Law Professor "Rights?"

In some posts here and over on classbias I have attempted to describe a view of collegiality that stresses substance over form. In connection with that I have described practices that are and are not consistent with actual collegiality.

A response I got which follows in bold type led me to think this may have more to do with Moneylaw than I initially thought. Inherent in the commentator's reasoning is a view that law professors are entitled to certain "rights." It avoids the more critical question of whether these rights were legitimately established. To me, one of the first tasks of a Moneylaw is to reexamine the allocation of "rights" that law professors have assigned to themselves.

"I only can think of one professor who voluntarily teaches extra credit hours, although I know plenty who open up their wait lists voluntarily and teach more students.They wouldn't justify it on grounds that they need to make up for their lack of writing, of course, but they get satisfaction about receiving recognition in an area in which they do excel. I also know lots of professors who don't apply for sabbaticals (even though they could probably trump up a scholarly project to meet the requirement) and therefore effectively voluntarily teach more classes than scholars. Moreover, there are dozens of examples of non-scholars voluntarily assuming larger administrative loads, in part because they recognize their lack of recognition for scholarship and get more satisfaction in the administrative side. None of this is rare at all.Of course, this isn't to say there aren't bad citizens. It's just that there are some face-saving ways in which people internalize the cost of their failure to produce elsewhere."

Reasonable on its face to be sure but underneath is a deep conservatism that stops Moneylaw, or anything else, in its tracks. Let's take it step by step.

1. "I only can think of one professor who voluntarily teaches extra credit hours, although I know plenty who open up their wait lists voluntarily and teach more students."

First, so what? What is an extra credit hour? "Extra" needs a reference. That reference is to already very small teaching loads. And, how were those teaching loads determined. Was it a legitimate process in which the interests of all affected were considered. A serious conversation about Moneylaw issues starts with questioning how the right was established or earned. Those who enjoy current allocations are understandably reluctance to examine them closely.

But there is more. Notice the idea that it is a sacrifice to open up a wait list. The implication is that there is a "right" not to open it. Where did that right come from? The fact that the list can be opened suggests it was not for pedagogical purposes. The commentators "good deeds" consistently flow from an assumption that the status quo is just. In fact, the status quo is consistently the product of the entitled being generous to themselves.

2. I also know lots of professors who don't apply for sabbaticals (even though they could probably trump up a scholarly project to meet the requirement) and therefore effectively voluntarily teach more classes than scholars.

Same idea. Teaching becomes an act of charity when compared with not teaching -- an initial allocation of questionable legitimacy. At my school, at least, we have sabbaticals because voted to give them to ourselves. For all practical purposes, there is no expectation of research. Now it has become a "right" that one is heroic to give up. In addition, "trumping up" tells me all I know about the expected level of accountability.

3. There are dozens of examples of non-scholars voluntarily assuming larger administrative loads, in part because they recognize their lack of recognition for scholarship and get more satisfaction in the administrative side.

Really!From this statement the sense of entitlement extends to a decision to not to all phases of the job even though that was part of the bargain when hired and when tenured. (I know of no one receiving tenure on the basis of administrative potential.) Where along the line did job switching become legitimized as a "right." But lets face it, the new administrators often head up manufactured centers or programs that do little. More importantly, usually the administration role means less teaching. Remember, this is the commentator's example of selflessness.

It would be disingenuous to claim I do not understand this. Those with a sense of entitlement are masters of rationalization and faux legitimization. They claim ownership of legal education and make sure to pass it to their heirs.

Al Martin on Your Right To Survival

The Most Valuable Professor: Tale of Two Professors

Nancy's most recent entry (two below) led to two images that seem related, albeit like bookends. One image is of the law professor most likely to be of value to law schools. The other is of the professor with the highest value in every other sense.

I have actually known about the professor with the highest market value for several years. I was introduced when a mentor of mine and I were discussing an "on the way up" colleague and he observed "he really knows how to play the game." As our discussion continued, I realized that most valued means most valued to other faculty and "the game" was largely self-promotion and avoiding controversy. Not that the professor he spoke about was not productive. He was but, to some extent, even his productivity was self promotion. When he submitted an article his first sentence always mention his latest article in the Harvard Law Review. The fact that it was a book review was beside the a point as was his blatent appeal to institutional authority. That appeal was not confined to cover letters -- the class room, causal conversation, and every faculty blurb included use of the H word. As we talked it was also revealed that the professor was a perfect fit for Making Nice, Knowing Better, and Doing Nothing and was a heavy player in the market for tenure letters. The most valuable professor is one who is productive and who "knows how to play the game." Let the bidding wars begin!

That, however, is different from the most valuable law professor from the standpoint of stakeholders -- students, taxpayers and donors. From that perspective the most valuable professor makes a difference in the lives of people other than law professors. Actually, there are many professors who tie for this honor. Mary Reilly has mentioned him or her here already. The actual most valuable in any meaningful sense usually does this: teaches a minimum of 200 students a year and does it carefully, does not insist on teaching 2 days a week to clear time for research or sailing (as a recent commentator suggested), picks topics to write about that have some connection with making others better off (ideally those least well off to start with) as opposed to simply impressing other professors, is more interested in feeling good about the substance of what is written than the status of the review or filling two more lines on a resume, does not make hiring or tenure decisions on the basis of social or political comfort, raises and discusses difficult issues even when the collegiality card is played. I could go on but you have one or more on your own faculty. There are no bidding wars about these professors which tells you all you need to know about the market for law professors.

Workers Unite!!

Several years ago a colleague and friend (and now a dean) referred to faculty as workers (or maybe it was labor) and the administration as management. I objected on the basis that the word “worker” suggests something most law professors are not and have never been.

Now I realize that most faculty like to slide between the two roles. Sometimes they are management and the Dean is the “agent of the faculty.” Faculty governance and all that. Managers typically take responsibility for the overall operation and success of an organization are accountable ultimately to shareholders. So they stay a little later than absolutely necessary, fill in even though it is not exactly in the job description, and, more importantly, in one way or another the welfare of stakeholders seems to be linked to their own welfare.

When being a manager requires faculty to rise to the level of recognizing their overall obligations most quickly revert to the worker role. Thus, “I cannot teach that section of torts, I have to do my research.” or, “The Dean should have hired a visitor to teach that course. I’d not doing it.” or, “I know 50 students want to take the course but, if I have more than 20, I cannot get to my research.” Or, “I can only teach in Tuesday and Wednesday.” You get the drift. Workers work, get a check and go home.

Can an organization have the same people acting as managers and workers? Think about it. You are the manager at The Gap. (I know this requires more responsibility than I have seen most law professors muster up but lets stay with the example.) So you worry about having enough cashiers at peak times, spotting shop-lifters, keeping the selves stocked and all those things that make shoppers happy and, thus, shareholders happy.

But, one of the people working for you as a cashier is, well, you. (Again, since most law professors could not cut it as a Gap cashier, the analogy is not so great.) When your break comes you shut down your line even if 5 people are waiting. Stay a little longer to clean up. No way! Help out a new cashier who is having a problem on the neighboring line? Give me a break. You do not get paid for that. It’s management’s problem.

