In a world where tenured law professors are starting to face layoffs, prospective law professors need to craft job applications that not only let them stand out above the rest, but also convey the sort of low-maintenance attitude that an administration can work with in the changing law school landscape. Why add a prima donna when you’ve already got professors bitterly complaining that daring to question whether their 3L seminars teach practical legal skills is an attack on their personhood? (And, yes, that happened after I published this story… it was hilarious.)
So this application is halfway there. It certainly stands out above the rest in that it’s completely insane. But it utterly fails the prima donna test, since more than half of the application is a list of his demands upon the administration and faculty in return for his services as — wait for it — “one of the top legal researchers in the US”….
In response to the declining number of J.D. applicants, law schools are getting creative. The ABA is getting creative. Law schools are desperate to come up with “innovative” offers to entice prospective applicants and encourage them take the plunge into an expensive education with uncertain job prospects.
Well, except for price. Nobody wants to “innovate” on price. Nobody wants to come up with creative or radical approaches to significantly cut the cost of legal education to bring it in line with the actual salary prospects of new graduates. They’ll come up with ridiculous curriculum overhauls to try to make the useless third year seem like something worth paying for, but they won’t lop a year off of the tuition people are expected to pay. If anything, law schools are more likely to try to tack a year onto the J.D. experience, at full price, instead of getting serious about debt reduction.
Today, we’ve got a school that will be offering a “hybrid-online” J.D. It’s the first time ever the ABA has granted a variance (an accreditation exception to a non-traditional program) to a school that allows it to teach half of the credit hours online. In the stodgy world of legal education, “online” sounds new and exciting and reformed-minded.
But when it comes to price: somebody get Admiral Ackbar on the holo because… IT’S A TRAP.
* A proposal to raise the retirement age for judges in New York was crushed by voters, but Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has vowed to continue fighting the requirement — just like a stubborn old man. [New York Law Journal]
* Which law schools have the highest percentage of graduates working as corporate directors or executive officers of companies? You might be surprised by some of the results. Or you might not. [National Law Journal]
* Dean Lawrence Mitchell of Case Western Reserve Law wants parts of the retaliation suit that’s been filed against him tossed for being “scandalous” and “salacious.” But those are the best parts. [Cleveland Plain Dealer]
* Thanks to a $25 million donation from an alumnus and his wife, Yale Law School is going to be getting dormitories for law students in the very near future. The thought of all of those coed nerdgasms between future SCOTUS clerks is a thing of beauty. [Fox News]
* Clark Calvin Griffith, the former adjunct professor at William Mitchell Law, has been suspended from practicing law for 90 days after exposing his penis to a law student. Stiff punishment. [Pioneer Press]
* If you were thinking of giving away guns on Facebook, then you should think again. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun on the internet is with slideshows of the 572 best kitty cat gifs. [Corporate Counsel]
* A police officer in Arkansas ordered a woman to flash him her boobs while she was at work, and when she refused, he allegedly Tasered her repeatedly. She’s obviously suing now. [New York Daily News]
Griffith’s case blew up again in the beginning of July when Lance Armstrong took to Twitter to criticize the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency by linking to an Above the Law story, revealing Griffith’s identity and his pervy predilections — Griffith was one of the formerly anonymous members of Armstrong’s Review Board.
And now, Griffith has made the news again, but this time for his interesting interpretation of the ways that he was “victimized” by the law student who pressed charges against him. Unfortunately for him, Griffith’s sentencing judge wasn’t buying it….
