvard.edu account, publicly denying he's the author. Lat of course will fully credit that and publicize it immediately.

If NEITHER of these things happen -- you don't publicly identify yourself and put your personal credibility behind your statement, and Bains doesn't e-mail Lat to deny authorship -- obviously everyone will conclude that Bains is the author. Which will be entirely fair.

I would think that while any doubt exists, tomorrow morning people will lay off Bains. But if no authoritative statement clearing him of authorship comes out by then, I assume he'll get continued abuse, as the presumption of authorship continues to cement.

9:53: The person who named Bains hours ago didn't have to explicitly claim to be an HLR editor, you idiot! It was implicit -- how else would he or she have known?

You and the other HLR editors were happy to go along with this for hours until Bains decided he didn't like the comments made about him. Then he suddenly became not the author. Interesting.

What a silly way to run a Law Review. Why are you all afraid to put your name on what you write? And why are you so gutless that you will not identify yourselves, and will not defend your work, even when scholarly flaws in the pieces are pointed out? Maybe you are at "Harvard Clown School." I don't think there's any other law school with a circus like this.

(9:46)

Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.

So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:

1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.

2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).

This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.

As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.

So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.

(9:46)

Now, on 9:39. I checked the brief, and it does look like Elizabeth Barchas was on both the Ames team, and is on the Review.

So, 9:27, would you be a little more specific? If you're saying (which I doubt) that Bains IS NOT the author, what exactly is your assertion:

1. Elizabeth Barchas is the author.

2. Someone else on the Review, who was not on the Ames team, is the author (and may or may not have had permission to copy from the Ames brief writers).

This is looking a little like the initial discussion on the first note -- it's Alec -- no it's Phil -- no it's Alec -- no it's Phil, etc.

As I said, I assume the author's Bains. But even if the author's Barchas, Bains is a fair target for criticism -- as is the president Allen -- because they all knew this note was lifted in part from an Ames brief arguing to a random conclusion, and they did nothing to stop it, nor to alert readers.

So based on my own moral compass (helpfully informed by Phil's "do the right thing at every moment" analysis), I think they are all fair game, regardless of who exactly wrote what on the note.

Another HLR editor here: There is no story on the ministerial exception Note, which is a fine piece, regardless of the apparent overlap. An Ames brief has no effect on the scholarly conversation, so I'm glad the research has reached a broader audience. Profs regularly write overlapping books and articles. This is truly unremarkable.

Also, Bains is not the author. I'm glad we have anonymity.

Yeesh. Really, Lat: I don't mind you milking this HLR thing for all its worth, since anything Harvard-related seems to get your audience all riled up.

But as to Phil's virginity: really? You're going to go there? And report on it based solely on what other HLR editors, obviously among those who don't like the guy, have told you? Without even an ostensible link to the Note he published? Second-hand reports of a kid's virginity are the stuff of high-school locker-room gossip, and one would think they're below even this "legal tabloid."

This is silly. not funny.

I feel really bad for the people being named in this discussion, whether they committed the "offenses" they are being accused of or not. The commenters here are some very sad people (as are the website administrators if they know what they have started). Accusing someone of plagarism based on very thin evidence and detective work on google is pretty questionable, to say the least. And the defense that anonymously sliming someone on a blog is "peer review" is ridiculous. An anonymous blog commenter is not the peer of the author of a published note.

Sorry for being so ignorant, but . . . is there any other law review where people can write anonymous articles? How can there be any scholarly debate if people can deny their identities?
It's double weird that students get this free anonymity but not professors.

Also, why hasn't anybody commented on how bad this article was: (it's how one HLR editor believes we can prevent nuclear war)

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/may08/notes/the_incentive_gap.pdf

It's basically a rehash of Professor Allison's book, not to mention terribly written and facile.

If you want to see really rigid and ideological writing, I recommend you check out pretty much anything written by a law student under the banner of "law & economics."

Barchas wrote the note. It seems perfectly fine to me. You should all relax.

explain, 12:29

11:16, did you even read the critique of the ministerial's exception note? It copies entire paragraphs from the Ames brief, not just some "apparent overlap" which you disingenuously try to downplay. Overlap is writing about the same overall subject, not repeating the same sentence constructions in two different works without cross-attribution.

Only part of the critique is about plagiarism. The point is that even if the author copied her own work and there is no actual plagiarism (though she should have cited the Ames brief when copying the sentences), it seems there are pretty poor HLR editorial standards if they allow reprinting of team-effort Ames briefs that were written in response to pre-assigned arguments for set questions.

If you're another HLR editor trying to save your own resume, don't dig a bigger hole for yourself.

Do you nerds ever get laid? Seriously.

The Phil thing was so great!!! and this "ministerial exception" thing is so lame!!!! Authors crib their own work all the time, it's not plaigarism. What do you have to do, change a few words around so ATL commentators don't get upset? And why should HLR care that the paragraphs in question came from "briefs that were written in response to pre-assigned arguments for set questions." A good argument is a good argument -- if it works in the context of her note, that's all that matters. And no, you don't cite to an unpublished moot court brief, wtf would be the point in that?

The only thing that would be an issue here is if she didn't write the brief, and then claimed authorship of it in the note.

12:00, the problem isn't Lat, or commentators attacking people they don't know committed the offenses or not. The problem is that the Review hides the author's names from readers (is there any other major law journal which does?), and won't disclose them even if there are scholarly problems with a piece. Cover-ups just create more attention -- here, the attempted cover-up on Phil's note led to attention, which led to a discovery of problems with a 2nd note. Now, apparently, there are problems being discussed w/ a 3rd note. None of this, and most of the personal attacks on Phil, wouldn't have occurred if the Review had addressed the first report 2 weeks ago.

I'm with 6:39. "Relax, we let editors regurgitate the joint work product of 6 students from a randomly assigned Ames exercise, into a Note which purports to be fresh, original scholarship even though it's just ripped off from a losing Ames brief from 6 months ago," is only going to dig the hole deeper for your editors. It's going to make people think (hopefully incorrectly) that the Review will publish virtually any crap a student comes up with.

