Don’t worry, the FBI is on it!

Sass wards off the FBI
Photo by Kristi Storz

I suspect that most people view the FBI the way they view the IRS—yes, those organizations have some legitimate functions, but both are highly politicized.  The IRS has already established this to be true.  Don’t take my word for it; read the IRS’s own confession in this mildly-worded, apologetic NPR story.

Sure, you’ll still find hack media organizations calling any criticism of the IRS a “conspiracy theory”—but at this point, that kind of tired, reactionary name-calling will only persuade the most politically entrenched, pro-government readers among us.

But now, the FBI has taken things to a new level.  It has gone from a highly political organization to, well, a bit of a joke.  Why?  To begin, some female law professors received anonymous text messages that stated the following:

1. “Law school isn’t fair for us men anymore, women always outperform us nowadays”;
2. “I admit you women have clearly won the battle of the sexes, us [sic] men are the losers”; and
3. “It’s not fair.”

The LL.B., the J.D., and the C.P.A.

The law degree used to be called the LL.B., or bachelor of laws.  Pictured below is the relevant portion of a re-issued J.D. degree, or Juris Doctor, replacing an LL.B. that had been awarded earlier, back in 1940, by Marquette Law School.  (The re-issued J.D. degree belonged to the now-deceased William Rose, and still hangs in the law offices of Rose & Rose, Attorneys, in Kenosha.) 

The now-deceased J. Gordon Hylton, a former law professor of mine at MU Law, explained in this blog post that the law degree used to be called the LL.B. because it was recognized for what it was: a bachelor’s degree.

What will the next generation of criminal defense lawyers look like?

No, I’m not talking about their race or gender.  Only rich, elite corporate clients care about such things.  My clients, on the other hand, don’t care about my skin color or whether I run a BIPOC-compliant operation.  Rather, they want to know if I can draft and argue a motion to dismiss, negotiate a favorable plea deal, and, most importantly, effectively try a case to a jury.

Instead, the question I’m asking is this: What will the next generation of criminal defense lawyers look like in the courtroom?  Unfortunately, law schools are doing their best to turn out lawyers who are as sensitive and fragile as humanly possible.  It almost seems as if it’s their primary goal to do so.

Beyond mission creep: law schools and mission explosion (or the big bang of nonsense)

Mission creep is when original objectives gradually expand into other areas until, before you know it, those original objectives are a distant memory.  If you’re not alert, mission creep can go unnoticed until it’s too late.  It’s sort of like the metaphorical frog sitting in a pan of water on the stove.  If the temperature is raised gradually enough, the frog doesn’t even realize what’s happening.  Soon he’s a goner, and his cooked legs wind up on some Frenchman’s plate.

But what law schools are doing seems to go beyond a gradual creep.  It’s more like a mission explosion, or a big bang of nonsense, that instantly obliterates the original mission parameters.  More specifically, rather than sticking to their original mission of trying to educate and train future lawyers, law schools have become obsessed with a sudden explosion of goofy objectives.

UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky at it again

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC-Berkeley law school, has made some ridiculous statements, including once uttering “the worst analogy in the long and storied history of analogies.”  But it’s not just that some of his statements are goofy—most people slip up from time to time, and the more a person talks the more opportunities he will have to make nonsensical gaffs.  The problem is that, in the Dean’s case, he often utters nonsense when advancing an agenda.  And when there’s an agenda driving the statements, we should be less tolerant of the nonsense. 

Writing tip from the Legal Watchdog (or, don’t write like a law professor)

This is my second law professor-bashing post today.  This one will be especially valuable to soon-to-be One-Ls, but hopefully will be useful to lawyers as well. 

For those of you starting law school this fall, you’ll soon learn that, if you play the game correctly and educate yourselves before walking into class, the law profs don’t really add anything to your education.  Many of them will have no experience practicing that particular area of law (or any area of law), some won’t be admitted to a bar, and some won’t even have a law degree.  In other words, after properly preparing for class, you will know nearly as much about the law as they do. 

The good news, though, is that while profs don’t add much, they are also largely harmless – some might even be funny, thus making the class time pass more quickly.  But there is one area where professors can cause you true harm, and that area is legal writing. 