* Dewey know whether this revised partner contribution plan will be well received? Well, from the looks of it, the firm’s executive committee members are being asked to repay a greater sum of money, so people will probably be happier. [Am Law Daily]
* Arnold & Porter’s William Baer, the man nominated to lead the DOJ Antitrust Division, received a warm reception from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it was all because of his “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude. [National Law Journal]
* What do you get when you cross a Biglaw patent associate from Steptoe & Johnson with an NFL Redskins quarterback? A pretty cool hobby, and a new Adidas commercial. [Capital Business Blog / Washington Post]
* Up next in this judicial gong show, Madam Justice Lori Douglas’s lawyer has asked the Canadian Judicial Council to recuse itself and terminate the legal ethics inquiry against her client. [Full Comment / National Post]
* You saw this coming: attorneys for the man identified as Victim 2 in the Jerry Sandusky trial have released voice mails allegedly left by the former coach, and plan to use them in a civil suit against Penn State. [CNN]
* A lawyer’s former mistress who attempted to kill his wife on several occasions is expected to take a plea deal today in exchange for a 20-year prison sentence. Sounds like a soap opera plot. [Houston Chronicle]
* “Don’t say another word, because you’re just pissing me off.” Former adjunct law prof Clark Calvin Griffith said some interesting things to a judge during his indecent exposure sentencing hearing. [Pioneer Press]
* Dewey even care if we spent money like it was going out of print? A new D&L bankruptcy court filing states that the failed firm used $43M of secured lenders’ funds in just one month in an attempt to save the ship from sinking. [Bloomberg]
* The Jerry Sandusky trial continues: Mike McQueary’s testimony in the former football coach’s case was pretty disgusting, but then again, most things are going to be pretty disgusting when you’re dealing with an alleged child predator. [Daily Item]
* A few ways you can tell this isn’t England: 1) our dental hygiene is generally better; 2) our royalty is entirely made up of reality TV stars; and 3) you still can’t serve people via social networking sites like Facebook. [paidContent]
* “Do I have to read the whole settlement?” Yup! UC Irvine Law’s consumer protection clinic will work to see if banks are keeping their end of the bargain in a $25B foreclosure-abuse settlement. [Los Angeles Times]
* Anna Gristina, the accused “Millionaire Madam,” claims in a motion to dismiss that police tried to make her name her johns, one of whom is apparently “a prominent Manhattan lawyer.” But which one? [New York Post]
* CBS claims that ABC’s “Glass House” is a rip off of “Big Brother,” and the network is trying to block the show from airing. OMG, please let it air so we can see this law school dropout in action. [Celebrity Justice / FindLaw]
Some people say that all’s fair in love and war. Regarding love, at least, I would have to disagree. Some behavior is neither fair, considerate, or legal.
Take stalking, for example. But love, especially when it’s unrequited or broken (that’s your cue, ATLCommentBot), leads people to do crazy things. This week, a Midwestern law professor and former high-ranking CIA lawyer, was on the receiving end of a restraining order based on allegations that he harassed a woman with whom he was reportedly having an affair.
Keep reading to learn more about our Law Professor of the Day and see what happens when Minnesota Nice turns into Minnesota-leave-me-the-hell alone….
It’s not every day that you hear about a law professor who allegedly exposed himself to a law student, but today’s just one of those days.
A criminal complaint has been lodged against Clark Calvin Griffith, a former adjunct law professor at the William Mitchell College of Law. Griffith is 70 years old, but he stands accused of unzipping his pants and forcing a female law student to squeeze his penis. Makes you wonder if they serve Viagra in the William Mitchell faculty lounge.
Let’s learn some more about the lurid allegations against him….
At some point law students have to take responsibility for their own choices in professional schools.
Yes, we know that schools purposely mislead prospective law students about the glories of going to law school. And we know that the American Bar Association won’t hold law schools accountable. And we know that the economy is tough and going to school, any school, can seem like a good place to hide for three years.
But there really is enough information floating around on the internet warning potential law students about what they are getting into. If law students choose to disregard that information and instead rely on the fantastical promises of some unranked regional law school, they really have nobody but themselves to blame. You can marry the reformed prostitute, but you can’t be surprised when you find out she’s had sex with half of your buddies.
So, while normally I’d feel sorry for this kid who wrote a “Dear John” letter breaking up with his law school, I also what to grab this guy by the throat and scream, “What did you think was going to happen?”
At this point in time, if you believe what American legal education is trying to sell you, it’s your own damn fault….
A law professor from Minnesota is not having a very good start to his summer break. As we previously mentioned in the Memorial Day Docket, a William Mitchell College of Law professor, Peter Erlinder, 62, traveled to Rwanda last month to help with the legal defense of Victoire Ingabire, an opposition leader running against current-President Paul Kagame in the central African country’s August elections.
Erlinder, who previously defended a Rwandan accused of genocide during the International Criminal Tribunals in 2003, was arrested within a week of his arrival for denying that genocide occurred there. (If you need a history lesson here, watch Hotel Rwanda.) From the Associated Press:
Erlinder is accused of violating Rwanda’s laws against minimizing the genocide in which more than 500,000 Rwandans, the vast majority of them ethnic Tutsis, were massacred by Hutus in 100 days. Erlinder doesn’t deny massive violence happened but contends it’s inaccurate to blame just one side.
Erlinder’s views are generally controversial. See, e.g., this open letter he wrote about Darfur (via the WSJ).
Erlinder could face up to 25 years in prison. His defenders say his arrest has more to do with his efforts on behalf of an opposition candidate than his views on genocide. But the Rwandan government has a different view:
[Rwandan Prosecutor General Martin] Ngoga’s office compared Rwanda’s laws to those in some European countries against denying the Holocaust.
“We understand that human rights activists schooled in the U.S. Bill of Rights may find this objectionable,” government spokeswoman Louise Mushikiwabo said in a statement. “But for Rwandans — schooled in the tragedy of the 1994 genocide and who long for peace — Mr. Erlinder’s arrest is an act of justice.”
How did Erlinder get into this mess? We corresponded with his daughter, who shed some light on the situation….