Even more problematic when:

1. They publish the Notes anonymously so it's virtually impossible for anyone to catch this sort of thing (the critic discovered it only b/c of a student who saw Ames and read the May issue; if the Notes were signed, and if the author is an Ames team member, readers could have put 2 and 2 together much more easily).

2. Even when someone does uncover work below scholarly standards, and the commentators take the trouble to ferret out who's the author (which apparently hasn't happened yet here), no one on the Review is willing to use his or her own name (not even the author) to defend the work, or make any other comment.

If there's someone on the Review willing to make any public statement on this note -- e.g., clearing one of the 2 people who've been suggested as the author, or defending the substance -- I'm sure readers would love to see it. Absent that, this will likely just keep snowballing.

(9:40)

Reading more of the comments, I'm also 100% with 6:39. The plagiarism is only a small part of the problem. That seems very clear from the "Harvard Law Review Review" blog to which Lat linked. Anyone trying to pass this off as nothing needs to read that, and respond to it if possible. People coming to this issue without prior knowledge (I'm thinking print journalists, who may soon be looking into this) are likely to find it convincing. If there's some good response, people who think this is nothing need to get it out there.

Hehe... This has really brightened my day, thanks.

From my vantage point, I don't really care too much about the supposed plagarism. That's more of a concern for academics than folks in the trenches like me. If the student wrote the Ames brief & turned it into a note, more power to her.

But what it DOES do is reemphasize my belief that journal work is an imperfect proxy for legal ability. Student editors may be diligent & bright, but they lack the real-world experience necessary to critically evaluate articles, notes, and the like. If I could only get everyone else to believe that law review is a net null on the resume, we'd all be set!

-- ET! (who also wants a pony, while he's dreaming)

1) It is utterly ridiculous to say that unless someone comes out and says he/she didn't author a piece, he/she is the author. No one owes a duty to confirm or deny anything to anyone on this blog. The author of every student note in the HLR is HLR. Thus, any critique of a note should be directed to HLR, not to individuals whom you assume wrote it because some anonymous blogger said so.

2) Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? If I write a brief, and a friend of mine lifts language verbatim from the brief and publishes it as an original piece, I don't think it would be able to claim plagarism unless I had previously published the piece in a journal that has copyrights to the work, or I myself have copyrights to the work. So stop the plagarism claims.

10:08,

"Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? "

No. Plagiarism can be done without copyright.

I just finished my 2L year at HLS. I think Bains is the actual author (I'm 95% sure). Here's why.

Bains is older, with much more academic experience, than most students (he was a Marshall Scholar, which he doesn't mind mentioning). He's known as an excellent writer, and I believe he did much of the actual writing on the Ames brief. In the fall I ran into him a couple of times at Langdell. At one point he said he was thinking of turning his work into a note.

Of course, there were 2 issues in the brief. At the tmie, of course, I paid no attention to what issue he was talking about doing a note on, and he probably didn't even mention it. But my assumption is he was talking about the ministerial exception note. From watching Ames, I recall the other issue was a narrow procedural issue about the facts of the case, which I don't think Bains would try to do a note on.

If I'm correct, as I'm almost certain is the case, that Bains was the author, I don't see the plagiarism issue. He did the lion's share of the writing on the brief, and it seems fine for him to take that work and turn it into a note. What was he supposed to do, put all that time into researching and writing something on a cutting-edge topic, and then pick a totally different topic to write a note on?

10:08, the Review is in big trouble if it tries to claim that "Harvard Law Review" is the author of the ministerial exception note. Reason? "Harvard Law Review" clearly isn't the author of the Ames brief. Six students (four of which apparently aren't on the Review) authored the Ames brief.

So if "Harvard Law Review" is the author, it's plagiarism, pure and simply.

The Review's only defense to the plagiarism charge, seems to me, is if it names the author, if the author is one of the six students on the Ames brief, AND if the author states for the record that he or she personally authored the specific material in the Ames brief which was lifted.

Sure, there's no "duty" for the author to confirm or deny authorship. It's just that if the author, or Review, doesn't do that (assuming the author IS one of the six Ames briefers), it will leave unrebutted the very serious charge that the "Harvard Law Review" plagiarized from a losing Ames brief put on the internet 6 months ago.

This seems like a particular dangerous time for the Review to leave such a charge unrebutted, given all the attention the Review is now getting with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, having been president of the Review.

OMG. The return of "enjointhis." Can judgment day be far behind?

10:23

First, I'm still not convinced that if the alleged facts are true, there is plagarism. Admittedly, I don't know much about this area, but it seems odd that any brief could be plagarized. If I say, "hey, you plagarized my brief," and then to offer proof of your plagarism I show the court my brief, how does the court know that I didn't plagarize my brief from someone else? Isn't that the whole point of copyright law? Correct me if I'm wrong.

2) Comments on a blog hardly constitute a "charge" the HLR should feel the need to respond too. If that were the case, they should spend the next year preparing responses to all the countless charges brought against them every day. Sorry to burst anyone's ego, but anonymous comments on ATL are not yet considered newsworthy.

3) Not sure if the review is getting that much attention because of Barack. Yes, he was the president some years ago, but that's about all I've heard on the news in regards to the HLR.

zOMG why do you people care so much? VIRGINS!!!

11:28 PM: "Second-hand reports of a kid's virginity are the stuff of high-school locker-room gossip, and one would think they're below even this 'legal tabloid'."

Isn't the appeal of tabloids, legal and otherwise, due to their lack of such standards?

10:08,
You are an idiot. Maybe you are one of the TTT students that now seem to populate the Harvard Law Review.
1. It's silly to say that the author of a HLR note is HLR and not the author.
2. Everyone knows that plagiarism has nothing to do with copywright. At any law school, you'd be expelled for plagiarism for copying the work of someone else, even if this work was not officially published or copywrighted.

1:54.