Law profs just virtue-signaled their way toward irrelevance

This is the first of two law prof-bashing posts today.

I have previously explained how several law schools copied Yale and “boycotted” the US News law school rankings.  I use quotes around that word because the schools weren’t really boycotting – or even withdrawing from – the rankings.  Rather, they were just succumbing to the irresistible urge to copy Yale and signal their virtue in the process, often to the point of sheer absurdity.  They just can’t help themselves.  And US News responded to all of this professorial griping by changing its ranking methodology.  The new rankings are available here.

Copying Yale and virtue signaling are two things that the wormy legal academy loves doing, so it was pretty easy to spot these events as they unfolded.  However, what I didn’t see happening was that the legal academy was, rather hilariously, screwing itself in the process.

Pseudo-Events

In Daniel Boorstin’s book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, he argues that, given the wealth of news outlets in America, there are an awful lot of pages that reporters have to fill.  Therefore, “[t]he successful reporter is one who can find a story . . . If he cannot find a story, then he must make one . . .”

If the reporter’s digging and imagination both come up dry, then the news that gets reported may be nothing more than a “think piece” or “speculation about startling things to come”—or, worse yet, a rankings puff piece.  In sum, “news” is now “anything that makes a reader say, ‘Gee whiz!’”

In light of his words, I couldn’t help but notice two pieces of pseudo-news recently—Boorstin would call them stories about “pseudo-events.”  These two current examples fall under the heading of “career news”—a category that is now a big business in itself—and involve my former career (accounting) and my current career (law).

Law school sheep and the US News rankings

Countless news stories now litter the web proclaiming that Yale and Harvard, followed by a slew of copycat schools, “withdrew from,” “pulled out of,” or “abandoned” the US News law school rankings.  But as I explained in a previous post, these schools are not withdrawing from, pulling out of, or abandoning the US News rankings at all.  They are just not submitting data.  They are still going to be ranked.  In fact, the new top 14—which consists almost entirely of “protester” schools—has already been released and, putting aside the narcissism of small differences, appears virtually unchanged from last year!  (As explained below, we’re still waiting on rankings for schools #15 on down.)

Withholding data is nothing new or newsworthy; my alma mater Marquette Law did it back in the 90s (see p. 310) long before Yale and Harvard decided the rankings were, for nonsensical reasons, bad.  This entire thing is just a redo, a non-event.  It’s no more newsworthy than Kim Kardashian having a bad morning because she got too much foam on her designer coffee.  It just doesn’t matter.

Instead, law schools are doing this for virtue-signaling purposes—although it’s hard to see how that ploy could be successful with any thinking person, a category of persons that hopefully includes a decent percentage of law school applicants.  For example:

Accounting: How to Wreck (and Rescue) a Profession

In my earlier life, becoming a CPA was, in a sense, easy.  To be sure, the two-day exam itself was very tough.  Unlike state bar exams which sometimes have an 80% first-time pass rate, the November 1996 CPA exam, for example, had a 17% pass rate for first-time test takers.  But the process of becoming a CPA was very simple.  Just get a B.S. or B.B.A. in accounting, sign up for and pass the CPA exam, and then wait for your certificate to arrive in the U.S. mail.  Granted, it wasn’t that way in every state, but that’s the way it was in my neighboring state of Illinois where I got my CPA certificate.  The certification allowed you to use “CPA” after your name, and, as the accompanying letter from the Illinois Board of Examiners informed me: “The certificate is good for life and does not need to be renewed.”  Congratulations and welcome to the profession!

Today, there are many articles about the declining number of CPAs and, especially, of accounting majors in the CPA pipeline.  The latest such article is here, in today’s WSJ (subscription required).  That article’s title indicates its proposed solution to the problem: How can we make accounting cool?  And there are many articles like this one, angsting about how to replenish the numbers within the profession.  But I doubt people are now avoiding accounting because it’s un-cool.  It has always been un-cool (which, in some circles, can be cool). 

No tests, no papers -- you get an A!

