Good News! Cooley Law School's latest law school ranking has just been published on its web site. In a single year, they have improved from 12th to second best in the nation; only Harvard Law School remains ranked higher than Cooley according to the their own rankings.
Now, you've just got to stand back and take note of such bold and relentless devotion to self-promotion. Simply refusing to allow reality to get in the way of its vision of excellence, Cooley actually announced its ever-higher ranking in a press-release on its web site.
Despite a firm national consensus that the law school dwels in the basement of the "4th Tier", Cooley believes it deserves top-flight status largely based on their collossal law library; one of the largest in the nation. Nevermind that in our increasingly digitized world, actual bricks, mortar, and book volumes are rendered less-significant by the minute; think Borders.
This blog took note when Cooley drew serious national criticism by installing its good name on a minor league baseball park in Lansing; the former Oldsmobile Stadium. That post received more comments than any other in this blog's two-year history.
A steady theme in the law-blogoshpere concerns the lack of employment prospects in the legal field after a six-figure student loan debt is incurred. Along these lines, this blog questions the propriety of an educational institution that rakes-in premium tuition dollars on the promise of future employment, despite the absolute saturation and professional grid-lock among the already-minted lawyers in our service-based economy.
With its satelite campus system, and a jaw-dropping legion of graduates, Cooley is part of the "lawyers-gone-wild" problem in our nation. This latest self-adulatory ranking is simply designed to entice ever-more eager but unsuspecting students into parting with a lot of dough for their shot at the American Dream; lawyer-style.
In the opinion of this blogger, however, Cooley's self-rank is so disingenuous, it boarders on fraud. Perhaps its time for the ABA to review this business model. On the other hand, maybe Harvard Business School should do one of its famous case-studies on Cooley's undisputed financial success.
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/
info@clarkstonlegal.com
Rabu, 09 Februari 2011
Sabtu, 05 Februari 2011
Has Accused's Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel Been Expanded by SCOTUS?
Since 2009, I have served as a roster attorney for the Michigan Appellate Assigned Counsel System (MAACS). While a MAACS roster attorney hones his knowledge of the many facets of criminal law in the appeal context, most assignments involve assessment of yet another guilty plea appeal. No glory in that, to be sure.
Many of the guilty-plea appeals involve the Sixth Amendment issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Often, youthful offenders claim they are forced by trial counsel to "take a deal" that they later regret. Rarely do these claims have merit. In almost every case, the Michigan Court of Appeals is not persuaded that the accused youth tendered anything but a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
The mantra of the trial court taking the plea comes to mind: "Are you pleading guilty here today because you are guilty of this offense?" The accused, sheepishly, states in the affirmative.
Last year, however, the SCOTUS decided Padilla v Kentucky. The case reversed the conviction of a legal immigrant on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where the accused was not properly and fully advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Padilla was told not to worry about deportation because he had been in the country so long.
The Padilla case has drawn much attention among scholars of the criminal law; not for its immigration component, but for how it has expanded the scope of a lawyers duty to advise their clients of all the myriad consequences associated with their plea.
These consequences go far beyond the mere risk of incarceration and fines. The potential "collateral" consequences could an individual's right to obtain a loan, obtain insurance benefits, bear arms, to vote, serve on a jury, serve as a foster parent, to participate in particular professions, terminate pension benefits, determine where a person can live, result in the loss of child custody, and in the case of sex crimes, doom the individual to a near lifetime of onerous registration requirements. This is but a partial listing of the potential consequences.
Difficulties certainly arise for the lawyer facing her client's guilty plea. The collateral consequences associated with the plea are often scattered across the Michigan Penal Code, and the federal statutes.
Defense counsel is often oblivious to this trap-laden universe. The courts are wholly unconcerned with consequences to a plea that they do not impose. For their part, prosecutors are not troubled with matters outside their direct control.
Add to this the fact that Michigan's court-appointed defense counsel advises the accused on nearly a pro-bono basis, and you have the makings for a constitutional catastrophe; or at least an imminent collision with the Padilla holding.
In the Internet-Age, as the number of people with criminal records have increased, so has the ability of employers, educators, lenders, and landlords to gain direct access to those records. This makes obtaining legal advise as to the collateral consequences of a guilty plea all the more compelling.
Lawyers will have to be sharper than ever as they ambulate across the minefield of the criminal case. Keep your eyes wide open has always been a trait of the best criminal defense attorneys.
Related story in Sunday NYT: No sooner was this post uploaded when the Times published a story on the problem with monitoring people that once had the right to carry a weapon, but lost that right due to a felony conviction.
www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com
Many of the guilty-plea appeals involve the Sixth Amendment issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Often, youthful offenders claim they are forced by trial counsel to "take a deal" that they later regret. Rarely do these claims have merit. In almost every case, the Michigan Court of Appeals is not persuaded that the accused youth tendered anything but a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
The mantra of the trial court taking the plea comes to mind: "Are you pleading guilty here today because you are guilty of this offense?" The accused, sheepishly, states in the affirmative.
Last year, however, the SCOTUS decided Padilla v Kentucky. The case reversed the conviction of a legal immigrant on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where the accused was not properly and fully advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Padilla was told not to worry about deportation because he had been in the country so long.
