Constitutional Daily

Founding Principles

The Tenure Paradox - Robot pimp

Slap on the Wrist for "Non-Consensual Sex" - Lampshade, Esq.

Intelligence: The Gathering - Graphic and Gratuitous

Grads are the New Illegals - Robot Pimp

Meet Entitlement Eric - Robot Pimp

Wherein I Solve World Peace - Lampshade, Esq.

A Necessary Delusion - Shadow Hand

Do you even need to shave overhead? - Lawyerlite

LSAT Jenga - Publius Picasso

Time, Place, and Manner

...Should have some links here or something.


Diamond me no diamonds! Raise me tuitions no tuition raises!

E-mail Print PDF

Back in January there was a bit of a spat with a Santa Clara professor by the name Steve Diamond that you may recall. Among the many wildly untrue statements he made, such as that Law School Transparency is only in it for the money, is that the faculty at Santa Clara are responding to the crisis in the legal industry with financial responsibility:

At SCU we have already committed, and have been committed for several decades, to all of the things you suggest - lower salaries, more teaching, more administrative work by faculty and lower tuition than is the norm at schools like Stanford. [...]

We constantly debate those choices and try to find the right balance - which has included in the last few years decisions to freeze salaries, not raise tuition and increase administrative work for faculty. [Emphasis added]

When we pointed out that SCU had raised tuition every year since 2005, Diamond responded:

The SCU faculty did vote to block a proposed tuition increase recently. Nothing was made up.

Perhaps nothing was made up, perhaps there really was a vote to block a tuition increase. If so, Steve Diamond neglected to include one of two pertinent facts: (1) the vote failed, or (2) the vote was ineffective.

The tuition rate at SCU was $43,680 for the 2012-13 school year. The new tuition rate for the 2013-14 school year is an even $45,000. That's just a hair over a 3% increase. That's better than the 4.5% increase from 11-12 to 12-13, or the 6.2% increase the year before that, but it's still an increase to tuition. There was a decision not to raise tuition, and a vote to block a tuition increase, and yet up, up, up it goes. We know what's happened.

You see, Santa Clara could have increased tuition by the same 4.5% rate, and so by increasing it only by 3% it's really decreased tuition by $645. In fact, Santa Clara has over two years brought tuition down $2,132 ...from the amount it would have been at if it maintained the 6.2% increase.

Houston professor complains about the volume of bad literature out there

E-mail Print PDF

University of Houston Law professor Jacqueline Lipton has a problem. Ordinarily around this time of year she posts a list of summer reading for anyone who happens to be interested in her summer reading recommendations. This year she isn't doing it, and instead posted on Faculty Lounge a short rant about how hard it is to find good books to read:

But I wanted to also raise the question of how to FIND good books to read other than Goodreads, word of mouth and the NYT best-seller list. I used to rely on what was getting good reviews at Amazon, but I've found that increasingly difficult because so many works have four and five star reviews on Amazon that really aren't very good, and I don't mean that in a subjective sense. A bunch of self-published books in particular simply have editorial errors all over them, inconsistencies in plots and characters etc and still get four and five star reviews, often from hundreds and occasionally from thousands of readers. I'm at a bit of a loss to know how this comes to pass. Even if friends of the author are writing the reviews, who has that many friends? Or are there services folks can pay to get good reviews posted on Amazon?

I don't mean to be negative about self-publishing because I think it's terrific that authors can self-publish, particularly as the traditional publishers are consolidating and it's getting so much harder to publish in the traditional mode. But as a reader, I now find it difficult to sort through the morass of available tomes in e-book format. It's one of those areas where digital tech has created information overload and it's increasingly difficult for me as a reader to separate the wheat from the chaff. How do other people manage? Some folks must want to read interesting books that aren't NYT bestsellers. But how do you find them now?

We can understand the hipster-instinct to avoid things on the NYT list, but we're a bit at a loss as to what's wrong with Goodreads (which functions a bit like Pandora for identifying books you might like). Word of mouth seems like an even worse thing to complain about, since part of the enjoyment of reading a book is being able to share the experience with other people, ...and because her normal summer reading list is nothing but word of mouth recommendations.

Anyways, we're a law blog, and we have a law bloggy type angle to this, and not just pointing out the ridiculously trite things law professors go to the internet to complain about.