Jeff Winger, a nontraditional student at the fictional Greendale Community College, was always in search of the easy A.  He just needed to replace his fake bachelor’s degree so he could get readmitted to the Colorado Bar and return to the practice of law.  (He had, apparently, legitimately completed law school and passed the bar – just without going to college first.  This is theoretically possible in real-life, as law school is, in reality, nothing more than an associate’s degree: it can be completed in two years and, although you need a bachelor’s degree, it can be in anything – including majors like “puppetry.”)

In one of the show’s best exchanges, a professor at Greendale, whom Winger once successfully defended in a drunk-driving case, said to Winger: “I thought you had a bachelor’s from Columbia.”  Winger replied: “And now I have to get one from America; and it can’t be an email attachment.”

As has happened often in the years since Community first debuted, the absurdity of “higher education” has proven Community to be prescient.  Read this College Fix article about a UC San Diego professor who gave everyone As just for showing up!  No kidding.  There was no homework, and everyone got an A. 

But if you don’t want to read the article, just watch Community’s Professor Whitman.  He liked to handout As, too—and long before the real-life UCSD professor did.  Unreal.  Absolutely unreal.  You want an A?  “No tests, no papers.  Just live in the moment.”

Once again, fiction becomes reality.

In a rush to virtue signal, law schools say the darndest things!

Law schools are falling all over themselves to copy Yale by withdrawing from the US News law school rankings.  As I explained earlier, they are not actually “withdrawing”; rather, they are just not going to submit data anymore.  And of course, they will still get ranked.  (If refusing to submit data meant being removed from the premier list of law schools, they would all keep submitting data.)  This move of not submitting data has been done before—most notably, by my alma mater, Marquette Law, in the 1990s. (See MU L. Rev. p. 310.)  So this is a well-beaten path that leads nowhere new.

In any case, law schools are just following their strong urge to copy Yale.  (Yale and Harvard grads run, and teach at, virtually every law school in the country.)  But rather than admitting this, the law schools are instead virtue signaling.  They are rushing to get their statements out, proclaiming to the world how morally awesome they are!  But in some cases, these schools might be rushing just a little too fast.

Take UC-Irvine’s Austen Parish, who recently issued this statement, claiming the moral high ground over the dastardly US News: “Collectively we have determined that continuing to participate in the U.S. News rankings is not consistent with our founding ideals.”

Law School Nonsense and the U.S. News [Updated below]

The WSJ recently reported that Yale, and then Harvard, withdrew from the US News law school rankings.  My initial reaction was, of course Harvard is going to copy Yale.  They’ve been chasing Yale ever since those rankings came out.  They didn’t have the guts to withdraw first, but they quickly jumped on Yale’s bandwagon.  A Harvard spokesperson said that his school had been “deliberating the move for several months.”  At best, that’s typical academic navel-gazing; more likely, Harvard was waiting for its law-school superior, Yale, to pull the trigger first.

My second reaction was that these schools aren’t actually withdrawing; they’re just not cooperating with the US News.  Marquette Law did this many years ago, i.e., it stopped cooperating and submitting data, and the school still got ranked.  And the WSJ later confirmed in a follow-up article that, of course, Harvard and Yale will still get ranked.  So these two institutions aren’t even doing anything novel; they certainly are not ground-breakers or trend-setters.  In reality, they’re walking a path beaten long ago by Marquette Law.  (Note: post-rebellion, under new "leadership," MU has since rejoined the US News fold.)  And that already-beaten path leads absolutely nowhere new.  

Anyway, why did Y. and H. decide to stop cooperating?  Here’s the part of the original WSJ article that caught my eye:

A heap of sand, law review publishing, and the high cost of legal education [updated]

There’s a paradox called Sorites Paradox which takes numerous, related forms.  Here’s one.  You’ve got a heap of sand.  If you take away one grain, do you still have a heap?  Of course.  Therefore, given that Heap – 1 grain = Heap, “[i]t follows, absurdly, that even a single grain makes a heap. Thus soritical reasoning appears to show both that no number of grains make a heap and that any number of grains make a heap.”