The clash is obvious but far more crippling in the context of legal education. Not only are faculty both managers and workers – supervising themselves and moving back and forth from management to labor as it suits them – but, as managers they are insulated from the shareholders. Can you think of a more powerful formula for disaster?

(In response to Nancy's post immediately below, I know the most valuable law professor and will reveal the information after I grade a few more papers and feel entitled to a period of procrastination.)

A new market: law professors?

Paul Caron (MoneyLaw2.0: The Law Prof Exchange) & Jeff Harrison (Is There Hope for MoneyLaw?) have posed some great questions for MoneyLaw, and if we're going to come up w/a market for Law Professors (LaPDAQ? MLPE?), we're going to need analysts to provide information.

That, of course, gets us back to the original issue that MoneyLaw suggested: that someone is worth more for what he's doing than for where he went to school and where he clerked. Not all law schools understand this concept in hiring, but they do in allocating annual raises. (I've never heard an executive committee of the faculty argue for higher raises for someone on the basis of school/clerkship.)

Should the analysts take those raises themselves into account? (From a personal point of view, I hope not--after I stepped down as dean and announced that I was going to Boyd School of Law at UNLV, I was told that I wasn't getting a raise for the rest of my time at Houston.) Dick Chait, of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and one of my personal gurus, has suggested that raises really don't affect what good professors do. We'd still want to teach well and continue our research whether or not the administration rewarded us for our past work.

What about raises that reflect a bidding war for a professor "in play"? There are good and bad reasons for an analyst to look at those types of raises. A large raise (or the granting of a professorship) indicates the current institution's valuation of the professor but could be limited by the current institution's funds, by a provost who doesn't approve the raise, or by a dean's unwillingness to retain that professor. Most retention packages fly slightly under the radar, making more internal news than external news. And the more that people have to resort to school-shopping to get large raises, the less institutional cohesiveness that school will have.

So what factors should MLPE analysts use?

A new market: law professors?

Paul Caron (MoneyLaw2.0: The Law Prof Exchange) & Jeff Harrison (Is There Hope for MoneyLaw?) have posed some great questions for MoneyLaw, and if we're going to come up w/a market for Law Professors (LaPDAQ? MLPE?), we're going to need analysts to provide information.

That, of course, gets us back to the original issue that MoneyLaw suggested: that someone is worth more for what he's doing than for where he went to school and where he clerked. Not all law schools understand this concept in hiring, but they do in allocating annual raises. (I've never heard an executive committee of the faculty argue for higher raises for someone on the basis of school/clerkship.)

Should the analysts take those raises themselves into account? (From a personal point of view, I hope not--after I stepped down as dean and announced that I was going to Boyd School of Law at UNLV, I was told that I wasn't getting a raise for the rest of my time at Houston.) Dick Chait, of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and one of my personal gurus, has suggested that raises really don't affect what good professors do. We'd still want to teach well and continue our research whether or not the administration rewarded us for our past work.

What about raises that reflect a bidding war for a professor "in play"? There are good and bad reasons for an analyst to look at those types of raises. A large raise (or the granting of a professorship) indicates the current institution's valuation of the professor but could be limited by the current institution's funds, by a provost who doesn't approve the raise, or by a dean's unwillingness to retain that professor. Most retention packages fly slightly under the radar, making more internal news than external news. And the more that people have to resort to school-shopping to get large raises, the less institutional cohesiveness that school will have.

So what factors should MLPE analysts use?

Reno: Help get Ayalla's story out !!!!



Now i cannot remember for certain, but i know that i said it some where that i was impressed with how many people call Ed and Elaine everyday, and not the same ones either. every time he answers and talks to people, everyday folk.

some are well wishers, some are prayers, some are thank yous, and a lot of them are asking for help. and help he does. i have not been able to listen to every call that comes in but i have been able to hear a few of the stories when given the ok by the callers.

all sorts of issues are brought up. but today, one caller stood out. ed stopped eating supper to listen to the woman walking into another room. elaine and i finished eating and cleaned up and talked to others.

when ed was done, he walked in straight to me and told me that i had to help him. that i had to help him help this woman. he wanted her story to get out so she can get more help to her. READ ON...

Ed & Elaine Brown Musical Tribute

IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson Dodges Income Tax Question

If you have not seen it yet, now is the time!


Watch in Full Screen!

Ed Brown: Dear Mr. Monier,

(the following was taken down by my own hands as Edward spoke, at his request; to be placed on the internet. reno)

Dear Mr. Monier,

You have stated in the news paper, that the Browns are a public safety problem. Due to allege threats against federal personnel.

I Edward Lewis family Brown, have never threatened anyone in my life.

It is unlawful to threaten, however, I have warned everyone and anyone that has ever threatened me; that if they attempt to do so or will do so, I will follow the letter of the law (note criminal law, LETHAL FORCE DOCTRINE), that I will use equal or greater force as the law dictates in order to protect myself, my property, my family, my community, my county, my state and my nation at any cost.

If you feel that following the letter of the law would endanger public safety, then perhaps you should review your U.S. Marshals rules of engagement and consider who actually is conducting the danger to public safety.

It seems ever increasing that the many law enforcement agencies are creating the dehumanizing hazards to public safety. We will always remember that all government personnel are either law enforcement agents or revenue gathers. Their primary function is currently to protect their own positions, (jobs), for their own personal enrichment, that is why we always hear them say, "I'm just doing my job." It saddens me that you do not seem to understand the the higher law of man and god and elect instead to enter the snake pit.

Read more at Ed Brown MySpace Blog.

Civil Disobedience is the Only Answer


How do we resist Tyranny, pay it in hopes that it goes away? No this is not the answer; we must cut ties with this organization of tyranny. We must end all communication with government; we must no longer contract with government. Do not sign their paperwork, do not receive their licenses; do not ask for permission to exist and travel or get married.

In other words we the people have created the government, and the constitution for the United States of America, this constitution falls in alignment with the 10 commandments given by the creator whom men call God. Extra constitutional maritime/admiralty laws can only exist for property, we are the property of God we follow God’s laws, we are not lawless, we are not the property of man, we are not corporate fictions.

We will not fund your war, that you are waging on the American people, and the people of this world. Paying an income tax, in which no law requires us to pay, would be like directly funding the evil that you are casting upon the world. Evils such as 911, a false flag terror event in which you used as a catalyst to destroy the lives of thousands of troops and over 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians whom would not have otherwise died.

Many people pay their taxes and are complaisant with this system of evil. They do it because they are afraid of government, or they do it because they are not informed of the law. We are neither afraid of you, nor are we misinformed on the law. We do not fund murder, and we do not support murderers or the people in government whom are destroying this country, and the rule of constitutional law, based off of God’s laws that has served as a solid foundation for over 200 years.

The only solution is resistance, pure and absolute “civil disobedience”, we will not comply we will not be used as tools to assist in the deconstruction of liberty. We will stand our ground.

Elaine Brown Elaborates on civil disobedience.


In today’s show, I thought Elaine Brown very adequately equated civil disobedience, to spiritual obedience. You see, she pointed out the fact that many of man’s laws are in conflict with gods laws, and that in the end we must choose whom we are a subject too. Are we a subject to man, or subject to God? Can we serve two masters, when they come into conflict with one another?

