In the Public's Benefit - Installment 2009-4 update

Former Rep. William Jefferson has been sentenced to 13 years in federal prison. According to Jefferson's lawyer, his sentence is the longest ever handed down to a congressman for public corruption. Jefferson was found guilty of taking more than $478,000 in kickbacks in return for helping to arrange business deals in Africa. Under federal sentencing guidelines prosecutors had had sought a 27 - 33 year sentence for Jefferson.

Jefferson was convicted last August on 11 of 16 federal charges of bribery, fraud, money laundering, and racketeering. He became the first sitting member of Congress to be charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In December, 2008, we had posted Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit contending that Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. After all, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of Girl Scout equivalent Gold Awards.

Jefferson earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1972, and a LLM in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center in 1996. This time a highly-placed, corrupt lawyer has shamed two law schools.

Stay tuned. Shamed law schools will continue to be identified to awaken the public:

In the Public's Benefit - Installment 2009-5

Attorney Robert Simels (New York Law School – J.D., 1974) became a convicted felon late this month, under 12 counts -- including bribery of a witness, attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering -- due to his efforts to prevent potential witnesses from testifying against his client, Guyanese drug-smuggler Shaheed "Roger" Khan. Mr. Simels' former associate, attorney Arienne Irving (SUNY- Buffalo) , was convicted of five of 11 counts, including attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering.

At this writing, Simels's online biography includes these MEMBERSHIPS AND COMMITTEE POSITIONS:
Association of the Bar of the City of New York - Criminal Justice Operations Committee; Professional Discipline Committee; Professional Responsibility Committee; Chairman, Forfeiture Committee – N.Y.S. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Corrections Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Faculty member - NITA; Faculty member - Practicing Law Institute; Federal Bar Council; ABA

In December, 2008, we had posted Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit contending that Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. After all, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of Girl Scout equivalent Gold Awards.

We expected, to be posting with increasing frequency about the brazen corruption and ethical lapses of lawyers in public office. The latest felon is has been a member of the U.S. House. The kind of dough those not in public office could afford to throw around could certainly influence some in public office:

Shamed law schools will be identified to awaken the public. Stay tuned.

Guess Who is Fighting Consumer Identity Theft Protections by Corporate Guardians

Lax security of personal data files kept by organizations increasingly exposes individuals to the risk of identity theft. Since 2005, for example, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has registered over 900 data breaches caused by US companies and government agencies. Over 200 million records containing sensitive personal information, like social security numbers, were involved.

After 1998 testimony from industry groups, the FTC agreed to self-regulating restrictions on access to credit reports information:

The Commission encourages the credit card industry to pursue perpetrators of identity theft and the consumer reporting agencies to continue to work with consumer victims to ensure the accuracy of their records. The Commission also believes that consumer victims need to be formally recognized as crime victims, complete with rights of restitution. The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1997 should go a long way toward lessening the harm identity theft inflicts on innocent consumers.

Fast forward to 2009 RESULT: ID-Theft Ring Ensnares Even the Fed Chairman

More currently (From the BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes),

The American Bar Association is suing the Federal Trade Commission in federal district court in Washington to block enforcement of regulations that require businesses and organizations that act as "creditors" to establish a program for preventing identity theft, The National Law Journal reports. Lawyers, doctors and other professionals are included in the FTC's definition of creditors because customers are billed after services are provided. The ABA is challenging that interpretation.

Thanks again, American Bar Association, you do so much to (select the answer that fits best):
a) please lawyer-politicians supported by corporate lobbyists
b) assure the job security of your membership
c) both a) and b)
d) inhibit the growth of national crime patterns

Which of the above, American Bar Association, is "not your job"? ans.: d)

In the Public's Benefit - Installment 2009-4

William Jennings "Bill" Jefferson (HARVARD LAW - 1972) is now a convicted felon and the 3rd high-profile lawyer to be found guilty of felony (after Joseph P. Collins and Marc S. Dreier), since July 11, 2009. Two of the villains are HARVARD LAW graduates.

In December, 2008, we had posted Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit contending that Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. After all, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of Girl Scout equivalent Gold Awards.

We expected, to be posting with increasing frequency about the brazen corruption and ethical lapses of lawyers in public office. The latest felon is has been a member of the U.S. House. The kind of dough those not in public office could afford to throw around could certainly influence some in public office:

Shamed law schools will be identified to awaken the public. Stay tuned.

