Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Hour Arrives

The February 2009 Bar Exam results are up. Congratulations to all those who passed.

From the February 2009 stats page, here's how St. Mary's grads did:

  • First-timers: 28 of 32 passed (87.50%)--St. Mary's came in fourth in the state (behind Baylor, UH, and Tech).
  • Repeat takers: 15 of 27 passed (55.56%)--St. Mary's ranked fifth in the state (behind Texas, Baylor, Tech, and Wesleyan).

Overall, 1118 people took the February Bar, and 732 of them passed--a 65.47% pass rate.

Congrats, new lawyers, and good luck finding work.

May Subpoena is Out

You can read the May issue of the Subpoena, the official newsletter of the San Antonio Bar Association, online. Back issues are available here.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Hour Approaches ...

Candidates who sat for the February Texas Bar exam are bound to be getting a little antsy right now. Although the Texas Board of Law Examiners says it will release the results on Friday, they usually post the names of those who passed the Bar sometime in the afternoon of the day before the scheduled release. That means that all day long, bar takers will be glued to their computers, hitting the web browser's REFRESH button as they stare at the entry page of the BLE website, watching the hit counter increase as they wait for the pass list to show up.

That's what I and my classmates did last November, all morning that Thursday before the results were posted that afternoon. Everyone was updating their Facebook status as the seconds slowed to a crawl.

I was still working in my old law clerk position in the legal department of a local nonprofit corporation. Unfortunately for me, I had a CLE to attend that afternoon--the local chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel's Ethics Follies--and I expressed my frustration over being out of the loop on Facebook. My friend Ralph Perez sent me a text message, promising to notify me once the results came out. I also asked one of the lawyers with us for the event if I could borrow her iPhone later on (no Internet on the cell phone I had) so I could check the results when they came out.

As I sat in the shadowed balcony of the Empire Theater watching the show, I kept glancing at my phone, but it remained dark. Finally, at 2:43:41 p.m., my phone buzzed with a text message ...

It was from Ralph. It was three words: "You passed buddy!!!"

I clenched my fist in triumph and silently mouthed "Yes!" Then I quietly asked the lawyer for her phone--I didn't want to say anything about this to anyone until I confirmed it for myself. So I called up the BLE website, found the results list for the July 2008 exam, and clicked on the H section. Sure enough, my name was on it!

I quietly told my coworkers--my fellow attorneys--that I passed. I then checked the list for my friends' names, as the congratulatory checks flowed in and out of my phone. At the next break, I called my parents and my girlfriend. I have to confess, the rest of the program kind of washed over me as I basked in the relief of not having to endure the bar exam again.

Later that evening, as my friends and I compared notes and realized that there were several friends whom we didn't see on the list, I felt bad for those who didn't pass. Many of those who weren't on the list took the bar for the second time in February. I also know folks taking the bar for the first time. Either way, I hope they all see their names on that list tomorrow afternoon.

St. Mary's Law Grad Displeased with Changes to His Letter to Editor on professors article

Fellow 2008 St. Mary's law graduate Jason Petty isn't too thrilled with the changes to his letter to the editor that the Express-News ran today. Jason was responding to the E-N's story on St. Mary's law students protesting the dismissal of two law professors. Here's his response when I asked him what happened:

Mack,

Forgive my fantastical ego trip. Below is the original letter I emailed to the Express-News in response to the April 25th report on the student protest:

Dear Editors, I am a very recent St. Mary's Law alumnus. (Disclosure: I passed the bar, got a legal job, and love St. Mary's.) Your decision to frame the article "Students protest 2 St. Mary's law profs [sic] terminations" (Apr. 25, Metro p.3) as an expose on race and sex discrimination at St. Mary's confused me. Why does this paper insist on giving credit to a few students' claims of discrimination when none of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators are making those claims themselves? There are only two possible outcomes of this publication decision on your part: one, a venerable San Antonio institution has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against the accusations of students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation; or two, these women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them by making statements like "Not all minorities, even in a national context of pervasive if somewhat unconscious racism and sexism, are qualified.”

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

Jason C. Petty, J.D., St. Mary's, 2008

Here is what they put on their website:

A hit on St. Mary's

I'm a recent St. Mary's Law School alumnus. I was confused by your decision to frame your April 25 report, “St. Mary's students protest 2 law professor terminations,” as an exposé on race and sex discrimination there.

Why did the newspaper give credence to a few students' claims of discrimination when neither of the terminated professors/instructors/ administrators made such claims themselves?

Two possible reasons:

• A venerable law school has its reputation lowered because it cannot defend itself against accusations by students who are unable to distinguish correlation and causation, or;

• These women, a few of whom I count among good friends, have their professional reputations tarnished because the university is forced to justify its decision to terminate them.

Not well done at all, Express-News. St. Mary, pray for us.

- Jason C. Petty, J.D., Alexandria, La.

My original beef, motivated by my love of the school, is that the article doesn't give any information about credible allegations of sex or gender discrimination by St. Mary's against the professors themselves. All the article gives us is the students' suggestive protest. Yet at most all we have is a throwaway argument of retaliation for defense of other minorities in the EEOC complaint made by the beloved Instructor Piatt. Is Professor George alleging actual discrimination, or just saying that she, personally, felt uncomfortable at St. Mary's? We don't know. That's all the article gives us. In other words, where's the discrimination?

