FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGOMGOGMOGMGG!!!

It's more surprising, not that a Stanford grad would be a sleeze, but that he was dumb enough to write these things in a fee agreement.

beat by seconds!!!! It twas MysTTTal's BDAY btw on Sun right MysTTTal ? ? ? *FIST PUMP*

#3, aren't most Ivies sleeze? That's sorta the name of the game.

Tipler is 58, not 30. He has been practicing for 30 years.

Tipler is 58. He has been licensed to practice law for 30 years, not alive for 30 years.

Read: "one man's journey from ass sports to passports"

How could he have been first admitted to the CA bar in 1978 and be 30 years old? Elie!!!

The ad is more like 9 months, not hours, old...it is for a Nov. 28th interview.

#4, are u frm hofsTTTra?

It makes a lot more sense that Tipler is 58... 30 years ago California was still in Mexico, though Stanford was the top-ranked school in Mexico at the time. I knew this had to do with immigration somehow. Hey PE, say something racist.

With this many errors (Tipiler's age, date of ad, etc.) I just assumed this was a MysTTTal post. I didn't expect this from Kash...

5 -- no, not at all, but his prestigious degree doesn't predispose him to be more ethical/moral than a lawyer with a less prestigous degree. One would hope, though, that it would presdipose him not to commit his criminal acts to a contractual agreement entered into with a party whose interests would be to disclose it.

He didn't "make" her pay with sex. What he did is akin to consensual prostitution; there's no reason to imply he committed sexual assault or something. While I don't think he should earn a lawyer of the year award, disbarment is a little harsh.

Dear god this guy's been practicing for 30 years. It must truly be hell to sex an old disgusting thing like that. He should get the death penalty.

@15 - RLY?????

When I hear this sort of insane behavior, I've got to believe some sort of substance abuse is involved.

What's wrong with sex for legal discounts? I've been doing it for years...it's a win-win!

Also, how ugly does an 18 year old have to be to do it with a guy 40 years her senior? Gross...

@ 15 - Disbarment is NOT a little harsh, it's quite appropriate here. You'd agree if you read the actual opinion, which outlines many of his other misdeeds beyond clearly violating the unambiguous rule about sexual relationships with clients.

2 (and 4 I assume), condolences on your lack of first.

Best regards

- 1

P.S. I wonder if he could also face discipline for charging an unreasonable fee? I mean given that he went to Stanford Law, he's probably about as charming and good-looking as Bill Walton, so any time in the sack with him must have been arduous and certainly more onerous a cost than the average lawyer in the area was charging.

For authority, I look to MR 1.5 ... and Section 90 of the Restatement!

was this guy's real name sid hershberg?

this is life imitating fiction depicting (maybe) life.

there was a character on LA Law 20+ years ago, a scuzzy attorney named sid hershberg and friend of mickey who committed suicide in the court room. mickey picked up several of his cases, one of which involved a prostitute who asked him if he wanted to have the same payment 'arrangement' that sid had. mickey asked, naively, what was that? she whisperered the response in his ear and it was very obvious what it was.

How was she supposed to pay off the extra hundo? BJ?

@3

Where does it say he made a written fee agreement? You must be a TTT law student.

Comment removed by moderator.

So 30 years ago, I'm assuming as a Yale grad you only went to Stanford Law if you couldn't get into Harvard/Yale/Columbia Law School?

The PE imposters must go. Truly sophomoric and unoriginal.

ewwww. Why are Olds are so gross? Hippie Boomers trying to be cool with the kids are gross.

@26
Thirty years ago, it would have been Harvard/Yale/Michigan

NYC schools were crap back then.

Tipler = Tarbosh

@29 - Columbia was not "crap" back then -- from before then 20th century until very recently it was considered among the top three schools in the nation.

NYU, on the other hand, was a no name law school until about the dawn of US News.

So what's the problem?

So what's the problem, and why did this guy get in trouble?

I wonder if he billed the minutes he "worked' on her case.

PE is by far the best commenter on any blog in the country. I read ATL strictly for his hilarious posts. Keep it up buddy.

@ 27

What kind of stupid fucking word is sophomoric??

"a new low"!? What the F! That's a new high. It's fucking hot. I love working on pro boner cases.

@36 it captures the essence of you and the PE imposters.

This "we thought he went to a TTT but then found out he went to Stanford" sentiment makes you seem obnoxious and pathetic. And makes you seem like PE, except that he is a purposefully idiotic schtick, whereas you are a supposedly a real person.

http://www.courts.state.ri.us/pdf/Feb-2009bar.pdf

Congrats to lawyer/ whore Nina Baccala on passing the Feb 2009 Rhode Island bar exam!!

27/38 = Original PE.

The new PEs are light years ahead of original PE in terms of freshness, insight, and sophistication. This is not a case of the people demanding the return of Coca-Cola Classic.

why is there an irrelevant reference to the U.S. news rankings in every post? oh yeah because you b-rate journalists pander to the basest cohort of the profession.

Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

U.S. news ranking are a load of bullshit. SEE BKLYN LAW SCHL total cheaters!

the real question here is whether or not he won her case?! and what was it for? ....and too boot, how in hell did she not manage a better fee arrangment for herself than for other chicks!? musta been one ugly client.

if he was disbarred, its probably because she was an obese 56 year old and the ethics panel couldnt stomach the thought of law fees being disgraced in such a way. pretensious floridians.

Gotta love the fact that he was brought up on disciplinary charges in Alabama for the exact same conduct and only had his license suspended for 15 months. This is after the Alabama Supreme Court previously susepended his license for a whopping 120 days for intentionally doctoring evidence and suborning perjury. What the hell is wrong with the Alabama Bar?

This comment is addressed to the poster known as no. 41.

While commenters on this site may lambaste you for sticking up for your beliefs, it is your keen insight which makes you a valuable member of our society.

Also, I would enjoy seeing pictures of you. Please wait as my man servant will arrive shortly with a camera and some appropriate "outfits" for your photo shoot. Thank you.

Its a shame he didn't pass the work off to a summer associate. My billing rate would get her much more work per BJ.

- Disappointed Summer Clerk

This is fucking hot. Fuck anyone who says otherwise. I wish to God he would have gotten away with it. I hope he got away with years and years and years of this shit. Good for him.

Also, great Simpsons reference, 43.

I like you, Kash.

Re Comment No. 25:

David, Elie, and/or Kash, please remove Comment No. 25 immediately. References to forced sex upon a child advocate the illegal, harmful, degrading act of sexual abuse of a child and are obscene, inappropriate, and morally reprehensible. Such comments should be removed immediately and such commenters should be blocked from commenting in the future.

Moreover, this commenter should be reported to the authorities. Any human being who is so debased to even joke about sexual abuse of a child is truly a psychopath and is truly psychologically sick enough to have committed such illegal acts.

To Commenter No. 35:

Please burn in hell. You are a sick, evil bastard and do not deserve to live.

Re Comment No. 25:

David, Elie, and/or Kash, please remove Comment No. 25 immediately. References to forced sex upon a child advocate the illegal, harmful, degrading act of sexual abuse of a child and are obscene, inappropriate, and morally reprehensible. Such comments should be removed immediately and such commenters should be blocked from commenting in the future.

Moreover, this commenter should be reported to the authorities. Any human being who is so debased to even joke about sexual abuse of a child is truly a psychopath and is truly psychologically sick enough to have committed such illegal acts.

To Commenter No. 25:

Please burn in hell. You are a sick, evil bastard and do not deserve to live.

R Boer would never do this.

49 - that's not a simpsons reference, it's seinfeld (george after having sex with the cleaning lady).

REMOVE COMMENT 25

REMOVE COMMENT 25

REMOVE COMMENT 25

In response to comment 25 (from wikipedia):

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). The Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes. The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case. However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.

With respect to child pornography, however, the government does not act out of a "paternalistic interest" in regulating a citizen's mind. By outlawing the possession of child pornography, the government seeks to eradicate legitimate harms by diminishing the market for child pornography. These harms include the psychological damage to children -- both the children depicted in the pornography, for whom the images produced serve as a permanent record of the abuse, and the children whom potential abusers might lure with such images. "Given the importance of the State's interest in protecting the victims of child pornography, we cannot fault Ohio for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain."

I hope the authorities in your jurisdiction are notified. Good luck trying to hide behind some bullshit free speech bar.

To the folks at ATL, you may want to consult your own attorney about whether you need to take that comment down or risk being viewed as providing a forum for that kind of nonsense (i.e. whether you're legally required to remove it). Also, as lawyers, if you know the poster's identity, you may want to talk to your own lawyer about whether you have to report that person to his or her state bar due to obligations you have as a lawyer under your own state bar's ethics rules.

The fact that you would even have to think about simply removing the comment, morally speaking, disappoints me and makes me wonder whether I should continue to visit this site. After all, I'm a parent.

This is a disgusting story -- and some of the comments on here are equally disgusting.

I'm wondering, though, if some of the people this man took advantage of might have a reliance (ie, promissory estoppel) claim against him. I've tried a couple of cases and I've used Restatement 90 to prove damages. Might that work here?

53 is a TTT 1L. Restatement 90 is of no significants here.

Uh oh, somebody was upset about PE's post here.

Well, PE has been offending the rest of us for a long time -- moderate all those posts, please, or just remove all of the PE avatars.

Liked the original PE. Don't like the child-molester PE.

Weak sauce.

Thank you for removing comment 25, ATL. As a parent, I really appreciate it.

Why did this guy get in trouble? What is the problem?