1) The conscious decision to publish all notes on behalf of the journal attributes the piece to the journal. Whether this is silly or not may be debatable, but it is true. (it should also be noted that journals hold the copyrights to all of the pieces they publish, unless the author has worked out a special arrangement).

2) Whether one is expelled from school, fired from a job, etc. for plagarism, does not mean that the person committed plagarism according to the law. It means the person committed plagarism as defined by that institution.

3) Name calling will not help your point. They teach those types of things on law review.

10:08

6/4, 9:39pm: "Was it written by Elizabeth Barchas then? Somehow I doubt she would stoop to publish something with such low standards."

I agree. I'm a rising 2L at Harvard. Barchas is a legend on campus. She has a reputation for being very hard-working and meticulous. She is also very personable, to the point where I think she is a likely future federal judge if she wants it. I do not believe Barchas would copy material from a brief into a scholarly note (at least without disclosing it).

Indeed, she's so highly respected she was picked by her own Ames team members as one of the 2 Ames oralists (another reason why Bains, being involved only in the briefing, makes much more sense as the note author).

If, in fact, the earlier posts (and my own impressions) are correct that Bains must be the author (he's the only other Ames team member other than Barchas who's on the Review), I think Bains needs to be a man and admit to it, to spare Barchas unfair abuse that may come her way if people continue to -- falsely, it seems -- float her name as a possible author.

Indeed -- and this may just be my 1L torts theorizing talking -- isn't it possible that Bains would be legally liable for helping perpetuate Barchas being depicted in a "false light" if he doesn't promptly come out and admit that he's the author (assuming he is in fact the author, which seems likely).

That is, if he knows Barchas is being falsely depicted, he knows the situation is because of a note he published, and he knows there's confusion because the note's unsigned, doesn't he have a duty to dispel the confusion created by his own actions, by "outing" himself as the note author. Just a thought.

11:08

PLEASE HOLD OFF UNTIL NEXT WEEK!

As you can tell from the comment I left on Amber Taylor's blog, I'm not great fan of the Harvard Law Review:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670

However, I do believe in common human decency. As I stated in my comment, it's obvious to me and I believe to most people at HLS who the note author is. However, people should not go about throwing out the name without giving the Review president (Robert Allen) and the note author a chance to step forward.

As I said in my comment I would, yesterday I e-mailed the president, note author, and the former president the following e-mail calling their attention to my comment (exact e-mail addresses deleted):

From: Beth Chas
To: ___@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu, ____@law.harvard.edu
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Subject: Blog post on problems with ministerial exception Note -- my comment

I thought I should make you aware of a blog comment I made here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/bamber/3942803595211047086/#278670

No reply to me is necessary, but I do think some ction by early next week would help clear away this issue, given that based on the actual facts known to many students (but few outsiders), there would not appear to be a substantial plagiarism issue, provided those facts are somehow noted by the Review.

* * *

I am sure they will be making some appropriate public statement by then. It is important to PLEASE hold off until then, to avoid falsely naming and damaging someone, because today is Harvard's commencement -- there's no way they can deal with this today, or likely tomorrow. That is, both people being named as the supposed author are in graduation ceremonies right now, along with most of their law school friends, and they can't defend themselves against attacks on this blog. Show some decency and give them a chance to deal with this in a reasonable time-frame!

10:08:

You have to be kidding. To address your first comment:

"2) Doesn't a piece have to be copyrighted in order for one to assert plagarism? If I write a brief, and a friend of mine lifts language verbatim from the brief and publishes it as an original piece, I don't think it would be able to claim plagarism unless I had previously published the piece in a journal that has copyrights to the work, or I myself have copyrights to the work. So stop the plagarism claims."

First, please learn how to spell "plagiarism" correctly. Second, as noted earlier (and correctly), plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright. Plagiarism is simply the act of claiming someone else's work as his/her own. Copyright infringement is the act of using protected material without the consent of the copyright holder.

If you are also 10:23 (and I apologize if you are not), I would add that the fact that you can't prove to a court that your brief isn't your own does not negate the fact that your friend plagiarized your "work." The argument isn't about whether or not the material in the brief is your original work but rather the fact that your friend attributed work not of his own creation to him/herself.

Again, copyright law is not necessarily relevant to issues of plagiarism--the point of copyright law is to prevent the unauthorized use of (and profit from) materials to which a party has exclusive rights. Plagiarism can exist without copyright violation and vice versa.

To address your 2nd comment:

"2) Whether one is expelled from school, fired from a job, etc. for plagarism, does not mean that the person committed plagarism according to the law. It means the person committed plagarism as defined by that institution."

What is this "plagarism [sic] according to the law"? There is no such thing. You incorrectly address 10:54's comment by focusing on his/her use of law school expulsion as an example of punishment for plagiarism. The point 10:54 was trying to make was that if a student commits plagiarism while attending law school, he/she may be expelled regardless of whether or not a copyright was violated.

12:01:

Sure, Beth, sounds good.

But for the record, in my personal (but impartial) opinion, after reviewing all the evidence:

THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS

Beth, I take it that your obsessive focus on procedure means you're a friend of his? Maybe a "good friend" (nudge, nudge, know what I mean)? From his google profile (see above), it seems he's quite a player.

10:08 and later commenters who attempted to correct him/her: Copyright comes into being the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Publication is not necessary under the 1976 Act.

Plagiarism is not punishable under copyright law.

12:07, you got the spelling of his name wrong.

His name is "Chigger Brains." Some pretty funny stuff on him here:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/follow_up_on_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-608986

We need a nickname for this dude. Maybe Lat should have a contest -- just read the google links and come up with something creative.

My idea: since Phil Telefyan's called "Hat Boy" (among other, less flattering, names), and since Chigger Brains is a fanatic about spelling, why not call him "Spelling Boy"?

Chigger ("Spelling Boy") Brains.

Or, if he insists, Chiraag ("Spelling Boy") Bains

Jeez, pretty sad when discussion of teh Harvard Law is reduced to a debate over whether it committed MERELY pathetically sloppy scholarship, or actually committed a federal offense in publishing a student note.

None of this matters because real lawyers don't have time to read law reviews.