One thing that I would like to add to that is the way organized religions misinterpret the scriptures with respects to paying Caesars things to Caesar, and God’s things to God. Many organized 501c3 religious corporations risk their very own legal status by correctly interpreting Mark 12:17 and Romans 13:7 (so they don’t correctly interpret it.)

You see when you consider the income tax there are certain pesky facts we have to deal with. (a.) There is no law that requires you to pay. (b.) despite the fact that there is no law, Caesar would like you to pay him every red cent you own. But here is the thing, the reason Caesar cannot lay claim to your money is because it violates his own laws, which is the constitution.

Now being that the product of your labor does not inherently belong to Caesar, he cannot lay claim to it through the legal system. He must try and take it away from you, by deceiving you into volunteering your money through the use of fear and coercion. So being that Caesar knows your labor is a direct result of a product of God.

He must use the IRS in order to attempt to deceive you into sending him paper work claiming that you owe him something that you do not. Then he can feel justified in taking it, because you told him that it was his, when you established your own liability through the process of self assessment. You see, when you voluntarily assess an income tax liability, you have to first understand what an “income” is before you complete your assessment.

Corporations come from Caesar; corporations are fictions chartered into a pseudo existence and therefore belong to Caesar. So any profits that come from Caesar, owe a cut to Caesar. Now if you are deceived into believing that your status is the same status of a corporation, you can be easily deceived into thinking that you have an income, which is a profit derived from corporate activities.

I think I’m going to cut this short because many will not be able to follow, but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that the government uses the postal service and the use or misuse of the English grammar to deceive many people into operating as officers of a corporation. And when you claim to be responsible for the activities of a corporation, in essence you set yourself up as being the fall guy.

Let that be a partial explanation for those whom have eyes to see, and ears to hear. Romans 13:7, says pay people what you owe people, which is the exact same thing that Jesus said. However people truly must understand the nature of their involvement in commerce. Are you a pseudo fiction, or a Man/Woman? The key to understanding the capacity in which you operate is to understand the proper use of punctuation in English grammar. The truth of the matter is that Extra-constitutional laws; (statutory laws) do not apply to men and women, in the same way that they apply to fictional entities.
ABA ELDER LAW COMMITTEE Newsletter April, 2007
ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division
Chairs - Kenneth Vercammen, Edison, NJ and Jay Foonberg, Beverly
Hills, CA

In this issue:
ABA Elder Law Committee meeting
Friday, May 11, 2007 12:10- 1pm
Washington Court Hotel, Chair's Suite

1. ESTATE RECOVERY IN MEDICAID
2. Yearly Insurance Review
3. Effective Business Succession Planning
_____________________________

ABA Elder Law Committee meeting
Friday, May 11, 2007 12:10- 1pm
Washington Court Hotel, Chair's Suite

Topic: Elder Law Practice- Changes in the law and ideas to Improve
Your Practice by Giving Clients What They Want and Need, plus
Marketing and Expanding an Elder Law Practice


American Bar Association General Practice Section, Elder Law
Committee
Chairs/ Speakers:
Jay Foonberg, Beverly Hills, CA
-Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. , Edison, NJ Chair- Elder Law
Committee

If you are attending, email Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. at
Kenv@njlaws.com

Elder Law may be the biggest practice area of your career. 50,000
baby boomers/ day turning 60 and soon to be on Medicaid and
needing your help.

Topics:
New Medicaid Law 2006- Protect yourself from inaccurate advice and
malpractice
Getting referrals from other professionals
The aftermath of the Terry Schiavo case.
Email newsletters
How to get more referrals and repeat business
How to manage telephone conversations with your clients
Marketing with written fee agreements
-Networking the Internet without backlash
-Ethics and marketing without violating the Rules of Professional
Conduct

[Contact Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. for program information
732-572-0500]

1. ESTATE RECOVERY IN MEDICAID

By: Thomas. D. Begley, Jr., Esquire

A state is entitled to recover for Medicaid payments correctly paid on
behalf of the individual by use or real or personal property liens and
recovery from decedents’ estates. 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(1)(B); HCFA
Transmittal 63; N.J.S.A. 30:4D-7.2 et seq.; N.J.A.C. 10:49-1 et seq.
The state is required to seek reimbursement from an individual’s
estate for the cost of nursing facility services. 42 U.S.C. §
1396p(b)(1)(B). However, no recovery may be made until after the
death of the recipient’s surviving spouse, and only when there are no
surviving children who are under age 21 or blind or permanently
disabled.


A. Definition of Estate. New Jersey seeks recovery from estates of
deceased individuals. While federal law only requires that states
recover from the probate estate of the deceased Medicaid recipient,
New Jersey has elected to expand the definition of an estate as
follows:

“Estate includes all real and personal property and other assets
included in the recipient’s estate as defined at N.J.S. 3B:1-1, as well
as any other real or personal property and other assets in which the
recipient had any legal title or interest at the time of death, to the extent
of that interest, including assets conveyed to a survivor, heir or assign
of the recipient through joint tenancy, tenancy in common,
survivorship, life estate, living trust or other arrangement.”

B. Age 55. With respect to an institutional level of care, estate
recovery applies to all Medicaid payments made or services received
after an individual is 55 years of age or older. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(c).
Under federal and state law, in the case of a recipient who became
deceased on or after April 1, 1995 for whom a Medicaid payment was
made on or after October 1, 1993, a lien may be filed against, and
recovery sought, from the estate of a deceased recipient for
assistance correctly paid or to be paid on his behalf for all services
received when he was 55 years of age or older. 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b);
N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(c).

C. De minimus Amounts. Under N.J.A.C. 30:4D-7.2a, recovery
cannot be made against the estate of a deceased recipient if the
amount sought is less than $500 or the gross estate of the deceased
recipient is less than $3,000.

D. Surviving Spouse or Child under 21 or Blind or Disabled. No
recovery shall be made if there is a surviving spouse or a surviving
child who is under the age of 21 or is blind or permanently and totally
disabled, except for assistance incorrectly or illegally paid or for third
party liability recovery. These exceptions to estate recovery are also
incorporated in N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(a).

E. PAAD. No estate recovery shall be made under the
Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled program
(PAAD), unless the assistance was incorrectly or illegally paid.

F. Life Estates/Trusts.

• Life Estate. Life estates that expire upon the Medicaid beneficiary’s
death are exempt from estate recovery. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(n)(1).

• Inter Vivos Trust. An inter vivos trust established by a third party for
the benefit of a deceased Medicaid recipient is not subject to estate
recovery provided that the Medicaid recipient could not compel
distributions from the trust and the trust contains no assets in which
the Medicaid beneficiary held any interest within either five (5) years
prior to applying for Medicaid benefits or five (5) years prior to the
Medicaid recipient’s death. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(n)(2).

• Testamentary Trust. Testamentary trusts are exempt from estate
recovery provided that the Medicaid recipient could not compel
distribution and the trust contains no assets in which the Medicaid
recipient held an interest within either five (5) years prior to applying for
Medicaid benefits or five (5) years prior to the recipient’s death.
Assets of the community spouse which formed a part of the
Community Spouse Resource Allowance shall not be considered
assets of the Medicaid recipient. Any assets of the community spouse
other than those that formed part of the CSRA allowance are
considered assets of the Medicaid recipient if acquired from the
Medicaid recipient with five (5) years prior to the date of application for
the Medicaid benefits or five (5) years prior to the date of the death of
the Medicaid beneficiary. It is believed that the reference to assets
acquired from the Medicaid recipient means assets acquired from the
Medicaid recipient’s spouse.

