Case Western is a prominent and well-ranked law school, #68 in the latest U.S. News rankings. It didn’t make the ATL Law School rankings, which stop at the top 50, but Case Western alumni give their alma mater a solid B-plus, as you can see from the school’s ATL Career Center profile.
But Mitchell’s fame comes less from Case Western and more from his national profile as a defender of legal education. Last year, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, Law School Is Worth the Money, that went viral.
Critics of Mitchell’s piece, including my colleague Elie Mystal, accused the dean of screwing over his students. Case Western charges tuition of almost $50,000, but less than 50 percent of its graduates secure full-time, long-term employment as lawyers, according to Law School Transparency.
Today Dean Mitchell is back in the news. A lawsuit filed this morning alleges that he screws his students more literally….
(See the UPDATE added below for the university’s response to the complaint.)
I think we all saw this day coming. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito certainly did. Last term, Alito’s holding in Vance v. Ball State essentially announced that it was open season on women you work with as long as you are not their direct superior. Thanks to “Alito time,” you can now sexually harass pretty much any woman at the office so long as she doesn’t directly report to you, without getting your employer in trouble.
And sure, while it might be fun to sexually harass your boss’s secretary, asking female colleagues to “touch it” is not without its dangers. In this crazy world, the female object of your desire might one day become your boss, or something similarly ridiculous. And who really wants to feel up a career-oriented co-worker anyway? Even if she can’t sue the company, she’s probably just going to be bitch about it in some uncool fashion anyway.
No, the gold standard for harassing people at work are the young, nubile, and generally helpless interns. They’re the ones who can’t really even complain about it. They’re the ones who might take your creepy advances as a career opportunity. And now, according to a New York judge, you can do pretty much anything you want to them, so long as they are so desperate as to be working for your company for free….
You don’t often see federal courts striking down conditions of supervised release as violations of substantive due process. But you don’t often see the federal government wanting to hook up a device to a man’s penis, make the man watch pornography, and see what happens. It sounds a bit… 1984 (affiliate link).
I couldn’t help noticing this opinion, given its unusual nature and its focus on the peen. I’m sure you’re all dying to learn more about the procedure known as “penile plethysmography.” (The good news: it’s not as bad as a penile embolism or penile degloving.)
You know you want to see what those Second Circuit judges are hiding underneath their robes. Let’s dig a little deeper (into the opinion), shall we?
Remember a couple of months ago when a local radio host accused a cab driver of taking lewd video of her? Remember how I reflexively took the side of the local celeb, a woman accusing a big bad man of inappropriate sexual conduct?
I might have gotten that a bit wrong. Authorities have now dropped the charges against the cab driver and accused the woman of making the whole thing up.
I hesitate to call Liberty University School of Law a “real” law school, as opposed to a finishing school for Christian soldiers, but whatever. They’re accredited. Wackadoodles need lawyers too.
So what are the good people at Liberty doing to make sure the legal world is safe for Christians? Combating sex addiction, of course! Because I guess it’s easier to fight a fake disease than wrestle with the fundamental hypocrisy of puritanical mores.
I thought “sex addiction” only afflicted world-famous celebrities who have the debilitating problem of getting a lot of ass. But apparently even regular people can get addicted to screwing anybody available…
PETERMAN: Kramer, my friend, that is one ripping good yarn… KRAMER: You know, if you like that one, I got more… what are you looking for? Romance? Comedy? Adventure?… Erotica?
I would like to hear your stories. Not long ago, Joe reminded those of you who currently attend law school that you are invaluable to this site’s ability to report all of the important goings-on at our nation’s elite bastions of legal learning. Without you, we would never get to regurgitate the overwrought exclamations law school dorks spew on their school listservs. Tipsters, like torts, strive to make us whole.
But what if I told you that I don’t care about your newsworthy tips? What if I told you that I want nothing more than to bathe in your tedious day-to-day life, your minor humiliations and your microscopic triumphs? I want to hear the stories you will tell each other this weekend over beers at your favorite dive bar. The stories you have problems getting out because you laugh so hard at times that the whole table shakes and your eyes water. You probably think this stuff is too dumb and petty to entertain. But you’d be wrong. I love people’s stories like Lat loves peep toes. And I want you to send me those tales.
To grease the skids for this venture, I thought I’d share with you the story that highlighted a recent weekend repast. It’s a tale of Biglaw, sex toys, and online surveillance. I call this story “Elite Law Firm Dildo Cookies”…
Yesterday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lori Sattler ruled that Lisa Mehos, who is locked in a custody battle with her husband, banker Manuel Mehos, had to testify about having an abortion.
Why would Lisa’s abortion reflect on her fitness to raise her children?
Given that this is happening in New York rather than Mississippi, the argument is not the backward claim that she can’t possibly love her kids if she had an abortion. Rather, the argument is that she demanded custody of the kids over a weekend when she knew she was going to dump them off with a sitter so she could undergo a medical procedure.