I don't have time to do this, but someone should to a textual analysis comparing Phil's attributed case comment (29 Harv. J.L. & Gender 493) with the unattributed HLR note. After a quick comparison, I noticed that the same adjectives are found in the unattributed note are present in the same or slightly different forms (deep/deeply; troubling, problematic, unimaginable/imagine) in his attributed case comment. If we had more of Phil's attributed writings, I think it would be fairly easy to point to similarities in word choices, sentence construction, transitional phrases, etc. A separate comparison could be made between his note and other attributed writings and the blog (dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com).

I don't have time to do that, either -- especially because by now I think everyone's concluded that Phil's such a loser, nothing about him is worth anyone's time.

I'm more fascinated by this Bains character. The bit about "Chigger Brains" is juvenile, even racist. But a nickname like Chiraag ("Sex Offender Friend") Bains might fit him.

Consider: as the Google links show, the guy's willing to sign his name to a note in another law journal arguing for increased rights for sex offenders. But he's NOT willing to admit he authored a note in the Harvard Law Review arguing for increased rights for churches?

I guess it's possible he doesn't actually believe churches should have the increased rights advocated in the note, and he only advocated them because he was copying from his Ames brief as to which he was randomly assigned to argue this position. Maybe that's why he doesn't want to admit to authorship.

Still, given Bains's liberal credentials, and the liberal, indeed left-radical nature of the Review (at least in the last year under Crespo, Phil, Alec, etc.), it seems entirely possible that Bains does agree with what his note says, and that the following is the situation:

1. Bains is proud to say he believes sex offenders should have more rights.

2. Bains is not proud to say he believes churches should have more rights. He won't admit to this even where it's necessary to spare his fellow Ames team member unfair accusations of authorship.

I've never commented on ATL before, but my heart is pounding and my stomach hurting after reading these posts. As a former HLR editor, I cannot believe anyone who actually knew Chiraag could malign him like this. I hold Chiraag in the very highest regard, and only wish there were more people like him in the world. He is brilliant but unpretentious, compassionate but humble, well-rounded and fascinating to talk to -- and he would never say a fraction of the things you all feel comfortable saying about someone you don't even know. In fact, all the "evidence" you people have pulled from the web only speaks to his commitment to do good and to the fact that his interests are wider than the narrow legal world you all seem obsessed by. Indeed, I applaud Chiraag and the rest -- yes, even Phil -- for staying out of this. It shows them to be far more mature than you lot.

But I just couldn't let this all pass without saying something. I have profound respect for Chiraag -- his intellect as well as his character -- and am deeply disturbed by these posts. All you armchair critics: it is one thing to find a "scholarly" piece laughable, it is another to obsess about and defame individuals, especially when you have no actual information about them. The internal workings of the law review are none of your business. Please stop.

I don't think Bains, or the Review, should say squat to Lat about this. They should just ignore him. In a week or two, everyone will forget about this. May I humbly suggest everyone get a life.

1:57,

"Beth" (apparently Bains's 2L girlfriend, see 12:01), is that you? "Please stop"? Don't you usually say "Please don't stop" (at least to Bains)?

Seriously, it's you, Bains. Right? You're actually texting a post, pretending to be a sympathetic onlooker (I guess a 4L, who knew you on the Review last year?), FROM YOUR OWN DAMN GRADUATION? If so, you are a brilliant guy, 'cause it's really good prose, especially written in haste. And great spelling, as usual!

(2:05)

The only substantive thing 1:57 said was: "The internal workings of the law review are none of your business."

Incorrect. In effect, Bains's note defrauded readers because it didn't disclose the note was a rip-off of a 6 month old losing Ames brief which Bains (and 5 others) were randomly assigned to write. That makes it readers' business. And if it subjects Bains and the other editors to ridicule (especially Crespo and Allen, the old and new presidents), it's deserved ridicule.

Chiraag's hip-hop article is very similar to the HLS note in its rambling and pointless nature.

1:57 = Bains

FIRST TO SAY:

My God: what a clusterf**k in Gannett House!

Are all Law Reviews as much of a shark tank as this? It's like a frickin' Mexican Firing Squad! (No ethnic offense intended; I just couldn't think of a more apt metaphor for this fratricidal mess)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mexican+Firing+Squad

This is getting absurd. Any normal institution would just issue an appropriate press release and get on with its mission. The supposedly leading law journal in the world is just going to ignore attacks made on two pieces in its current issue which call into question its scholarly integrity?

5:57: give me a break. ATL ≠ NYT. no response to a self-described legal tabloid is necessary to defend HLR's scholarly integrity.

5:15 was never on the HLR.

I agree. Several Harvard law students, and at least one Review editor (5:15, who couldn't know what's in the post unless he or she were on the Review) have identified Chiraag Bains as the author. The blogger Lat linked to extensively documented the scholarly flaws in Bain's note, and the fraud on the reader it represents. Bains doesn't deny being the author, and he hasn't answered the attack on his ethics.

Obviously, someone in Bains's position who had something to say which could help his position would say it -- and if he doesn't, both in the near future readers today, and those googling Bains in the future, can draw the appropriate conclusion.

As to HLR's scholarly integrity, only someone with the arrogance and fishbowl mentality of the typical HLR editor would think the broad publicity on the internet about the ridiculous content of the HLR's May issue is harmless to the HLR.

(7:44)

7:13:

5:15 seems to have quite detailed knowledge about the inner workings of the HLR for someone who "was never on the HLR."

In any case, this looks like "mystery solved," author of flawed note appropriately ridiculed for ripping off his losing Ames brief, mission accomplished -- unless Bains does something stupid like Phil and starts a blog!

Baines was not a Marshall. He got dinged by Rhodes and Marshall.

7:49:

Who cares if he didn't win a Marshall or Rhodes? That's not the issue -- the issue is his note. Seems below the belt to suggest he's an academic failure; he did graduate from Yale and was on the Harvard Law Review (which I think used to mean something).

5:25: "Mexican Firing Squad." Apt description of HLR last 2 weeks.