G. Tracing. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(l) makes clear that estate recovery
may be sought from trusts and annuities, even if established by a third
party. This applies to living trusts and testamentary trusts if the assets
in the trust belonged to the Medicaid beneficiary as of five years prior
to the beneficiary’s death. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(n). This provision may
be invalid since it appears to be more restrictive than either the federal
or state statute, which limits recovery to “living trusts.” However, in
DeMartino v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, 373
N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2004), the court held that such a trust was
subject to Medicaid estate recovery.

H. Spouse. New Jersey’s current regulations exempt the estate of
the spouse from recovery. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(n).

An issue arises as to whether a state may recover from the estate of a
spouse of a deceased Medicaid recipient. In the case of Wisconsin v.
Estate of Budney, 197 NW 2d 245 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995), the court held
that the Wisconsin statute authorizing recovery from the spouse of a
deceased Medicaid recipient is invalid. In a California case, Demille v.
Bleshe, 1995 WL 23636 (N.D. Cal. 1995), the court held that the state
was free to impose liens on property of the deceased Medicaid
recipient, after the recipient is dead, and that those liens become
payable upon the death of the surviving spouse or upon sale of the
property.

New Jersey has a policy of not forcing a sale while any family
member is still living in the house. This is documented in N.J.A.C.
10:49-14.1(j). Recoveries will not be pursued against property held by
bona fide purchasers. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(k).

There may be an issue as to whether Medicaid can recover for
payments made on behalf of the deceased Medicaid recipient prior to
December 23, 1995, which is the effective date of the New Jersey
statute.

New Jersey will exempt assets from estate recovery on a hardship
basis only if the asset is the sole income-producing asset of the
survivor, and recovery by the state would result in the survivor
becoming a beneficiary of public benefits himself or herself. Thus,
New Jersey’s tentative definition of “hardship” is very rigid. There is
also a rebuttable presumption in New Jersey that there is no hardship
if Medicaid planning was effected. N.J.A.C. 10:49-14.1(h). The
representative of the estate of the Medicaid recipient has 20 days from
the date of receipt of the notice of the State’s lien to file a request for a
waiver or compromise of the claim.

Begley & Bookbinder, P.C. is an Elder & Disability Law Firm with
offices in Moorestown, Stone Harbor and Lawrenceville, New Jersey
and can be contacted at 800-533-7227. The firm services southern
and central New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania.
______________________

2. Yearly Insurance Review

By Ray Pavese & Mike McCormick
Every year you should review your insurance policies to make sure
you still have a policy that
meets your needs, as well as the needs of your family members and
loved ones.

One of the policies that most often gets overlooked is the life
insurance policy. Since this is often a long-term policy, most
insured individuals assume they are stuck with the same policy,
no matter what. Usually this is not the case, although it will
depend on your policy and company as to whether you receive
penalties when changing your insurance.

Even if penalties occur, changing your life insurance policy may
be essential to keeping up with your family's financial needs for
the future.

If you don't review your life insurance policy every year, you
should at least review your policy under these circumstances:

* Marriage/Divorce - Needs change depending on your marital
status. Keep this in mind as things change in your life. Even if
you don't want to change the value of your policy, you probably
want to change the beneficiary.

* Children - If you ask the majority of life insurance agents,
the major reason for changing a life insurance policy is because
of children. This is because many adults never believe they will
need extra money after death until they realize that they will
have someone preceding them in death. Children will need money
for basic food and shelter until they are 18 and possibly for a
future college fund as well. Keep that in mind, and tell others
you know that may be affected.

* An Illness - Although waiting to change your insurance policy
until you have a long-term illness will mean paying higher
premiums, it is best to at least review your policy limitations
and make necessary changes if you find out you have a potentially
life threatening illness.

If you have questions regarding a change you would like to make
on your life insurance policy, feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,

Ray Pavese & Mike McCormick
Pavese-McCormick Agency, Inc.
mikem@pavesemccormick.com
______________________________

3. Effective Business Succession Planning

By Saul Simon

Business owners invest significant amounts of time and financial
resources to make their enterprises successful. Quite often, due to
the quick pace of day-to-day operations, planning for succession of
ownership is relegated to a low-priority task. But there comes a point
in the life cycle of any business when the owner is no longer able to
manage the firm that he or she founded.


Because the timing of death or disability is difficult to predict, it’s
prudent to have a succession plan in place now to safeguard your
family’s financial well being, and to provide your business with
leadership during a transition period.


A Family Affair?

One logical solution—and one that most entrepreneurs may want to
choose—is to turn the reins over to their children. However, despite its
emotional and intuitive appeal, the odds are stacked squarely against
a business surviving a transfer down the bloodline.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, two-thirds of
family-run enterprises fail to make the successful transition to a
second generation of ownership, and less than 15% survive into the
third generation. Making a successful transition even trickier are
issues brought on by divorce, blended families, or rivalries among
children.


The best course of action may be either to identify strong candidates
within your company who can continue to run the business and
provide a source of financial security for your family, or to look at the
potential for selling the business to an outside party.

“You have to be realistic,” says Jack Kaewpalug, Certified Financial
PlannerTM Practitioner with Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. in Irvine,
Calif. “If you’re the person who is responsible for 80% of the firm’s
sales, you’ll need to identify somebody who can assume that role if
you want to keep the operation going.”


Transitional Steps

Whichever course you eventually decide is right for your business,
there are steps you can take now that will ease the transition.

* Groom new management. Who is best able to run the business in
your absence? Perhaps your children have spent years growing up in
the business and have become capable managers in their own right.
If not, look to your existing management team, and make your
intentions known. Be sure that candidates are capable and interested
in taking over.

* Determine a value. Work with a valuation specialist to get a fair
assessment of what your business might be worth. While valuation
analysis may be an art as much as it is a science, you should place a
value on your business in the event you decide to sell. There are
several valuation methods, including book value, discounted cash
flow, or you could hire a professional appraiser. If you decide to
transfer the business to your children, a professional appraisal is
generally required to withstand IRS scrutiny.

* Draft a buy-sell agreement. Depending on the structure of
ownership, this document will be a binding agreement detailing the
terms of ownership transfer between you and your offspring, you and a
non-family successor, or you and your partners. Be sure to specify
how the agreement will be funded. “Proceeds from a life insurance
policy are frequently used as a way to fund a buy-sell arrangement,”
says Kaewpalug, “Other options include loans from a bank or
company earnings that are paid back through an ‘earn-out’
arrangement with your successor, whereby the loan is paid back in
regular installments.

* ESOPs. If you have a large number of employees, another option is
an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), whereby a bank lends
money to the ESOP to purchase your interest in the business, and the
employees then buy the shares through regular payroll deductions.