For however bad Lipton thinks the mainstream publishing world is about letting the signal to noise ratio get completely screwed up by a mountain of sub-literate self published texts, the legal industry is far worse.

Legal academics produce roughly 10,000 journal articles every year, and it's not just that many of them aren't interesting, but that 80% of them are crap. How is anyone supposed to locate the best articles from that mountain of paper? If you wanted to read only the top 1%, truly separate the wheat from the chaff, you'd still have to read 1 article every 3 days. And that wouldn't even allow you to start working on the backlog of articles published before you started your reading binge.

If you didn't see the an ironic twist coming from the start, fair warning, ironic twist ahead.

We took a look at professor Lipton's CV, and in her 20 years in academia she has written more than 80 articles. Four per year. Is there anyone out there who thinks professor Lipton has four publication-worthy ideas each year? Does anyone really think that extraordinary level of insight is coming from someone who can't figure out how to get book recommendations?

[PS: All four of her recommendations from last year appeared on the NYT bestseller list. But leave it to a law professor to look for a solution without a problem, and then fail to find it.]

NAACP Joins the Throng of Derpy Crim Law Commentators

E-mail Print PDF

Those of you with Facebook have probably been witness to a number of completely idiotic posts about the George Zimmerman not guilty verdict. People who get their news primarily from HuffPo and Slate, with a little bit trickling in from The Root, believe that there was conclusive proof that racist vigilante George Zimmerman "hunted" Trayvon Martin, tracked him down, and shot him in cold blood. Among people who actually followed the evidence and who have a basic understanding of criminal law, there is near universal acknowledgement that the state didn't prove it's case, that the key question is who actually instigated the fight to which there are no eye witnesses other than Zimmerman, and that with such a weak case the state should not have even brought charges against Zimmerman.

You've probably also seen stories about Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years for aggravated battery for firing a "warning shot" at her abusive husband, and for whom the Stand Your Ground defense was rejected. Your Facebook friends have probably failed to note the important detail that Alexander, feeling threatened, left her home, went out to her car, got her gun out of her car, and then went back inside. The Stand Your Ground law says you can defend yourself without retreating (the Castle Rule would have applied anyways, because she was in her house), but it doesn't say you can go back in after retreating.

Lastly, you may have seen people on Facebook discussing the Department of Justice bringing charges against Zimmerman for deprivation of civil rights, since the right to life is of course the most fundamental of civil rights. Think for two seconds about federal powers and state powers and double jeopardy and all that, and it might strike you as odd that the DoJ could prosecute someone for deprivation of civil rights for a crime like this. It would mean they could prosecute just about anyone for any crime, since we tend to define crimes as when you infringe on another person's rights (regulatory crimes are of course the exception). And of course the DoJ doesn't have jurisdiction over every crime. Let's take a look at the law, 18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

The key phrase here is "under color of law." Hey, stand your ground is a law! Let's go get 'em! ...Hold on there, sparky. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear in its rulings on this. This law and the corresponding 1983 civil action law might be phrased very broadly, but they cover only state actors or civilians acting in coordination with the state. There's not even a colorable (ha!) argument that George Zimmerman was a state actor when he shot Trayvon Martin. It doesn't take a particularly sophisticated legal analyst to realize a federal civil rights case is a non-starter.

But let's be fair to your Facebook friends. The law is written in overbroad language, and someone who hasn't been to law school might think it applies. You know who we shouldn't be fair to though? The NAACP for getting the idea into people's heads that the DoJ could bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman. Their petition for a federal prosecution had more than 500,000 signatures as of yesterday, despite their website crashing under the heavy traffic. Here's the text of the NAACP's petition:

Attorney General Eric Holder,

The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.

The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.

Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.

Thank you.

Unlike your Facebook friends who aren't legally sophisticated, the NAACP has lawyers. Probably a lot of them, and some of them are probably pretty good lawyers. There is absolutely no way the NAACP believes a federal case or its petition has legs. So why bother?

Probably because they know it's going to fail. They know that a lot of people are upset about the verdict, and believe that finding Zimmerman not guilty is an attack on black people everywhere. And they know they can get those people's hopes up with this petition. Don't worry that Florida has failed you, Obama and Holder are going to come through for black people.

They are getting people's hopes up with the expectation of having those hopes dashed, just to use it as a flimsy indictment of America. The federal government won't act, at least not with a civil rights prosecution, and the NAACP will spin that as proof that America is racist to its core, without mention that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do so.