1:57 & 6:46: You say the internal workings of the HLR are no one's business and Lat just runs a "legal tabloid." But isn't it interesting that in only 2 weeks through ATL he surfaced all the key internal details concerning both Phil & his note, and that in only a day he's done the same concerning Bains & his note? HLR looks like a creaky institution that's having difficulty adjusting to the internet/blog world.

This makes me sick.

Good god--how pathetic can people get? The people talked about in this thread are good, decent, intelligent, sincere people, and this conversation is absolutely ridiculous.

You people are not only mocking or joking around--you're threatening the careers of very good people who don't deserve one iota of this garbage. Grow up.

Folks, it wasn't Chiraag. It was Elizabeth Barchas. Chiraag didn't do a note. The person quoting the greenbook may or may not be on HLR, but if s/he is, s/he's lying about the identity of the author for reasons that I cannot fathom.

Fraud on the reader? Assuming the note does draw on the Ames brief, how is this situtation any different than when a former student polishes up a seminar paper and publishes it? You have to disclose when you have really picked sides on an issue and are filing amicus briefs, not when your work was part of an educational experience. At worst, this situation is analogous to being assigned a group paper or report for a class and then using some of your section as the basis for a publication. It does not amount to plagiarism.

Bains may not have been a Rhodes or a Marshall but he was a Truman, a Gates, AND a Soros, in addition to being on law review, graduating with honors, and landing an appellate clerkship. Those are the kind of credentials that make Auto Admit types very jealous, which probably explains much of the anonymous uproar here.

9:48 (1): Your just proving the point made by 8:44, "HLR looks like a creaky institution that's having difficulty adjusting to the internet/blog world."

If the HLR had just e-mailed Lat within a day of the first post on Phil's note, saying Phil authored it and correcting the objective mistakes, this whole thing would have gone away . Jay Jay what's his name never would have done a blog, and Lat's readers wouldn't be talking about Bains's note. With all the resume-stuffing, title inflation the HLR's witnessed in recent years, maybe it should create the post of "Public Relations Editor," staffed by someone with PR experience. Or, actually hire a publicist on a as-needed basis -- and the needs seem to be growing with each passing day.

(9:48)

9:50: See my post of 9:48. On the admitted facts (they seem admitted, at least) and on the face of the note, Bains's note violated Harvard's policies on academic honesty. I see no room for debate. I don't necessarily agree that the rules should be as stringent as they clearly are, and it may not be fair that professors can get away with far worse, but it seems clear Bains violated the rules on academic honesty (assuming, as I've said, it was Bains, which has been the consensus for the past 24 hours).

I fail to see the relevance of whatever scholarships Bains may have, or how good his grades were, etc. The rules don't make anything turn on that. And even inadvertence is no defense.

9:54 back

9:49, just over an hour after Lat did the above post, someone (I presume on Law Review) outed Bains as the author. Since then, several others have confirmed he was the author, including one student who Bains told in Langdell that he was turning his brief into a note (that student didn't see anything wrong with it), and the clearly HLR editor who quoted chapter and verse of the editor book in his/her post.

Now, only after Bains has been attacked for academic dishonesty, you assert that he's not the author. You admit that the latest confirmation that he IS the author must have come from an editor, but you claim he/she must be lying, for reasons you can't fathom. Does that make any sense to anyone?

If you're telling the truth, then identify yourself, and give your harvard.edu e-mail address, so people can confirm you're legit (they run out soon anyway, right, so you don't have to worry long-term about spam). If you don't identify yourself, obviously readers will conclude that you're the one lying to try to discredit the editor who left the long and angry tirade against Allen and the others who messed this up.

Maybe there are some Auto Admit vultures on here, but I'm an HLS alum, do not hang out on Auto Admit, and am interested only in seeing people at HLS behave like grownups.

(9:48 & 9:59)

On 2nd thought, 9:50 strikes me as an Auto Admit troll. I probably should have ignored it. It seems poorly written, and the 2nd para. with the irrelevant detail on Bains's scholarships was probably just bait to draw a response -- which in my case worked. Please excuse my hurried read.

I do think some -- maybe 10% -- of the comments on this thread are just trying to stir up random controversy.

Chiraag did not write a note. The note was authored by Elizabeth Barchas. She drew on her own research and writing from her own Ames brief when doing so, not very different from countless notes that draw on -- or are the same as -- papers written for classes.

10:48 is exactly right. Elizabeth drew on her own great work, and people who took the opportunity to anonymously pounce on the humble and classy Chiraag should take a long look in the mirror.

Wow, this is the most misguided witch hunt ever. It's surprising, really. I helped edit this note. Everyone currently on HLR (myself included) can tell you that Elizabeth Barchas wrote it. She would have proudly told you that herself before this hit the blogs. We've been in graduation festivities all day, so most of us are just now noticing this. I hope this clears things up.

By the way, this isn't a mark against Elizabeth. Her note is her own work, and it is carefully argued. I can't fathom how this is being compared to the "Never Again" note.

People, it's entirely possible to plagiarize your own work. It's called self-plagiarism.

The key here is whether the Ames brief is more like a rough draft (which would be ok), or more like a previously-published article. I would say the latter.

(10:14)

10:48, 12:14, and 12:46 strike me as trolls. Probably the same person, given the lateness of the hour. The debate had basically reached a resolution (Bains identified as the author by multiple people, including at least one HLR editor, during the last day), and now it's being stirred up again. 12:46's use of the word "fathom" suggests it's the same person who used "fathom" at 9:49, which would mean that's a troll comment, too, not to be credited (note to commentator: not many people use "fathom"; also, please disclose when you're making multiple postings, as I do).

For a HLR editor to post anything would be contrary to 5:15, who is clearly an editor and who confirmed it was Bains. 5:15 covered in detail the reasons for the HLR's decision to remain silent. (Which actually strikes me as amusing: the Harvard Law Review "taking the Fifth" in response to accusations of scholarly fraud in two notes).

