The Shark

no barbri girls in wisconsin.

[dennis]

Apparently, there are no Barbri girls in Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin legislature believes that graduates of the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette Law School are so well versed in Wisconsin law that it is unnecessary for them to take the Wisconsin bar exam.

According to the Wisconsin Bar Association, opponents of the exemption argue that it creates a disparity in preparation requirements for the Wisconsin bar:

The plaintiffs argue the bar exam is a burden faced by graduates of out-of-state law schools. They note that the fees for admission by bar exam are roughly double the fees for admission by diploma privilege. The plaintiffs allege a disparity of preparation for admission, arguing that the bar examination requires study of all the subjects listed in SCR 40.03 because all are potentially tested, but a Wisconsin law student can graduate without taking classes in all of them. An out-of-state applicant is further hindered in a way the Wisconsin law school graduate is not by the delay created by an exam administered just twice a year, they added.

The exemption does have some advocates, especially at The Daily Cardinal:

But simmering under the legal grounds of the lawsuit is the issue of whether the bar exam in really all that necessary for Wisconsin students. It would seem that a diploma proving you had completed three grueling years of legal study is a better indicator of one’s possible legal success than a single two-day exam. And considering that attorneys educated at Wisconsin law schools are only marginally more likely to be investigated for ethics complaints than other attorneys, it seems there is little statistical need to weed people out using the bar exam.

This Minnesotan is unimpressed.

There is a reason why most states require a law school diploma and a bar examination: competence.

This smells a lot like the loophole that I discovered as a high school student in Florida. In high school I had two options:

1. Take AP classes and suffer through a grueling exam in hopes of scoring a perfect "5" because my university might not give me credit for a "4" or,
2. Go to the community college in the evenings on my high school's dime and rack up A's that Florida colleges could not reject.

Of course I opted to go to community college. A student who would not get any credit for their AP score of a "3" or "4" could easily earn an A in the comparable community college course, which meant that out of state applicants to my university were grossly disadvantaged. I had a friend who started college with 90 credits through this dual enrollment program, whereas out-of-state students who took a boatload of AP classes typically started with only 20 or so credits, if they were lucky.

Was this unfair? Of course it was.

This in-state favoritism is exactly what is going on in Wisconsin. I’m sure that Wisconsin and Marquette are great law schools, but not everyone that manages to graduate law school is competent to practice. If Wisconsin schools are really that great at teaching their students, then their graduates will do as well on the bar as their Nordic neighbors.

since law school doesn't teach you this, i will

[brian lauter]

How often have you had to tell an inquisitive friend or relative, “I haven’t taken that class,” or “we didn’t have to learn that?” Probably quite a bit.

As law students, we’re rarely responsible for knowing and understanding current laws that actually relate to people we know.

Lucky for you, I’m here to help. The following is a summary of a few of the more interesting California laws taking effect in 2009. More comprehensive reviews can be found here and here.

1. No texting while driving

2. Chain restaurants with more than 20 locations must post nutritional information (effective July 1, 2009)

3. If you are on probation for DUI and are pulled over with a BAC of .01 or higher, the DMV may suspend your license for a year and impound your car

4. GPS units in cars must be located in the lower five inches of the left side of your windshield or the lower seven inches of the passenger side of your windshield

5. Schools may suspend and recommend expulsion of students who engage in cyber-bullying

6. Companies with business interests in Sudan are prohibited from bidding on state contracts for goods or services

7. Insurers may not refuse to pay the medical expenses of those injured while under the influence of drugs or alcohol

The texting law has been pretty well publicized, but you never know when your little brother will need a cease and desist order to ward off a cyber-bully, or your crazy uncle will get wasted and break his collarbone trying to pop a wheelie on a forklift.

At any rate, that should be enough to keep you and yours on the right side of the law in 2009. Excuse me while I dump my stock in the Bank of Sudan.

budget impasse holds your financial aid hostage.

[brian lauter]

Most of us have gotten used to a little bickering in Sacramento over the budget. It seems to happen every single year. In fact, the California budget has only been passed on time four times in the last 20 years. 

Some say its all an allergy problem. But, really its because California is one of the few states that requires a supermajority in the legislature for approval.

Regardless, if you aren’t one of the 22,000 workers who have been laid off as a result of this year’s impasse, you probably haven’t been paying much attention.

This week, however, California’s budget crisis hit home. Yesterday, King Hall students received an email from  the law school Registrar informing us that, because UC fees haven’t been finalized due to the impasse, she does not know when we will be able to obtain financial aid. (Full email after the jump).

I assume that students at Boalt, Hastings, and UCLA have received similar notifications. For those who didn’t make the big bucks this summer, this may be quite a blow.

It's not only affecting financial aid. A friend of mine who was planning on interning at the AG’s office in Sacramento this semester was informed that she could not be “hired” (for an unpaid externship) because the AG is prohibited from processing her paperwork until a budget is finalized.

So, enough is enough Sacramento. Sure, take a few more days to shake out the sillies, but let’s get this thing done.

AALS boycotts san diego hotel magnate.