Planning for succession can be an unpleasant task, although the
outcome can be even more unpleasant if you fail to plan. “You’ll have a
lot more options if you start to plan when things are going great,” says
Kaewpalug. “What you don’t want is a situation where your family is
scrambling to salvage some value from the business after you’re
gone.”

Simon Financial Group
399 Thornall Street, 12th Floor
Edison, NJ 08837
Phone: (732)623.2078
Fax: (732)623.2088

www.saulsimon.com

Your Editor Kenneth Vercammen, Edison Attorney was selected a
2007 NJ Super Lawyer in the Criminal Law- DWI section for the
second year in a row. Of over 79,00 attorneys in New Jersey, only three
were selected as Super Lawyers in the Criminal Law- DWI category.

HOW SUPER LAWYERS ARE SELECTED
Law & Politics performs the polling, research and selection of
Super Lawyers in a process designed to identify lawyers who have
attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional
achievement. Super Lawyers is a comprehensive and diverse listing
of outstanding attorneys, representing a wide range of practice areas,
firm sizes and geographic locations. Only 5 percent of the lawyers in
each state or region are named Super Lawyers

http://www.njlaws.com/superlawyer.htm

_____________________________

Send us your articles & ideas

To help your practice, we feature in this newsletter edition a few
articles and tips on marketing and improving service to clients. But
your Editor and chairs can't do it all. Please send articles, suggestions
or ideas you wish to share with others.

General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division:
Elder Law Committee and the ESTATE PLANNING, PROBATE &
TRUST COMMITTEE

Who We Are

This committee focuses on improving estate planning skills,
substantive law knowledge and office procedures for the attorney who
practices estate planning, probate and trust law. This committee also
serves as a network resource in educating attorneys regarding Elder
Law situations.

To help your practice, we feature in this newsletter edition a few
articles and tips on marketing and improving service to clients. But
your Editor and chairs can't do it all. Please send articles, suggestions
or ideas you wish to share with others.
Let us know if you are finding any useful information or anything
you can share with the other members. You will receive written credit
as the source and thus you can advise your clients and friends you
were published in an ABA publication. We will try to meet you needs.
We also seek articles on Elder Law, Probate, Wills, Medicaid and
Marketing. Please send your marketing ideas and articles to us. You
can become a published ABA author.

________________________________________

The Elder Law Committee of the ABA General Practice Division is
directed towards general practitioners and more experienced elder
law attorneys. The committee consistently sponsors programs at the
Annual Meeting, the focus of which is shifting to advanced topics for
the more experienced elder lawyer.
This committee also focuses on improving estate planning skills,
substantive law knowledge and office procedures for the attorney who
practices estate planning, probate and trust law. This committee also
serves as a network resource in educating attorneys regarding Elder
Law situations.
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. co-Chair
Jay Foonberg, Beverly Hills Co-chair, Author of Best Sellers "How to
Start and Build a Law Practice" and "How to get and keep good
clients', Beverly Hills, CA jayfoonberg@aol.com>
Jay Foonberg
Please Note New Mailing Address:
9461 Charleville Blvd., #416
Beverly Hills, CA. 90212-3017
Same Tel: 310-652-5010
Same Fax: 310-652-5019

We will also provide tips on how to promote your law office, your
practice and Personal Marketing Skills in general. It does not deal with
government funded "legal services" for indigent, welfare cases.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
Kenv@njlaws.com

MoneyLaw 2.0: The Law Prof Exchange

Folllowing up on Jeff's post below, I offer from TaxProf Blog: MoneyLaw 2.0: The Law Prof Exchange, based on our intellectual founder Michael Lewis's latest work in the May issue of CondéNast's Portfolio.com: The Jock Exchange:

Wall Street is about to launch a new way to trade professional athletes the way you trade stocks. A piece of Tiger, anyone?

When financial historians look back and ask why it took Wall Street so long to create the first public stock market that trades in professional athletes, they will see ours as an age of creative ferment. They’ll see a new, extremely well-financed company in Silicon Valley that, for the moment, sells itself as a fantasy sports site but aims to become, as its co-founder Mike Kerns puts it, “the first real stock market in athletes.” And they’ll find, in the bowels of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an application from a cryptic entity called A.S.A. Sports Exchange containing a description of a design for just such a market: The athlete would sell 20% of all future on-field or on-court earnings to a trust, which would, in turn, sell securities to the public. ...

As a number of smart people seem to have noticed at once, professional athletes have all the traits of successful publicly traded stocks, beginning with enormous speculative interest in them. Americans wager somewhere between $200 billion and $400 billion a year on sports, and between 15 million and 25 million of them play in fantasy leagues—which is to say that a shadow stock market in athletes already exists. That market may not know everything there is to know about the athletes it values, but it probably knows more than New York Stock Exchange investors know about the N.Y.S.E.’s public corporations. ...

A jock stock’s price is driven not directly by the athlete’s performance, but indirectly by supply and demand for the stock (just as in the real stock market). An athlete’s performance is important, of course. It’s the equivalent of corporate earnings. But the price of the stock is set by the market. A bet on the future dollar value of a player isn’t really based on the player’s performance, but on the market’s perception of that performance. The successful investor will need to predict who will play well and how play in general is understood. ...

What about a Law Prof Exchange? What criteria should we use -- reputation, publications, citations, downloads, teaching evaluations, contribution to bar exam passage? Which Law Profs do you think are undervalued by the market and would like to buy a piece of? Which Law Profs do you think are overvalued by the market and would like to short-sell?

Interesting Supreme Court Decisions

"The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint"
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176

"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government"
Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863

"The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted"
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed.
"Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

"In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there." United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S. Ct. 1138 (1957)

"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress"
Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472

"The extension of tax by implication is not favored"
Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180

Is There Hope for Moneylaw?

I hope so but I am not sure and it is not simply because our most provocative writer rarely visits these days. Instead I wonder if, as Bill Henderson (as I recall) has asked on a number of instances, there is a overriding theory that leads to specific goals. Beyond that, even if there were a theory, is there any real hope of change?

Think about goals first. If we use the baseball analogy, two goals or a combination of two seem reasonable – maximize profit or maximize games won. Since most Moneylaw contributors reject USN&WR rankings as comparable to “winning,” what are the goals of a Moneylaw school? Goals could be set – one article per faculty member per year or the equivalent, bar passage rate of 95% might be a start -- but even these are vague. Would fewer better articles be preferable? Still, if you were running a law faculty like a general manager would run a baseball team, it seems like setting some real goals would make sense as opposed to “soft” goals like “excellence,” “service,” “effective teaching.” I’ve heard of no law school dean or law faculty willing to take the risk of announcing real goals and then sticking to them.

There is a bigger problem, though, and it is with management, or more accurately, the lack of management. Thing about the Yankees for a minute. The night before a big game with the Red Sox, Joe Torre says, “I am passing out a form. Please indicate what position you want to play tomorrow.” The next morning, the Yankees take the field and there is no right fielder, and two people are playing second base. Joe explains to reporters that no one wanted to play right field and it was too late to trade for a right fielder.

This does not happen in baseball, of course, for two reasons. First, the manager would assign positions if the issue came up. Second, for the most part, all benefit if the team does well and eventually a right-fielder would step forward.