If the comments aren't by a troll, but by someone who is or was on the HLR, then all they tell me is that Bains is a lot better liked than Barchas (Bains, we hear, is "humble and classy"). If Barchas was better liked, these comments wouldn't be posted, regardless of who the actual author is (i.e., especially after my 9:48 post on academic dishonesty, even if Barchas is the author, no one who liked her would push her name out here; everyone would just ignore this blog).

Plus, by 11:08 yesterday morning, 2 students apparently quite familiar with Barchas had said she's a "legend" on campus for being "meticulous," etc., etc., even the sort of person qualified to be a federal judge, and they couldn't imagine she had anything to do with this note copied from a 6 month old Ames brief written by 6 people (without any disclosure of those facts).

If, despite all indications, there is some truth to these three comments of last night, particularly 12:46's comment that Barchas (the supposed author) "would have proudly told you" herself that she was the author, and given the clear evidence that on its face the note violated Harvard's own policies on academic honesty, one would assume that by early next week Barchas, or at minimum 12:46, her purported note editor, would come forward under his or her own name with public confirmation that Barchas is the author, and whatever defense is to be offered. I suggest that if this happens, information should be supplied in the comment which only Barchas or her note editor would have (including a harvard.edu e-mail address for confirmation) so people aren't reduced to a guessing game over who's actually commenting.

On the "benefit of the doubt" theory, and the idea that some comment by someone willing to be publicly identified will be forthcoming next week, for now I plan to give this a rest.

Christ, people. The person who quoted the greenbook and claimed (incorrectly) to know why HLR remained silent is "clearly an editor"? Ok, here's another quote from the greenbook. "With the tremendous resources Gannett House has to offer comes the responsibility to
look after it. We make it a point to counter the diffusion of responsibility that occurs with over
80 editors, and take care to clean up, conserve energy, and avoid wasting supplies."

Therefore, I am from HLR. Chiraag didn't do it. Barchas wrote it. I am the same poster who first used the word "fathom" but not the second poster who did so. Maybe the repetition isn't because we are the same but because you people are just so unfathomable.

As for "Coming forward," yeah, HLR should definitely respond to a bunch of cowardly anonymous people on a blog who are attacking someone they don't know who didn't do what they think he did. You guys sure have a lot of credibility.

8:19 = troll.

Tip: anyone pretending to be an HLR editor to stir up controversy needs to put more thought into inventing fictional contents of the vaunted "green book." "Clean up," "avoid wasting supplies"? Sure, that's in the Review's operating manual.

tip: anyone pretending to know whether another poster has access to the green book should probably him- or herself have access to it and therefore be able to verify the accuracy of the quotes. I have access to it, and the "tremendous resources" comment appears at page 12. (yes, believe it or not, someone apparently thought that HLR editors needed to be told not to waste resources.) yet i know nothing about the authorship of either Note. i take it this is 8:19's point. so people should stop hanging on every word of those who recite the stupid green book. it means nothing.

anyway, the ministerial exception Note is a complete non-story with one possible exception. an author should obviously not pass off a Note (or seminar paper, or anything else) as his or her own work when it was in fact the work of multiple authors, such as the other 5 members of an Ames team. however, posters here are assuming that all 6 team members were necessarily authors (in the true meaning of that word) of the portions of the brief that appear in the Note. it's at least possible, if perhaps not probable, that the Note author solely authored the portions of the brief that reappeared in the Note, in which case there is no problem. (there was surely intellectual exchange among the 6 team members about the argument, but this doesn't necessarily entail joint authorship; scholars typically receive valuable feedback that alters the course of a paper from others, but unless the feedback reaches a fairly high level, these people are thanked in the star note, not given coauthorship. where to draw the line is admittedly tricky, and even established scholars do not always walk that line well, especially when they work with RAs.) i have no idea how the portions of the brief that appear in the Note came to be, but it would seem a little odd to publish something in the HLR that is clearly the work of 5 other people and just, what, hope none of those people found out about it? which leads me to think that the other team members were probably ok with it, which leads me to believe that the portions of the brief used in the Note were probably largely, if not exclusively, the work of the Note author. but i could of course be wrong about this, and if so, there does seem to be a problem.

but let's assume, arguendo, that the Note does not steal the work of the other team members. what's left to complain about? the fact that part of the student's Note had its origins in a law school project -- in this case, a moot court competition? so what? that's no different, as many have pointed out, than recycling a seminar paper as a Note, as most student authors in fact do. this isn't an issue of getting course credit twice for the one paper, which is an academic violation.

what else? the fact that the author was, in Ames, randomly assigned to argue for the same side that the Note argues for? again, so what? to be publishable, a Note or Article should make a novel, nonobvious, potentially useful argument. (kind of like patent law, see Eugene Volokh's guide to academic writing, which makes this analogy explicit.) there is no requirement that the author believe the argument he or she makes, although usually this makes for a more convincing Article. in any case, there's no reason to assume that the Note author does not in fact believe the argument in the Note simply because he or she was assigned to argue one side of an issue -- the two are clearly not mutually exclusive.

finally, posters attempting to do "writing analysis" of previous posters' use of the word "fathom" clearly have too much time on their hands.

Author was not Chiraag.

Author was Barchas.

This thread makes clear that there are a lot of angry losers in law school, people who didn't get into HLS, those who didn't make Review or Ames, those who aren't as popular as Bains or Barchas, and probably a large complement of high school kids just angry at their parents. This thread is beginning to look more and more like the AutoAdmit lawsuit thread. Now that Keker & Van Nest are geared up for this kind of litigation maybe they could be convinced to take on a second case. It certainly would be nice to learn the IP addresses of many of the above comments. My guess is that there are about five in total. Your'e about to go down in law school internet history Lat, side by side with Anthony Ciolli. And you had such a promising beginning.

11:12: you need to brush up on the CDA, section 230. Lat is fine.

And I suspect far more than 5 IP addresses participated in this thread -- as, indeed, you seem to think. ("This thread makes clear that there are A LOT of angry losers in law school, people who didn't get into HLS") (emphasis added).