The Padilla case has drawn much attention among scholars of the criminal law; not for its immigration component, but for how it has expanded the scope of a lawyers duty to advise their clients of all the myriad consequences associated with their plea.
These consequences go far beyond the mere risk of incarceration and fines. The potential "collateral" consequences could an individual's right to obtain a loan, obtain insurance benefits, bear arms, to vote, serve on a jury, serve as a foster parent, to participate in particular professions, terminate pension benefits, determine where a person can live, result in the loss of child custody, and in the case of sex crimes, doom the individual to a near lifetime of onerous registration requirements. This is but a partial listing of the potential consequences.
Difficulties certainly arise for the lawyer facing her client's guilty plea. The collateral consequences associated with the plea are often scattered across the Michigan Penal Code, and the federal statutes.
Defense counsel is often oblivious to this trap-laden universe. The courts are wholly unconcerned with consequences to a plea that they do not impose. For their part, prosecutors are not troubled with matters outside their direct control.
Add to this the fact that Michigan's court-appointed defense counsel advises the accused on nearly a pro-bono basis, and you have the makings for a constitutional catastrophe; or at least an imminent collision with the Padilla holding.
In the Internet-Age, as the number of people with criminal records have increased, so has the ability of employers, educators, lenders, and landlords to gain direct access to those records. This makes obtaining legal advise as to the collateral consequences of a guilty plea all the more compelling.
Lawyers will have to be sharper than ever as they ambulate across the minefield of the criminal case. Keep your eyes wide open has always been a trait of the best criminal defense attorneys.
Related story in Sunday NYT: No sooner was this post uploaded when the Times published a story on the problem with monitoring people that once had the right to carry a weapon, but lost that right due to a felony conviction.
www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com
Rabu, 02 Februari 2011
Illinois Becomes 6th State to Recognize Same-Sex Civil Unions
Like neighboring Iowa, Illinois just passed a same-sex civil union law; the 6th state in the union (plus D.C.) to do so. This law will likely be tested in court, as in other states passing such progressive legislation.
Like the same-sex marriage law floated in California, civil union statutes, once passed, usually have a rocky road. In Maine like in California, for example, the same sex union become law via referendum, only to be subsequently invalidated by a court.
Invariably, there is a political price attached to this legislation. No surprise, given such a polarizing issue that scholars have long-heralded as the next civil rights struggle in the USA.
Recently in Iowa, Lambda Legal sponsored litigation on behalf of gay couples, asserting that denying a marriage license on a same-sex basis violated the liberty and equal protection interests of the state constitution. In April 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the same-sex couples; three of these justices were voted-off the court in the election last fall. [Here's a powerful Iowan's clear view on the topic.]
A civil union is an intermediate legislative step toward the institutionalization of same-sex marriage. In addition to the 6 states recognizing civil unions, another four states endorse "domestic partnerships", which provide broad rights for same-sex partners, but do not formalize the union. Many gay couples do not avail themselves of such status, rejecting the compromise.
On the other hand, same-sex legislation has been rejected in more than 30 states. Some states, like Michigan, have amended their constitution to expressly limit the scope of marriage to the union of a man and woman.
Same-sex couples have long-sought benefits and rights enjoyed by conventional married couples such as health insurance coverage, tax breaks, even hospital visitation. Like they did in Iowa, gay advocates often have the means to "put their money where their mouth is" in the form of expert lobby campaigns.
In the nearly two decades since the issue was first litigated in Hawaii, the same-sex movement has taken on religious as well as political tones. Nationally, the issue remains far too close to call.
As our common law tapestry continues to evolve, only time will tell whether this issue will achieve civil rights recognition and eventual institutionalization.
info@clarkstonlegal.com
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/
Like the same-sex marriage law floated in California, civil union statutes, once passed, usually have a rocky road. In Maine like in California, for example, the same sex union become law via referendum, only to be subsequently invalidated by a court.
Invariably, there is a political price attached to this legislation. No surprise, given such a polarizing issue that scholars have long-heralded as the next civil rights struggle in the USA.
Recently in Iowa, Lambda Legal sponsored litigation on behalf of gay couples, asserting that denying a marriage license on a same-sex basis violated the liberty and equal protection interests of the state constitution. In April 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the same-sex couples; three of these justices were voted-off the court in the election last fall. [Here's a powerful Iowan's clear view on the topic.]
A civil union is an intermediate legislative step toward the institutionalization of same-sex marriage. In addition to the 6 states recognizing civil unions, another four states endorse "domestic partnerships", which provide broad rights for same-sex partners, but do not formalize the union. Many gay couples do not avail themselves of such status, rejecting the compromise.
On the other hand, same-sex legislation has been rejected in more than 30 states. Some states, like Michigan, have amended their constitution to expressly limit the scope of marriage to the union of a man and woman.
Same-sex couples have long-sought benefits and rights enjoyed by conventional married couples such as health insurance coverage, tax breaks, even hospital visitation. Like they did in Iowa, gay advocates often have the means to "put their money where their mouth is" in the form of expert lobby campaigns.
In the nearly two decades since the issue was first litigated in Hawaii, the same-sex movement has taken on religious as well as political tones. Nationally, the issue remains far too close to call.
As our common law tapestry continues to evolve, only time will tell whether this issue will achieve civil rights recognition and eventual institutionalization.
info@clarkstonlegal.com
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)