You can play the same scenario in terms of a GM plant. No one willing to install steering wheels one day? It could be that when the manager passed out the “what do you want to do” form, no one wanted to deal with steering wheels. This does not happen because 1) the manager would assign someone to steering wheel duty and 2) everyone would know “No steering wheels, no sales, no jobs for anyone.”

Law schools do not have what baseball and the GM plant have.

First, Deans do not make up assignments based on what courses a good school should offer or have requirements with respect to scholarship that are consistent with getting the most out a given level of resources. Instead, faculty are asked what they feel like doing. Fundamentally, once tenure is granted, a school is dependent on volunteers. If someone just does not feel like teaching an important course or is just too tired to do research, they don't. There is no process under which it is first determined what a law school should do and then management assigns resources to achieve those ends.

Also missing is a substantial sense of collective purpose. No right fielder, the team loses. No steering wheel, no jobs. On the other hand, the person hired to teach PR decides not to do it, what difference does it make to anyone else? It’s the students who suffer, not the faculty. The same is true with research. Joe Faculty prefers to water ski instead. What does it matter to great majority of faculty.

Does Moneylaw have a chance in a world of vague goals, limited management, and the absence of common commitment? Is Moneylaw Don Zimmer already?

Grade Inflation and Gum on the Sidewalk

Like most others I dislike the way that USN&WR has become the tail that wags deans, faculties, and law schools. On the other hand, the rankings do have a karma-like function.

For example, law schools have gradually raised grading curves. One argument, apparently true although it speaks volumes about law firm hiring practices, is that high grades make graduates more competitive in the job market. So take a C student call him or her a B student, as many law schools have done, and job prospects go up. Students have better job prospects and higher placement rates mean higher USN&WR rankings. I have not tracked it but I wonder if any school’s placement rate has gone up as a result of changing the curve. My hunch is that since most schools have done this, everyone just stays in place and placement rates stay the same. So, at best the increased grades provide a temporary and false sense of well-being for students before they face the reality.

On the other hand, unless adjustments are made elsewhere, higher grades mean fewer students are on academic probation. Today’s C+ student would have failed out a few years ago or have been identified as at risk and given assistance. Now fewer fail out and fewer are identified as being at risk. In a sense, giving into the demand for higher grades means undercutting the students who are most in need of a school’s attention.

Plus, if more admitted students end up graduating and taking the bar, it stands to reason that more will fail it. I do not know whether this is true. As an empirical matter and it would take a complicated study to isolate the relationship between grade inflation alone and bar passage rates. Even so, higher grades seem to do nothing to increase placement and may mean that actual percentage placement decreases (or becomes more expensive to maintain) because a higher percentage of graduates fail the bar exam. Plus, bar passage rates independently also have an impact on USN&WR rankings supposedly further devaluing the degree.

Like tossing your gum out on a sidewalk, handing out and demanding cheap grades may bring negative consequences.

Audio: Creature from Jekyll Island

Click the Above Picture for the Free Audio Download

Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait! You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story — which it really is. But it's all true. This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change. You'll never trust a politician again — or a banker

The University of Louisville seeks an assistant dean for student affairs

Louisville Law

The University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law is searching for an assistant dean of student affairs. This senior level staff position will be the primary liaison between students and the law school administration, and will report directly to the Dean of the Law School. For more information, please see the home page for the assistant dean search.

Students with laptops

New Ed & Elaine Brown site Launch: MakeTheStand.com



Fred Smart interviews Co-creator of MakeTheStand.com

New Leiter Law School Rankings by Placement of Supreme Court Clerks

Brian Leiter has posted new law school rankings by placement of Supreme Court clerks for the 2000-2007 Terms. The Top 5 feeder schools are the same as those from his earlier 1991-2005 study:

  1. Harvard
  2. Yale
  3. Chicago
  4. Stanford
  5. Columbia
For more, see TaxProf Blog.

Accepted paper version of "Understanding the U.S. News Law School Rankings" now available

My article entitled "Understanding the U.S. News Law School Rankings" has been accepted for publication in the current volume of the SMU Law Review. The latest "accepted paper" version is now available on SSRN at this link.

We’ve seen how they’ve acted in the Past.

(click picture to enlarge) www.DeesIllustration.com

This will NOT be our future!

Thanks to Aaron Russo’sAmerica: From Freedom to Fascism” the sleeping giant that was the American people has awakened. We will NOT let fear control us, we will NOT bow down to lick the boots of the unlawful. We will operate in righteousness and truth.

The tax honesty movement, just as the 911 truth movement has grown in numbers so massive that it cannot be calculated, we are the silent majority. We will NOT be ruled by the lawless, we will NOT be used as pawns to fund unlawful wars of aggression, we will not be used to fund you’re false flag terrorism, and we are NOT your slaves!




You will show us your marching orders; you will show us the law. The very moment you show us the law that requires us to pay, then, and only then will we voluntarily comply with such law. However we will NOT voluntarily comply with tyranny. We will NOT pay you if you do not show us the law.

Our stand is based on morals, and principle, our stand is based on the constitution for the united States of America. This document is not dead, and ideas are bullet proof! You can kill me, but you cannot kill us all. Live Free or Die!

Haste and Waste

Recently a colleague wrote the following to me: “I suspect that Money Law does not endorse the production of scholarship purely for the sake of quantity, but sometimes I feel as if that is the direction the profession is headed.” (I leave out her name only to protect her since I have recently discovered the dangers of mentioning others.)

I suspect the quality/quantity debate is as old as law teaching but I think there are three questions in play here. First, does an emphasis on quantity mean lower quality? Does the trend described in my colleague’s statement exist? Finally, is it bad thing?

My quick answer is that I do not know. My hunch is that the answer is yes to all questions.

Take the middle question first. Do law schools stress numbers of articles more than in past years? I do not know what goes on at the very best or worst law schools (whatever those terms mean) but elsewhere conditions seem right for “quantity stress.” The new emphasis on ratings seems to carry with it “what have you done for me lately” pressures. After, all those decanal glossies need to be filled up. Technology has changed things. There are online journals, rankings by SSRN downloads, and the notion of distributing reprints seems outdated. Plus, I know many of you disagree and that’s fine but I feel the proliferation of symposia articles adds to this. There is great temptation to say yes even before you know if what you will eventually say is important. After all, it’s a guaranteed publication, no waiting, no bargaining up, and no student involvement. Let’s face it, most law professors are unwilling to spend a year engaged in pure research that could result in deciding there is nothing interesting to say at the end.

Second question: This is hard because I applaud the decreased emphasis on the 150 page 350 footnote articles. So many started with 70 or 120 purely descriptive pages. Sometimes I think what a professor of mine said is true: If you cannot say it in 30 pages, maybe it is not worth saying at all. Plus, maybe four 25 page articles add up to at least the same quality as one 100 page article. But length is not really the issue at all. It is haste. Does the rush mean not tracing out each thread that could make the article better? To the extent quantity means haste it seems to me that it must mean lower quality – at least on a per article basis.