11:12, I was going to make the same post. It might be wise to hold off on the defamatory statements, particularly if they are not true. As the xoxo debacle showed us, no one is truly anonymous, and law suits do happen.

10:58:

1. Sounds like Bains, writing in lower case and with a looser style to be different from earlier comments probably left by Bains (or whoever the author is). Only other possibility is John Quinn.

2. More seriously, still no response to 9:48 of last night detailing that the note (whoever's the author) violates Harvard's rules for academic honesty. Under the rules quoted it doesn't seem that the undisclosed consent of the other 5 (if there was, or now is, retroactively, consent) is relevant -- even inadvertent failure to disclose in the paper is defined as dishonesty triggering mandatory discipline.

3. 10:58 is inherently incredible in claiming he/she is on the Review, has lived through the last 2 weeks of scandal controversy over the Review (just google "Harvard Law Review scandal"), but has no idea who authored the note.

Best guess: 10:58 is either Bains (or whoever the author is), or an especially creative troll.

This is 11:31 again. I didn't see any of the posts after 11 a.m. before posting that.

11:12, 11:26, and 11:27, let me make clear I'm not personally worried about liability. I've made a handful of posts, but none of them contain anything which could be remotely actionable. I take it that a legal action couldn't force disclosure of ALL IP ADDRESSES on this entire thread -- only IP addresses which might involve some sort of legal violation. So I feel quite safe that I'm in no danger; this is not me being defensive.

Without doing something geekish and reading each post on this entire thread (some I've only skimmed), it strikes me there are 3 types of posts, only one type even remotely actionable, and even there I have problems understanding what the theory is:

1. Posts like my 11:31 posts, attacking 10:58 for not answering the merits of the academic dishonesty point, and suggesting 10:58 may be a troll. Also, many, many other posts attacking prior anonymous posts. Because 10:58 (and the others) have not identified himself or herself (though people can guess at who they may be), I don't see how there can be any legal violation committed on such anonymous posters.

2. Posts like the long one last night saying that the note (setting aside who wrote it) violates Harvard's academic honesty policy. Such posts present entirely abstract points; they don't depend on who's the author. They present opinion about something published anonymously in a legal journal. Even if some of the comments are mean-spirited, how can such abstract statements of opinion be actionable?

3. Posts falsely stating that A is the author when B is the author, or vice versa. Assuming such posters know the actual facts and are simply lying about them (then again, they could honestly believe what they're saying, and simply be mistaken), in theory I suppose that could be actionable, but what exactly would be the theory? Is someone suggesting it could be LIBEL for someone to falsely state that A authored piece X in the Harvard Law Review?

The Review is prestigious, right? How could it be libel, or in any way damaging, to be falsely identified as the author of a particular piece in the Harvard Law Review? More concretely, doesn't the unsigned notes policy mean that all editors are, in a sense, "authors" of each note? If so, how could it be false to say that A, or B, or C, is the "author" of the note in question?

More likely, I suppose if it were clear that A actually drafted the note, but posters say B is the author, B could sue under some sort of "false light" theory. The "false light" theory doesn't require that the depiction be negative, just false. But based at least on a quick check, it looks like Massachusetts is one of the states that doesn't have a "false light" tort cause of action.

Frankly, much of the discussion on this thread is getting old. But I do find interesting the suggestion that for someone on this blog to falsely identify a Review editor as the author of a particular piece in the Review would be actionable.

If that's not actionable, I fail to see why any poster would have any reason to worry about a lawsuit. I don't know much about the AutoAdmit lawsuit, but my recollection is that involved people who completely made up scurrilous facts, lifted photos from personal websites, etc. Nothing remotely like that seems involved here.

(10:58)

11:31:

as for points 1 & 3: sigh. i will have to make this explicit. i am *not* a current HLR editor, nor did i claim to be. that's why i have no info re authorship of either Note. yet i do have access to the green book, as do hundreds of others not currently on HLR. (how might this be possible? think hard.) therefore, others who quote from the green book do not necessarily have any knowledge about the current "scandals," either.

as for point 2: i have no obligation to address every single point made by every other poster on this thread. however, since you asked so nicely: the poster who originally linked to HLS's academic honest policy assumed, without warrant i think, that the Note author received course credit for the Note. HLR's policy is that a faculty member sign off on notes and comments and attest that they are minimally "not wrong." that's it. some people choose to have their note double as their 3rd year paper, but it's likely that this note doubled only as an ames brief and a note, with course credit involved in neither and the alleged stealing involved only in the Note. if so, does the following code still apply?:

"All work submitted by a student for any academic or non-academic exercise is expected to be the student's own work. In the preparation of their work, students should always take great care to distinguish their own ideas and knowledge from information derived from sources. The term "sources" includes not only published or computer-accessed primary and secondary material, but also information and opinions gained directly from other people. . . .The amount of collaboration with others that is permitted in the completion of work can vary, depending upon the policy set by the head of the course or the supervisor of a particular exercise. Students should assume that collaboration in the completion of work is prohibited, unless explicitly permitted, and students should acknowledge any collaboration and its extent in all submitted work."

who knows (and who cares)? i'm not going to pour over the code, but off the top of my head, read one way, it's broad (covering work "submitted" "for any academic or non-academic exercise"). if an HLS student, while an HLS student, submits an op-ed to the NYT which includes an idea improperly attributed, does she violate this policy? depends how you interpret the above. some honor codes do hold their students to a high standard and expect them to act accordingly in their dealings with third parties while students. but this isn't usually the case. one could argue that the HLS code only contemplates situations in which a student "submits work" to some HLS entity, as suggested by the language noting that "the head of the course or the supervisor of a particular exercise" dictates how much collaboration is permitted. and (i believe) HLR is an independent entity from HLS, much like the NYT (in its independence, that is). obviously, if there was theft of ideas and/or words from other team members, the note author acted unethically and the HLR would have an integrity problem. but it's not clear to me that there is anything like an iron-clad case against the note author under the HLS code, as the previous posted suggested. (quick! grab the tar and feathers!)

i do agree with you on two points: (1) this is getting dreary, fast; and (2) i have no action against you for calling me a troll, though you are wrong: i'm rather pasty, but not in the least green.

