April 07, 2016
President Obama is at the University of Chicago Law School today discussing the Supreme Court and the nomination of Judge Garland...
...which you can watch here. And if you'd like to know the truth about what's really going on with Supreme Court nomination battles, read this. (I'm not there, I'm at home working, since the faculty have been thrown out of their offices for the day!)
April 01, 2016
March 31, 2016
March 30, 2016
March 28, 2016
Professor Choudhry's lawyers challenge University of California President's treatment of the former Berkeley Dean
They have shared the letter sent to President Napolitano: Download 2016-03-18 Letter to President Napolitano
The letter makes a number of very good points. President Napolitano has handled this very badly and unfairly.
March 24, 2016
CBS News reported as follows:
"Alaburda filed her lawsuit in 2011, seeking $125,000 in damages on claims of false advertising and misrepresentations by TJSL and an order preventing it from misleading students. Jurors awarded her nothing. . . .
Michael Sullivan, the attorney for the law school, said the jury verdict showed that TJSL does its best to provide accurate information on its graduates . . . Sullivan told the jury that Alaburda, 37, did not suffer any damages and that she went to TJSL because it was the only law school where she got accepted.
Once there, the plaintiff was awarded a $20,000 scholarship to help with tuition, making her total debt $32,000 after three years, Sullivan said. Alaburda decided not to work during her first two years of law school and within two months of graduating, had two job offers in the legal field, the attorney said.
Sullivan said the process of gathering employment data for graduates is "difficult'' and a "challenge'' for the school, but said there was "not a pattern of mistakes'' by TJSL. . . .
Eventually, Alaburda got a $60,000 job offer from a San Bernardino law firm and took a $70,000-a-year job with a legal publisher . . ."
March 18, 2016
March 15, 2016
Significant actions! There are a couple of dozen (maybe more) law schools right now that might run afoul of the 75% bar passage rate requirement. My guess is the main effect of this change will be that these schools will focus more and more on bar prep rather than other aspects of legal education.
CLARIFICATION: A useful correspondence with Prof. William Gallagher (Golden Gate) made me realize that my reference to "other aspects of legal education" was ambiguous. I was not thinking in particular of, say, interdisciplinary courses (though those would be affected by a shift in focus), but primarily the traditional doctrinal courses, where it seems to me there’s still a big difference between teaching them with an eye to the bar versus teaching them to explore policy, argument, underlying principle etc. The pressure to do less of the latter may be substantial at some schools in the wake of this change. That may help some graduates pass the bar, which is good, but it may also deprive them and others of other useful learning experiences.
March 14, 2016
Berkeley law grads, apparently having learned nothing about due process during their legal education, call for ex-Dean Choudhry to be fired from his tenured faculty position
This is really disgraceful for a bunch of alleged adults and lawyers, to call for the firing of a tenured faculty member based on a university investigation and a complaint, the latter of which is obviously not an adequate basis on which to base any conclusions. I agree that the university investigation should have been sufficient to remove him from his role as the Dean, but the demand that he be fired from Berkeley "in any capacity" is shocking. (The letter states: "As long as Choudhry remains at Boalt or the University of California in any capacity, we cannot in good conscience contribute financially to Berkeley Law or to the University." Ordinarily, everyone would recognize the inappropriateness of alumni making financial threats unless tenured faculty are fired.)
As a law professor in the UC system wrote to me:
Keep in mind we do not know what actually happened. The Title IX proceeding gives the respondent no procedural rights. He is not allowed to examine witnesses or to hear their testimony. Sujit's admission is to violating a policy that did not require a finding that he knew or should have known his conduct was offensive. The process and findings are confidential because the process is intended to err on the side of the complainant, and to permit quick remediation of the situation.
Was there an offense adequate for the revocation of tenure? Perhaps, but right now, we have no idea, and the Berkeley law graduates should be embarrassed by their contempt for process and fairness.
ANOTHER: And now the Chancellor of the UC System, a politician not an academic, has ordered Berkeley to begin proceedings that could lead to dismissal of the former Dean from his tenured faculty position. At least there will be a process of some kind.