[cynthia foster]

Four groups, on behalf of thousands of legal educators, are planning to boycott the Association of American Law Schools' annual conference if the organization carries out plans to hold the event at a San Diego hotel.  The hotel is owned by Douglas Manchester, who recently donated $125K to Prop 8 in support of limiting marriage rights in California to heterosexual couples.

Among the groups planning to protest are the Society of American Law Teachers; the Legal Writing Institute; the AALS Section on Legal Writing Research and Reasoning; and the AALS Section on Teaching Methods.  Together these groups represent some 2,500 individuals.  Representatives say attending the event at a Manchester-owned hotel would conflict with their policy of non-discrimination.

Manchester, who calls his gay and lesbian hotel employees "wonderful," told The National Law Journal that his hotel has been the site of protests and that same-sex activists are using the issue to try to unionize workers.

chemerinsky once again makes bold predictions.

[brian lauter]

Yesterday I attended an interesting luncheon celebrating the 92^nd Anniversary of the San Francisco Legal Aid Society. The event honored Colonel William A. Gunn, who oversaw the defense of Guantanamo detainees before military commissions. Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, who argued Hamdan v. Rumsefeld before the Supreme Court and won, introduced his former boss.

With names like Bill Gunn and Chuck Swift, these guys definitely should have been actors or rock stars. Both spoke eloquently and their stories were inspiring.

The theme of the event was “We’re off to see the future” and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, the keynote speaker, offered three predictions for the future. Surprisingly, none of them involved UC Irvine School of Law’s impending domination.  

we are taking california's hands-free law very seriously. very.

[brian lauter]

As a very responsible driver, I feel it is my duty to remind you that, as of tomorrow, California’s hands-free cell phone law will take effect. Actually, hands-free cell phone law may be a bit of a misnomer, since you may still be able to text while driving.

Some say it will save over 300 lives a year. Some say hands-free is just as bad as hands-on. Some say the law will just give law enforcement another excuse to search you and your car. I have a feeling they are all at least partially right.

Being a very responsible driver, I got a Bluetooth hands-free kit last week (or, my mother bought one and sent it to me). I’ve yet to figure out how to use it, but I’m really looking forward to being one of those guys.

If you are a very impoverished responsible driver (like me...), and your mother did not send you a hands-free kit, Justin may have some ideas for where you can get one on the cheap.

same-sex marriage: a long-time in the making, according to berkeley 3L

[abony holmes]

In this installment of our “law student on the street” interviews, I offer evidence that law students don’t live in a law school vacuum.

Angela Clements, a newly-minted 3L at Berkeley Law, discusses the monumental California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. Angela is so connected to the real world that she actually attended the press conference in San Francisco in the middle of her 2L final exams. For this, I give Angela mad props. Justin, Brian, and I have barely had the time to make blog posts these last few weeks, much less head to the California Supreme Court to obtain a court decision and read it.

Ed. note: for a hard-hitting look at the alumni affiliations and "doability" of the California Supreme Court justices, check out Above the Law.

illegally download and you may lose your financial aid (!!!)

[cynthia foster]

WireTap Magazine reports on the recent legislative act that may reduce funding for schools where students are illegally downloading.  This, in turn, could effect financial aid by forcing schools to offset the loss through increasing fees or limiting/canceling financial aid.

a conflict of conscience

[justin gosling]

"It's sad to say, but most attorneys I know won't take a dead-baby case."

Those are the words of Linda Fermoyle Rice, a well-known California medical malpractice attorney.  A recent LA Times article discusses recovery caps in medical malpractice cases and the effect on lawyers. The skinny: many attorneys will not take on certain cases because the caps do not make it financially viable to do so. I can't imagine turning away the parents of a dead baby. At the same time, I can't imagine working on a case that does not have enough potential recovery money to satisfy my fees and the family's needs. This is truly a lose-lose situation (though it is ripe for public policy arguments on either side).

Pro bono work may be an option for these families, but that is a stopgap measure at best. Legislative action may offer a solution, but I'm not going to hold my breath because the recovery caps were a legislative invention in the first place. That leaves practicing lawyers on the front lines turning away clients in need of legitimate representation. Ugg, the bottom line can be a bit of a mood killer. Maybe that is why we don't cover similar situations during career service workshops.

new year, new laws to break

[justin gosling]

One of my strongest memories of my childhood is reading newspaper articles at the end of December that alerted readers to new laws coming into effect on January 1. It's funny because I don't remember many "traditionally important" events, but Cheerios, sugar, and these new laws stand out in my mind. I don't think there is a link between this experience and my decision to enter the legal field, but I certainly was captivated by idea of new law. "What was wrong with existing law?" "Why didn't they think of these things before?" Granted, I was nine and probably would have thought bicameral was either an open-minded desert animal or two pieces of candy.

The best part was digging through the those serious laws in search of one or two that seemed silly. While I may not have understood the nuances of the legislative process during the third grade, apparently I could spot pork and shady influence from a mile away.  Humm, maybe I can find a silly law litigation firm somewhere. That sounds legitimate, right? Okay, maybe not. Either way, the creation of new laws forces lawyers to pay attention to changes in their practice area. Wait, does that mean we never escape the learning aspect of law school? The horror!

Naturally, I still look for silly laws, but I think the amusement threshold was a lot lower when I was nine.