This is dumb. Bains couldn't even write a note because of the slot he got in the lottery and his clinical work. All comments implicating him are defamation.

This is 11:31 (and 11:55) again.

12:06, I agree with you that the poster from around 5 last night cannot conclusively be regarded as a current HLR editor by virtue of the "green book" quotes. Still, it seems likely. I was especially impressed by the detail concerning the reasons the Review has not spoken publicly and does not plan to speak publicly. It doesn't sound made up, and I cannot "fathom" (to borrow a popular term) why someone would make up that sort of detail. It sounds like an editor who's angry that the people responsible for the problems won't take the blame, so it falls in part on him or her.

As to the rest, unless an identifiable individual comes forward and says the contrary, I will assume the author of the note got academic credit for the note, and hence the honesty policy applies. It seems most unlikely that the author: (1) helped write an Ames brief as one of 6; (2) was too lazy to do a note on another topic and, even more lazily, copied parts of the brief into the note; but (3) rather than claiming academic credit for the note, the lazy author suddenly became quite energetic and went out and came up with an entirely different paper topic and wrote up a completely different paper to satisfy the academic paper requirement

Even if somehow the honesty policy doesn't technically apply, one point made I think was that it's odd that the supposedly rigorous Harvard Law Review would publish something which, if submitted for course credit, wouldn't meet the minimum standards for academic honesty at Harvard -- I would think the Review would try to meet, or hopefully exceed, minimum standards in deciding on what to publish.

12:39:

Tip # 1 for HLR editor impersonators: Don't say things like, "[t]his is dumb." HLR editors don't write that way (except for Phil; are you Phil?).

Tip # 2: There's no "lottery" held regarding Notes. See Greenbook at 24-25 ("It is Law Review policy to guarantee a Note slot to every 3L who wants one"). Before you try impersonating an editor again, make sure to get a copy of the Greenbook.

Nice effort to clear Bains, though. I give it a "B." (By the way, truth is a defense to a defamation claim, even one brought by private individuals, though by now Bains is probably a public figure.)

12:56:

yes, every editor gets assigned *a* note slot, but that slot might be for the December issue, which is hard to meet unless one writes over the summer or quickly has a good idea for a note, etc. many editors who blow up are those assigned to the december slot for this reason. there IS a lottery of sorts for for notes, tho it's complex, based not just on the random draw but also on one's 3L position on the review (prez, article editors, etc., get preference). i take 12:39 to have been saying that bains was assigned an early slot and that due to that time crunch plus his clinical work he wasn't able to get a note done in time (or didn't think he would be able to do so and didn't even try).

you either were never on HLR or you read 12:39's post too quickly or extremely uncharitably.

(12:56)

1:09, you caught me. I went to law school in Akron, where I didn't even make Law Review (in fact, I barely finished). I work in an even smaller town in Ohio, barely eking out an existence. I felt sorry for Phil, and he e-mailed me the Greenbook so I could pretend to be an HLR editor commenting about the other note, to take the heat off criticism of his note.

Sorry I didn't understand the complex procedures concerning notes well enough to fool someone as smart as you. Yours truly, signing off.

As it's been more than a day since I last inflicted my opinion on the world, after further review of all the evidence contained in the above posts, particularly yesterday's 5:15 tirade by a current editor, and Chiraag Bains's failure to e-mail David Lat using his harvard.edu account to deny authorship (just as Phil Telfeyan hasn't denied authorship), I hereby

REAFFIRM my opinion of 6/5, 12:07 p.m., and hereby

REAFFIRM that in my personal (but impartial) opinion, after reviewing all the evidence:

THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS
THE NOTE AUTHOR IS CHIRAAG BAINS

(Disclaimer: in light of the lawsuit threats, per the practice of Lat, J., I must state that I have absolutely no knowledge of the actual facts, and am relying solely on the "evidence" set forth above, such as it is. This is my personal opinion, nothing more.)

(Recommendation: Mr. Bains, if by some chance you are NOT the author, just say so, in an e-mail to David Lat, sent from your harvard.edu account. I do not see that you would need to say anything more, and I am sure people would take you at your word and stop bothering with you if you say you are not, in fact, the author. If you don't say that, obviously they will draw the logical conclusion.)

(Warning: Mr. Bains, if you do not act speedily in this regard, I fear that soon Mr. Roger Lou may be spurred to action, with potentially unsettling results!)

There is nothing wrong with adapting a brief into a note if you are the brief's author. Practitioners trying to transition into academics do it all the time. Should you footnote that you have done so? Probably -- but failure to do so is hardly a news story. That's all that happened here.

As for the path of the note, it was initially blown up by an HLR editor on last year's review (though not actually Crespo, despite what Lat reported) and then revived by one of this year's editors (not actually Allen). In both cases, the HLR Pres could have stepped in and didn't, but the Pres stepping in to blow up or revive a note that a high level HLR editor had already acted on is pretty rare.

Also, Crespo is clerking for Reinhardt on the 9th for the commenter who asked.

Sorry - "the note" in my second paragraph above referred to Phil's.

I posted yesterday at 12:01 p.m., urging everyone to wait until next week to give the president and author a chance to address the matter in an orderly way. I reprinted my e-mail to those involved.

One person has e-mailed back, stating: "Thank you. This will be publicly addressed by the end of next week. Feel free to post this e-mail, but please do not include my name."

I have no idea exactly how that will be done, or by whom, but it does seem that the Review is not ignoring the matter, so that readers should exhibit a bit of civility and patience. It seems the controversy has greatly died down, anyway. It hardly seems like an imposition to give the Review until the end of next week to address the matter.

11:26 hasn't the faintest clue about CDA 230. It doesn't protect Lat from anything. The anonymous douchebags posting here, yes. Lat, no.

wrong-o, charlie, wrong-o. (to 3:43)

Congratulations, you are now a certified idiot.