Still, injecting the emotionally charged issue of abortion into the matter fits into an overall strategy of demeaning and vilifying a woman’s sexuality under a double standard that brushes past the transgressions of the father…
* U. Penn. Law doesn’t need to toot its own horn about kicking off its visiting jurist program with a Supreme Court justice — we’ll do it on the school’s behalf: toot f-ing toot for Justice Kennedy. [National Law Journal]
* President Obama nominated former OLC attorney and current HLS professor David Barron for a First Circuit vacancy, and a Western New England alum for a district court judgeship. Congrats! [Boston Globe]
* The Senate confirmed Todd Hughes for a seat on the Federal Circuit without any opposition. This is what progress looks like: Hughes will be the first openly gay federal appellate judge in U.S. history. [BuzzFeed]
* Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is pretty pissed that federal budget issues are allowing his office to get outgunned by wealthy financial firms. [DealBook / New York Times]
* “It seems a very coordinated effort of smugness.” As we reported previously, lawyers from the small firm representing Michael Jackson’s family think O’Melveny & Myers is full of d-bags. [Los Angeles Times]
* Sorry, but you can’t bang your clients. Well, that’s not completely true. You can bang your clients, but you have to bang them before there’s a legal relationship to keep banging them ethically. [Daily Report]
In our last story about Alexandra Marchuk’s lawsuit against Faruqi & Faruqi and one of its top partners, Juan Monteverde, we noted the acrimonious nature of the dispute: “The case just seems so heated and so personal, and both parties are litigating it in a no-holds-barred style.”
When we last checked in on the case, Marchuk’s lawyers announced their intent to seek sanctions against the defendants. The basis for that move: the defendants’ counterclaims against Marchuk, alleging that she defamed the defendants by creating or helping to create an anonymous Gmail account that was used to disseminate her lawsuit over email. Marchuk’s lawyers denied that their client emailed her complaint around and said that they would seek sanctions from the defendants for the “frivolous and abusive” counterclaims — which sought a whopping $15 million from Marchuk.
Until now, the stakes have only gotten higher and higher. But today brings word of a possible de-escalation in this hard-fought battle….
* Update: Yesterday we reported about the California courts denying class certification in the Thomas Jefferson School of Law case. Apparently that was a tentative ruling and the parties have since had a lengthy argument in front of the judge. So there’s still hope! [San Diego Courts]
* A Houston-area law grad is hoping to crowdfund her law school debt repayment. While that sounds annoying, instead of blaming her, let’s blame Zach Braff for giving her the idea. Always blame Zach Braff. [Go Fund Me]
* Law school as explained by a bunch of GIFs from Titanic. They missed the one about the Captain looking hopelessly at the iceberg as metaphor for deans staring at employment statistics. [Buzzfeed]
* Could you charge Marty McFly in 1985 for things he did in 1885 since he knew they were going to be illegal 100 years later? [The Legal Geeks]
* More on the legal storm surrounding the Danzinger Bridge killings: veteran prosecutor Karla Dobinski self-reported her involvement in making online comments and is being investigated. Dobinski posted under the alias “Dispos,” which means alcoholics. So someone might want to keep an eye on her drinking after she loses her job. [The Times-Picayune]
* M.I.A. has been largely MIA since the Super Bowl when she flipped off the masses. The NFL is suing her for $1.5 million for breach of contract and she refuses to pay, noting that the shameful display of the cheerleaders was far more offensive. [TMZ]
* An essayist wants to stop being judged because she doesn’t have student loans. “I am responsible and fortunate for the resources I have.” Totally. Except when you read the whole article you have to replace “I am” with “my parents.” [Thought Catalog]
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past six years. You can reach them by email: [email protected].
Since late last year, things have been booming in Hong Kong / China in cap markets, especially Hong Kong IPOs. M&A deal flow has recently been getting a bit stronger as well. Although one can’t predict such things with any certainty, all signs are pointing to a banner entire 2014 for the top end US corporate and cap markets practices in Hong Kong / China. This is not really new news, as its been the feeling most in the market have had for a few months now and things continue to look good.
The head of our Asia practice, Evan Jowers, has been in Hong Kong for about 10 days a month (with trips every other month to both Shanghai and Bejing) for the past 7 months, and spending most of his time there meeting with senior US hiring partners at just about all the major US and UK firms there, as well as prospective candidates at all associate levels and partner levels, and when in the US, Evan works Asia hours and is regularly on the phone with such persons, as our the other members of our Asia team. Our Yuliya Vinokurova is in Hong Kong every other month and Robert is there about 5 times a year as well. While we have a solid Asia team of recruiters, Evan Jowers will spend at least some time with all of our candidates for Asia position. We have had long standing relationships, and good friendships in some cases, with hiring partners and other senior US partners in Asia for 8 years now.
The evolution of relationships between the genders continues. Currently, in law firms, there is an interesting conundrum; balancing the desire for a gender-blind workplace where “the best lawyer gets the work and advances” and the reality of navigating the complicated maze created by the fact that, in general, men and women do possess differences in their work styles. These variations impact who they work with, how they work, how they build professional connections and how organizations ultimately leverage, reward and recognize the talents of all.
Henry Ford sat on his workbench and sighed. A year earlier, he had personally built 13,000 Model Ts with his own hands. Fashioning lugnuts and tie rods by hand, Ford was loath to ask for help. Sure, there were things about the car that he didn’t quite understand. This explains the lack of reliable navigation systems in the Model T. But Ford persevered because he knew that unless he did everything, he could not reliably call these cars his own.
“Unless my own personal toil is responsible for it, it may as well be called a Hyundai,” Ford remarked at the time.
The preceding may sound unfamiliar because it is categorically untrue. And also monumentally stupid. Henry Ford didn’t build all those cars by hand. He had help and plenty of it. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, Henry Ford opened up the most technologically advanced assembly line the world had ever seen. Built on the premise that work can be chopped up into digestible pieces and completed by many men better than one, the line ushered in an age of unparalleled productivity.
Today, an attorney refers business because he can’t do everything the client asks of him.
There are three reasons why this is way dumber than a made-up Henry Ford story…