This would seem to answer the third question but maybe it does not. Is it possible that 300 hastily prepared and superficial articles actually deliver more in terms of the dissemination of knowledge than 75 long well researched articles? It seems possible especially since they are likely to be more accessible. I think the answer is that the best outcome is a mix. Some issues cannot be handled in 30 pages. The point is that, as the trend moves to shorter and quicker, something has to be lost that is not off-set by an infinite number of hasty articles. (I am trying to think of a food analogy but, since I feel hurried, I can not take the time to come up with a good one.)

If all of this is true, is there any way to reverse the trend? Can a USN&WR, SSNR, WESTLAW world revert to a slower and more thoughtful pace? Can incentives be altered to achieve this? And, as my colleague also asked, what do you advise untenured people.

Exploiting the Imus Fracas to Ruminate on the Problem of the Incremental A**h***

It's not pretty, but it's over at Legal Profession Blog. And somehow I managed to bring Wittgenstein into the discussion.

Wonderful comment

This comment was sent to me directly but not posted since the author was a bit concerned about the use of the term bullshit. With his permission I added it to the comments to Profscam and then he decided that attribution would be acceptable too. It is wasted as merely a comment so here it is:

In his 1986 essay On Bullshit, Harry Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, writes:

"What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt is to deceive about his enterprise. His only indispensable distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as an endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends upon deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are.

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He doesn't care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picked them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.1"

[end of quote, now to commentator's own thoughts]

Profscam professors aren’t really liars; they’re bullshitters. The problem with “calling bullshit” on a fellow law faculty member is that at the same time you’re “calling bullshit” on a lawyer. And lawyers can readily either defend “bullshit” on the merits or keep the argument alive so long that the resulting angst becomes no longer worth it.2 And of course, anyone who “calls bullshit” on a colleague is, by definition, no longer “collegial.”3

Eliminating Profscam becomes more problematic when the group that decides what is and isn’t bullshit can not only understand the argument, but can extend it ad infinitum, 4 sometimes to the point of convincing others that “Yes, it is bullshit, but it’s good bullshit5 and it’s good for you, too.” Getting outside input on what is or isn’t bullshit is out of the question, too, either because “academic freedom” principles forbid it (sigh!) or because in the minds of some no other body is qualified to make that determination.

Will Profscam prosper in perpetuity? Maybe not, after a critical mass of MoneyLaw devotees and Utility Law teachers infiltrate the current system. Maybe then, more law professors will find validation and worth in what they do, not in what they pretend to do so that others will find “value” in them.


Richard Peck

(Sorry, the footnotes corresponding to the numbers in the text were not contained in the email. Jeff)

The FBI Wages War On The Constitution




From this FBI pamphlet entitled: “Joint Terrorism Task Force”, you can see that it’s stated mission is to “..assist uninformed patrol officers in identifying potential domestic terrorism.

When in all actuality it looks like a covert campaign with an agenda to criminalize the constitution.

With bullet points like the below, it really makes you wonder who the bad guys are?


  • People who make numerous references to the US Constitution.
  • Defenders of the US Constitution.
  • Christians.

Personally if I was a patrol officer and swore and oath to uphold the constitution, and then I read this pamphlet. I would begin questioning the very nature and intent of my employer.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Paul Caron's perceptive post, consisting of a link to Dilbert, deserves full display. And so here it is, courtesy of some .html coding and an assist from the United States Code:

On Assessing Student "Quality"


Nancy is right that any assessment of student quality should include dimensions of character and ethic that GPA and LSAT scores do not reflect. The ideal of law student "quality" like that of "diversity" must be broad enough to encompass attributes that make one person more valuable than another as we deploy scarce resources toward achievement of a worthy goal.
We must be at least equally sensitive to the ways that consideration of "soft" personal attributes may provide cover for objectives other than an accurate assessment of student quality. Consider the typical law school admissions process by which faculty members review student application files to predict who will succeed in law school and the profession. Each professor idiosyncratically considers a host of information about the candidate including letters of recommendation, student essays and interviews, and pressure from interested persons with influence. Although they are imperfect, GPA and LSAT provide information about academic achievement, a personal attribute that is unquestionably relevant to predictions of a student's future performance. Some of the soft information solicited and evaluated in law school admissions processes seems patently pointed at social status ("who yo daddy?") and unrelated to quality as Nancy describes it. I worry that narrow focus on GPA and LSAT scores, leaves some talented students out of luck. But I worry even more that assessment of soft information under the guise of a search for "quality" leaves students without saavy as to how to present themselves to an admissions committee, display their political connections or reveal their family's development potential out of the legal profession. When that happens, we all lose.

Profscam

I had not heard of the term Profscam until my pal Amy Mashburn -- currently finishing a drop dead excellent piece that, in part, defends the Socartic method -- called me the other day to read a passage from a 1989 article by Arthur Austin (1989 Duke L. J. 495). He writes, "The faculty in law schools rely on the Socratic method as a source of profscams. Faculty and publishers work together to exploit a captive market by . . . [selling materials] at supra competitive prices. Shirkers exploit the casebook and instruction manual to minimize class preparation and reserve time to read the Village voice and play squash."

The term Profscam evidently comes from a 1988 book, C. Sykes, Professors and the Demise of Higher Education, which I have not read but have ordered from Amazon for 9 cents -- foregoing the temptation to buy the 10 cent offering.

Now fast forward to 2003 and Don Weidner's article, "Academic Freedom and the Obligation to Earn It," 32 J. L. & E. 445. He refers to the same book and notes that it reflected a movement to hold professors more accountable. A movement that he says still exists, although at 9 cents on the used market, I am not sure I agree. It's a very interesting article. Weidner points out that faculty often do not produce enough scholarship to justify their low teaching loads and that administrators do not have the courage to hold faculty accountable.

Although I had never heard of Profscam my own take on this was my 2005 offering, "Faculty Ethics in Law School: Shirking, Capture, and the Matrix," 82 Detroit Mercy L.Rev. 397. On my own faculty only three people approached me with positive comments about the piece. Those three were easily our most respected law teaching veterans. ("Were" because sadly Frank Allen recently passed away.) (They also ask why it ended in Detroit Mercy and I say I am proud to have it there.) Admittedly, a number of other people on my faculty, I am happy to say, have approached me privately to express their agreement with one or more of my Moneylaw postings which have a definite profscam flavor. (Agreeing with me publicly can be dangerous.)

What I have found since writing my 2005 is that privately and publicly many in our profession seem to agree with the theme of Profscam if not with my specific examples. I do not know if it is a critical mass yet.

The one my mind is on right now is the teaching Profscam. For example, here we have 9 hour teaching loads. So, say I do 4 or 5 hours each semester. Let's take the 5 hour semester and assume I prepare 2 hours for each class. That's 15 hours. Let's say I spend another 3 hours talking to students so we are up to 18 hours -- not quite a half time job. Throw in a committee meeting or two. No matter how you cut it, that leaves about 20 hours for writing yet, to me at least, it just does not seem like all faculty produce as though they are half time researchers.

I have over the past several months described a number of other Profscams and I will not repeat the list here. Let's just say that people in the private sector are fired or in jail for similar self-serving uses of money not their own. Why do law faculty get a pass? It reminds me of one of my colleages, generally regarded as very principled, relating to me how he copies the music tapes of his friend without a molecule of recognition that he was engaged in the white collar version shop-lifting.