In the Public's Benefit - Installment 2009-3

A continuing series on lax admissions and/or ethics standards for major U.S. lawschools ...

Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit. Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave. Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. After all, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of equivalent Girl Scout Gold Awards.

We expect to post with increasing frequency about brazen corruption and ethical lapses of convicted lawyers. Lax law schools will be overrepresented and identified to awaken an unsuspecting public.

A disproportionate percentage of law graduates (hardly 2% of the entire workforce) are currently elected to over 20% of public offices. This presents conflicts of interest and unintended concentrations of authority. Combined with self-serving laws tailored to give incumbents subtle advantages over challengers, the country is in growing peril of a permanent political class.

The latest remarkable example of lawyer malfeasance involves one not in public office. With the kind of dough he could afford to throw around, however, he could certainly influence some in public office:

Sentencing is set for Nov. 3rd for attorney Joseph P. Collins, formerly a partner of Mayer Brown LLP.

Mr. Collins was found guilty of conspiracy, two counts of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Collins, a lawyer for Refco Inc., was convicted on conspiracy and fraud charges Friday in a scheme helping owners and executives at the defunct commodities broker steal more than $2 billion by concealing material financial woes.

Mr. Collin's Law School: New York University, J.D., 1975

Warning: Never blindly vote for another lawyer, regardless of party affiliation.

The Public's Benefit - Installment 2

In December, 2008, we posted Law Schools Do Not Seem to Compete for the Public's Benefit contending that Law school reputations currently connote to the public only vague expectations of how brazen and arrogant its graduates behave.

Law school admission standards must be tightened for the entire public to better rely on reputations of respective law schools for producing graduates of innate integrity.

Improving law school admissions standards, although certainly in the public interest, is highly unlikely. Afterall, law schools are not military academies and most lawyers were never Eagle Scouts nor recipients of Girl Scout equivalent Gold Awards.

We expected, to be posting with increasing frequency about the brazen corruption and ethical lapses of lawyers in public office. The shamed law schools will be identified just in case the more serious allegations stick to awaken the public. A disproportionate percentage of law graduates (hardly 2% of the entire workforce) are currently elected to over 20% of public offices. This presents conflicts of interest and unintended concentrations of authority. Combined with self-serving laws tailored to give incumbents subtle advantages over challengers, the country is in growing peril of a permanent political class.

The latest remarkable example of lawyer malfeasance involves one not in public office. With his Harvard pedigree and the kind of dough he could afford to throw around, however, he could certainly influence those in public office:

A well-heeled New York lawyer termed a Houdini of impersonation and false documents pled guilty to a scheme that cost investors and hedge funds at least $400 million. The lawyer, Marc S. Dreier, is a Harvard Law graduate who sold $700 million worth of bogus promissory notes to investors, according to his federal indictment. The New York Times reported yesterday that federal prosecutors have recommended a 145-year sentence for lawyer Dreier. Of course, determination of Mr. Dreier's sentence will be left up to another lawyer --- a judge.

Hopefully, the sentencing judge will also be an emBARrassed Harvard law grad.

Sotomayor and the Supreme Court Paradigm

Seating Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court could well be required for a feat not anticipated in our lifetimes, although certainly provided by the framers of our constitution, — seating non-lawyers on that court.

Sotomayor may weigh her life experiences, as she has stated, to reach judicial opinions some interpret at conflict with the Constitution and case law to date. This would not be the first time, nor would it always lead to favorable outcomes for Sotomayor’s opinions. Dissenting or not, she would be subject to the razor-sharp pressure from her peers.

The longstanding monopoly of an entire branch of the federal government by lawyers, the majority of the U.S. Senate, including its Judiciary Committee, and over 30% of the U.S. House of Representatives by members of a single profession is outrageous on its face. Although such concentrations of authority breed conflicts of interest, most voters cannot see the results.

A scandal with tentacles and ensuing investigation will someday confirm the unconscionable conflicts of interest enabled by lawyers, particularly with unelected enablers like well-heeled lobbyists or worse, lawyer-filled not-for-profits like the A.C.L.U. , A.C.O.R.N.

Like it or not, seating Sotomayor may finally provide that reliance on case precedent and the written letter of the law (i.e. the claimed necessity for jurists' formal legal education) is not so necessary. Voila! We want to see some commoners on our Supreme Court.