Way to go, NAACP. Ordinarily we'd say it's wrong to prey upon people's ignorance of the law and to take advantage of them while they're in an emotionally vulnerable state, but you know, so long as it's for the greater good, carry on.

"ABC's Zimmerman trial reporters Tienabeso and Gutman are incompetent, dishonest hack charlatans who should be convicted of murder," Acclaimed Law Blog Says

E-mail Print PDF

Everyone else is talking about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, so we'll do it too. We're going to take a different angle though and discuss journalism ethics. Sorry, no discussion about the facts, or how the prosecution didn't prove its case, or the Sixth Amendment issue in the judge grilling Zimmerman and at one point not allowing him to confer with counsel, or the other Sixth Amendment issue in allowing him to face a charge that was added only at the end and thus he wasn't given the opportunity to defend against. None of that stuff. We're also going to skip the low hanging journalism ethics fruit of discussing how the news media focuses on sensationalism and generally opines on legal matters without one iota of legal expertise.

Instead of all that, we're going for the less sexy topic of how to ethically construct a news headline. In looking through Google News stories, we came across this headline from ABC News:

"George Zimmerman Is A 'Liar' Who Should Be Convicted Of Murder, Prosecutor Says."

We'll sidestep the issue that this makes absolutely not sense and should be "George Zimmerman is a murderer who should be convicted of murder." The problem we want to highlight is more subtle than that. It's the placement of the phrase "Prosecutor Says." Compare the original to a different structure:

"Prosecutor Says George Zimmerman Is A 'Liar' Who Should Be Convicted Of Murder."

The former treats the claims about Zimmerman as a fact, with the prosecutor as the source for the claim; the latter reads as reporting the highly biased statement of a prosecutor.

Intelligent minds will read the two statements the same, but as we all know, the majority of Americans aren't that intelligent, and probably won't even read to the end of the first version of the headline. And by "we all know" I mean "including ABC's Seni Tienabeso and Matt Gutman." Maybe Tienabeso and Gutman are just incompetent. Maybe someone else is responsible for the headlines. Or maybe they do think Zimmerman is a liar who should be convicted of murder, but rather than expressing that view on the editorial pages where it belongs, they decided to report their opinions as fact.


And just to make our headline truthful: ABC's Zimmerman trial reporters Tienabeso and Gutman are incompetent, dishonest hack charlatans who should be convicted of murder.

Page 10 of 342

Philadelphia Lawyer, Unfiltered

The finest blend of analysis, advice, and fury on the internet. Sour mash, oak barrel aged, published at cask strength.


Most Recent Article:

In Defense of Risk (Happy Fourth of July)

All Articles from The Philadelphia Lawyer

Author Profile

The Robot Pimp

An in depth look at the emerging intersection of law, behavioral economics, and robots.

Most Recent Article:

The Tenure Paradox

All Articles from The Robot Pimp

Author Profile

Practice Makes Putrid

Legal practice would be all rainbows and buttercups, if it weren't for the clients, and opposing counsel, and co-counsel, and judges, and the law.

Most Recent Article:

Eat Mor Fiv Freedums

All Articles from The Namby Pamby

Author Profile

Gin and Glannon's

As Shadow Hand suffers through law school, the rest of us get a little Schadenfreude.

Most Recent Article:

I Just Work Here

All Articles From Shadow Hand

Author Profile

Irresistible Impulse

Dr. Rob Dobrenski's daring expedition into the psychology of lawyers and the law. (Not a substitute for a life well lived.)

Most Recent Article:

You're Not a Failure, You're a Narcissist

All Articles from Dr. Rob

Author Profile

Graphic and Gratuitous

Sometimes cartoons are the highest form of communication. Those times are known as "most of the time."

Most Recent Cartoons:

Intelligence: The Gathering

All Cartoons

There And Never Back Again

Defunct Big Law attorney BL1Y shares his misadventures as a writer who accidentally went to law school.


Most Recent Article:


All Articles from BL1Y

Author Profile

Lampshade, Esquire

We're dealing with some technical difficulties here. Hold up a minute.

All Articles From Lampshade, Esq.

Staff Infections

News, humor, and other non-billables from our underpaid, uncredited, unsexy staff.


News Articles

Smaller News Bits

Large Numbers of Law

Mixed Bag of Lawesome


Scofflaw Multistate Bar Review