If, as I think I have learned over the past three years, the is a broader recognition of Profscam than I suspected, there are three possible explanations for not cleaning up our act. The first is gutlessness of which law teaching has an enormous amount. These are the Making Nice, Knowing Better, Doing Nothing People. Another is a sense of entitlement that means even common sense rules of fairness to others do not compute. Finally, there is the idea that being on the take is the norm for professionals (not just law professors but politicians, physicians, attorneys, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) and why buck the norm.

How to Tell If You Have An Unhealthy Faculty

Check out today's Dilbert.

Chisel me Elmo

Sorry to interrupt the USN&WR debate.

We all know the biggest job of many deans and the "decanal" team is to raise money. One of the tools is the “decanal glossy” – the flashy magazine that has no purpose other than to make alums feel happy to be part of the team and to open their wallets. It’s not a bad thing and hardly deceptive. Everyone knows the story. Most law schools have other publications – weekly newsletters, announcements of new hires and visitors, dedication notices. Entire forests die and go to the recycling bin in the interest of marketing law schools.

The hitch in the process is that there is always a faculty section in which current activities – mostly self-reported – are included. If you are really interested in good marketing, is there a line to be drawn? For example, what if a faculty member is simple quoted in a newspaper? Is that likely to impress anyone? Or suppose someone has said something so silly that potential donors are offended? Does that go in? How about publications in journals that would not impress a single person in the law teaching profession?

It is in the faculty activities section that self-promotion and institutional promotion clash. Is there a danger that a School that treats every possible faculty activities as noteworthy actually begins to look unimpressive to potential donors and law faculty at other schools? I think so. I look at the materials I get from other schools with skepticism, completely unable to engage myself in the Matrix and keep thinking in terms of Proflawgate. In fact, some of the entries seem to carry the implicit message that the folks creating this material think their readers are morons. Oh yes, it just knocks me out that Professor Somebody gave a talk to the Young Peacefinders Club. It is honestly hard to believe that Professor Somebody reported this to the Dean's office.

Many faculty have an unlimited need to self-promote even when there is no “promotion” there. Deans have to decide: Do they want to do impress alums with real achievements or do they dilute the image of their law schools by never saying no to faculty self-promotion.

Rumors of Revolution…


Bob Shultz founder of We The People foundation for constitutional Education, joined host Fred Smart and Ed & Elaine Brown on the “Ed and Elaine Brown Show” at the Republic Broadcasting Network on 04-06-07. There was discussion of “We the Peoples” exhaustive and continuous efforts in seeking out our inalienable rights for redress of grievances, as well of talks of Revolution.

I must say that I support both Ed and Elaine Brown as well as Bob Shultz’s tactics of approaching tax honesty on multiple fronts. Ed and Elaine Brown are peacefully resisting in their New Hampshire home. Yet at the same time are prepared to defend their lives and liberty with force, if the government chooses to unlawfully enforce a “law” that does not exist.

Now Bob Shultz on the other hand is taking a different approach, over the past 10 years. Bob Shultz and the “We The People” Foundation have been working day and night to find a legal remedy to the issue of governments unlawful enforcement activities with respects to the income tax.

It is in my personal opinion that these are two sides of the same coin called the tax honesty movement. Many people have lost faith that government will answer the people in a civil manner without the use of force, so they have chosen to stand firm in preparation of self defense should their liberty be endangered by our criminal government.

At the same time we have others that are willing to engage the government through the legal system with tireless efforts in hopes to avoid a revolution. I know that on a surface level both approaches may look like they are in disagreement; however I assure you that this is not the case.

To invalidate either one of these approaches would be like asking someone to engage in a boxing match with one arm tied behind their back. Both arms are truly needed, and embraced whole heartedly by this author.

To peacefully resist unless tread upon is uniquely American, we have the right to protect our lives, liberty, and property from unlawful invasion. At the same time, the long road of seeking legal remedy is also a most admirable and necessary quality. Ed & Elaine Brown, as well as Bob Shultz have my full support!

IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson Dodges Income Tax Question

Hat Tip to Anson Chi for the V-Link

Sorry, Brian--you can't measure student "quality" by using the LSAT

Paul Caron has linked us to Leiter's Top 40 Schools by Student Quality. (Thanks, Paul!)

I like Brian's stuff, and often I agree with him, but on this issue, I have to say that he's just plain wrong.

He's right that it's difficult to measure student quality by UGPAs, because (1) grade inflation and (2) difficulty of curriculum are hard things to factor into the mix. We could probably eyeball some UGPAs from some schools (e.g., Chemical Engineering at Rice University) and get some meaningful information from that, but we certainly couldn't compare every UGPA at every undergraduate institution to measure a student's "smarts." (Not to mention that some of these students may have responsibilities that affect their ability to do the traditional "just take classes and study and graduate in four years" path to their degrees.)

But he's wrong when he jumps to the use of LSAT scores as a measure of "smarts." LSAT scores are useful because they're a way of comparing people across institutions and majors. LSAT scores do a good job of predicting first-year grades, but even the LSAC says that LSAT scores aren't perfect predictors of first-year grades. They're just the best predictors we've found so far.

If you do a multiple regression analysis to try to predict first-year grades, you'll likely find that the combination of [(multiplier A) x UGPA and (multiplier B) x LSAT] can give you some of what goes into first-year grades (and by "some," I mean maybe 30-40%). The rest is hard to quantify, but it must certainly include things like studying the material.

I cannot imagine describing someone's "quality" using just the numbers. Quality includes a lot of nonquantifiable characteristics: maturity, honesty, dedication, empathy, etc. I'd like to think that evidence of leadership ability, ability to juggle multiple responsibilities, and willingness to think of others' needs would all factor into any judgment about "quality."

Brian, if you called your rankings "Top 40 Schools by LSAT scores and UGPAs," without any cognitive leap from those numbers to an overall judgment of "quality," I wouldn't say a peep.

Five Degrees of Coastal Bias

A commenter to my post on lawyer-judge USNWR assessments thought there is a coastal bias going on. For an explanation of Coastal Bacon numbers, and their relationship to the scores, see Legal Profession Blog.

Leiter's Top 40 Law Schools by Student Quality

Brian Leiter has updated his ranking of the Top 40 Law Schools by Student Quality -- as measured by the 75th percentile LSAT and 25% percentile LSAT of the Fall 2006 entering class.

1944 Diggs, Yet still no Law...?


1944 Diggs, Yet still no Law...?


Ed and Elaine Brown’s offer had generated 1944 diggs, and massive amounts of traffic, and yet still no one has come forward to claim the commercial property valued in at over $1,000,000.00!

Don’t get me wrong I knew that American’s had the tendency to be a little bit lazy but for crying out loud!

This is very simple all you have to do is find the law that makes Ed and Elaine Brown liable for an Income Tax, then e-mail the law to Ed@ShowEdTheLaw.com and claim the commercial property! Hurry pick up your phone’s call some tax attorneys, get the law, and claim your reward!

Another Take on the USNWR Reputation Data - Lawyers vs. Peers


I went back and did the same thing for "lawyer/judge" reputation score as I had original done for "peer" reputation. For at least one take on the relationship between the two curves, see my note over at LPB.

Freedom River

Hat Tip to Show Us The Inherent Law