It really isn’t much of a paradox.  The problem, of course, is in the vagueness of language—specifically, the word heap.  We all know that if you keep removing grains of sand, one by one, eventually you will no longer have a heap.  People may not agree on the exact point at which that occurs, but we would all agree, for example, that a mere two remaining grains of sand, sitting sadly side by side, is no longer a heap.

Law Review Submission Angsting Thread -- Fall 2021

For law geeks like me, late January and early July are among the best times of the year.  These dates mark the beginning of each the two law review article submission cycles.  (For outsiders who are interested in how this bizarre process works, see my article on the subject.)  This Fall cycle I'm submitting my 37th law review article to the journals for publication.  It's titled "Disorderly Conduct: An Investigation into Police and Prosecutor Practices."

In recent years I've found that half the fun of submitting and publishing many of my first 36 articles has been following the "Prawf's Blawg angsting thread" throughout the submission cycle.  It's basically a blog post and comment thread where law professors, wannabe law professors, and even a few actual practicing lawyer-authors (like me) post a wide range of questions, comments, and news about the article submission and publishing process.  Debates and arguments have even broken out from time to time.  (To see what it looks like, you can find last submission cycle's blog post and comment thread here.)

Paul Campos on the evolution of law schools and their professors

Knightly studies the law

This excerpt is from a larger blog post by Paul Campos.  Campos, of Inside the Law School Scam fame, first takes aim at a typical law school professor.  I don’t know this particular prof or his work, but from what I know about the academy, Campos’s target is indeed the prototypical, modern law prof.  Campos writes:

[His] career path is this: he was an undergrad, then he was a law student, then he was a law professor. That’s it. That’s all he’s ever done. He’s never had a job as a lawyer, or indeed as anything but a professor, at least not as an adult anyway.

But it wasn’t always that way at American law schools.  There was a time, before I went to law school, where law profs had actually practiced law before joining the academy to teach.  And law schools embraced their role as professional schools or trade schools — much the way medical schools do. 

Look to your left; look to your right

Back in the days of The Paper Chase, there was a little speech that, at least according to legend, the Dean made during law school orientation.  “Look to your left; look to your right. One of you won’t be here next year.”  The message, of course, was that law school was not only tough to get in to, but would also be tough to complete.  And one out of every three of you will fail.  But in today’s softer, gentler world, the calculus has changed.  Well, sort of. 

Today, almost everyone gets admitted to law school, and even students with a mere 2.0 GPA in college can get scholarship money at some law schools.  Several forces have conspired to create this state of affairs.  Law schools have expanded in number to over 200, the student applicant pool has shrunk due to sliding demand and plummeting pay for lawyers, and a greater number of law schools are therefore competing for the smaller number of student loan conduits prospective students.

More law review fun

My last post discussed a new -- well, new to me -- law professor publishing trick: the bait and switch.  And now for some more law review fun.  Over at Outside the Law School Scam (OTLSS), there's a post about a Kentucky law prof who not only denies that professor scholarship raises the cost of legal education for students, but who also wrote this on the twitter:

Bases covered

My monthly issue of the State Bar’s Wisconsin Lawyer went in the trash a little sooner than it normally does.  It wasn’t some overused top-ten title — like, “the top ten ways to upset your judge,” or “don’t do these ten things if you want to keep your judge happy” — that turned me off.  In fact, there might have even be some good material in it.  But I wouldn’t know because I never got that far.  Instead, I was completely grossed out by the cover.  For some reason, it featured a child’s bare feet, large as life, and I just couldn’t get beyond that.  To leave this monstrosity sitting out on my coffee table — even if only to collect dust — was simply not an option.

Bill would protect free speech on UW campuses

I used to think that the only constitutional rights in danger were those associated with criminal law.  A classic example is the Fourth Amendment.  When a defendant moves to suppress physical evidence (typically a small amount of marijuana) in a criminal case that was set in motion by an illegal search, courts will bend over backwards to find that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.  And even when they are forced to concede that the defendant’s rights were, in fact, violated, they insanely conclude that the defendant is not entitled to suppression of the illegally obtained evidence.  (For more on this mind-boggling state of affairs, see this article.)