The original PE uses a post to make light of suicide, and no problem. Then a copycat makes fun of PE and gets moderated?

Weak sauce, ATL, weak.

As a human being, I really don't appreciate it.

Where is the original Partner Emeritus? The impostor is weak and his material is very offensive to homosexuals, especially the ones that have been molested.

To Those Complaining About The Removal Of Comment No. 25:

Comment No. 25 crossed a very bright line by advocating and/or joking about sexual abuse of a child -- an obscene, illegal, degrading, humiliating, destructive, life-altering act of violence against a child. This merited removal of the comment. Other comments, while often highly offensive and/or inappropriate, may not cross such bright lines and therefore may not warrant removal.

I trust that we, as intelligent, caring attorneys (and/or law students), comprehend this bright line, the distinction between the comment at issue and other comments, and consequently the removal of the comment.

- A Concerned Attorney Who Advocates For Children

thats what a stanford degree is worth.....fuck all you fags that went to stanford. You cookie cutter pieces of shit. I'll see you on the other side of the court room and fucking ruin you.

I have nothing to add. It's 4:48am and I have one more final and I'm done baby done. Just thought you all should know. Thanks for helping me get through lawschool-a special thanks to 35, 43, 46, and 62. I couldn't have done it without you.

Is ATL gonna get around to figuring out that the crappy website they linked to that says the posting was made "20 hours ago" is incorrect? The interviews were scheduled for November, and the careerbuilder ad expired long ago. Great investigative journalism, guys.

I cant believehe is still going to practice law after this. Wont the authorities prevent him from opeing up another law office especially since he is disbared.
im glad he didnt get away with his "payment plan" for clients.

What did 25 say?

Congratulations, ATL. You've crossed the line from serious reporting to Chris Hanson "I *make* the news" bullshit.

First!!!!oneone111!!!

Hey, geniuses, he wasn't disbarred for exchanging sex for legal services, he only got an 18 month suspension for that, it was all the other conduct that got him disbarred.

This guy can't practice immigration law in any state:

http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/profcond/FinalOrders/TiplerJamesHarvey_FinalOrder.pdf

Does this guy need a law partner?

--Judge Kent

# 8 FTW

Am I the only one who finds 51/52 to be out of line as well? Should we really tolerate the poster's personal insults and desire for poster 25 to "burn in hell."

31 - The US news law school rankings began in 1990. NYU was an elite law school well before those rankings began. If you check the attorney profiles of most biglaw firms you would see that pre-1990 graduates of NYU are well represented. Furthermore, each of the founding members of WLRK graduated from NYU in the 50s. I guess most no name law schools produce lawyers with similar success.

What's wrong with a little barter in this challenging economy?

why do all these people from non top 3 schools insist on using every ATL story to display the collective chips on their shoulder? Face it, you didn't get in, we did. That SLS is #3 this year doesn't bother any of us here. 100% of us will still be employed at graduation and our acceptance rate will still be less than 8%, much lower than Harvard's and second only to Yale. We will still get clerkships, jobs, fellowships, etc. just by showing up. HLS had a good year, got good Obama-related press, so congrats. The hype will die down next year, when SLS goes back to #2, as it has been for most years since US News started ranking. At SLS, we don't have grades, we have more opportunity than 170 people know what to do with, we have clinical quarters where we don't even have to take class, we have prof's that actually know our names! And not to mention, no crappy weather or crappy people (relatively speaking, of course). So trust me. We are and will be fine. And be very clear, if this guy went to Penn or Columbia or Chicago or NYU even, this wouldn't even be on ATL b/c no one would care. But I have to say, I love the fact that he put the agreement in writing!

why do all these people from non top 3 schools insist on using every ATL story to display the collective chips on their shoulder? Face it, you didn't get in, we did. That SLS is #3 this year doesn't bother any of us here. 100% of us will still be employed at graduation and our acceptance rate will still be less than 8%, much lower than Harvard's and second only to Yale. We will still get clerkships, jobs, fellowships, etc. just by showing up. HLS had a good year, got good Obama-related press, so congrats. The hype will die down next year, when SLS goes back to #2, as it has been for most years since US News started ranking. At SLS, we don't have grades, we have more opportunity than 170 people know what to do with, we have clinical quarters where we don't even have to take class, we have prof's that actually know our names! And not to mention, no crappy weather or crappy people (relatively speaking, of course). So trust me. We are and will be fine. And be very clear, if this guy went to Penn or Columbia or Chicago or NYU even, this wouldn't even be on ATL b/c no one would care. But I have to say, I love the fact that he put the agreement in writing!

Apparently 25 (a PE avatar rip-off) made an off-color joke about PE and children (nothing graphic), and then either the commenter known as PE (or the person who works at ATL) made up a bunch of complaints because they were "offended."

As if everything on this website isn't offensive? As if every post PE makes doesn't offend somebody? Come on.

Jobs