My new, entirely personal beef is that the change in my letter switches "two possible outcomes" of the report to "two possible reasons" for it, which would have me be some sort of crystal-ball wielding apologist for the reporter's insinuations. Are
cause and effect wholly obliterated in our post-metaphysical world? And then they don't change the grammatical construct of the two items they bullet, which would make sense if I were providing hypothetical effects rather than the causes they suggest. That just makes me look dumb and, I believe, undercuts any argument I might have. (Sort of like the comment box below the online version of the article, where one commenter self-identified as a "Steller Law Student.")

I loathed that April 25th report: no one comes out a winner. The school looks bad and the professors look bad.

jcp


I know what Jason means about the online comments to that article. I look at some of the spelling and grammar mistakes from supposedly educated people--not to mention the attitudes of some who posted--and I wince.

Disclosure: Jason and I worked on the St. Mary's Law Journal during our second year of law school.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

E-N Story on St. Mary's Shakeup

The Express-News covers student reactions to the ouster of two law professors:
A group of students at St. Mary's University School of Law are protesting the school's decision to terminate contracts for two female professors, one of them black, saying the move is a blow to diversity on a faculty where women and minorities are already underrepresented.

Raul Pelaez-Prada, the student leading the protest, has put up fliers on campus and collected around 150 signatures on a petition supporting Professors Cheryl George and Rosanne Piatt, who are both fighting their terminations.
I'd be happy to post a copy of that petition, if someone will send it to me. The newspaper also posted a letter (page 1 and page 2) from the American Association of University Professors on Rosanne Piatt's de facto tenure claim, which I wrote about earlier this month. The letter states in part:
Because Ms. Piatt has served as a full-time lecturer in the law school for more than eight years, she would therefore be entitled under the above documents to the procedural protections that normally accrue with tenure. ... They include the right to a pre-termination hearing of record in which the administration bears the burden of demonstrating adequacy of cause for dismissal before an elected faculty committee.
One possible reason for the dismissals? From the E-N article:
Students say the ousting is due in part to the professors' connection to former law school Dean Bill Piatt, who was forced out in 2006 after a rocky tenure. Rosanne Piatt is married to the former dean, and claims she has earned de facto tenure after teaching for 10 years. George was hired by the former dean and has been a staunch supporter.
In addition, the story notes that Bill Piatt tried to bring in four other African-Americans besides Prof. George to teach at the law school.

One was never hired and another worked as a visiting professor for a year. A third taught at St. Mary's for six years before accepting a tenure track position at another university. Reached at her office, the professor did not want to be identified, but said she too felt unwelcome at St. Mary's.

The fourth is Sharon Breckenridge-Thomas, director of the Office of Academic Excellence, whose contract was not renewed this year. Breckenridge-Thomas declined to comment.

I'm more inclined to believe that it's office politics, not racism, that led to this result. However it happened, it sure makes the law school look bad.

St. Mary's students and alumni should take a look at the comments on this article. A few samples:
  • This has little to do with racism or sexism. This is an example of the incompetence of Dean Charles Cantu. ...
  • The termination of these two professors is just another bad mark on a Law program struggling to regain a positive reputation in this State. ...
  • Staffing decisions should not be based on race/gender. Professors who can't teach should be released. End of story. ...
  • These comments are embarrassing to those of us who are proud to be students at St. Mary's. ...

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Why You Should Pay Your Bar Dues

You might get arrested if you don't.
Waco attorney Tammy T. Polk was arrested Wednesday morning on four charges of “falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer” while her law license reportedly was suspended [for nonpayment of State Bar of Texas dues and the state occupational tax], charges her lawyer called “disgraceful.”
Her attorney wonders why no one else gets arrested for this charge:
“It is disgraceful that they chose to do this knowing full well that there are literally thousands of lawyers who every year fail to timely pay their bar dues,” Soechting said. “My first job this afternoon is to find out how many times they have issued an arrest warrant for them. I am starting to think this looks like more than an impartial investigation.”
This isn't Polk's first time on the other side of the table--in March she was arrested on a charge of "forging the signature of a McLennan County prosecutor on a case dismissal form." In that case, a court worker noticed that the handwriting of the prosecutor's signature appeared different--and the first name was misspelled.

Interestingly, as of today (April 23, 2009), the State Bar website currently shows her as eligible to practice law in Texas. For those of us keeping score, Polk is a graduate of Baylor law school.

Hat tip: This comment thread at Grits for Breakfast.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Justice Dept. Names Interim U.S Attorney

First Assistant U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy will step in temporarily to replace U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who resigned as the top prosecutor in the Western District of Texas. According to the Express-News:
Murphy has spent nearly 34 years in the Western District, 14 of them as the first assistant U.S. attorney. He will hold the job until the Obama administration nominates a U.S. attorney, a process that requires Senate confirmation.
According to Murphy's State Bar of Texas member directory entry, he's a 1972 St. Mary's grad.

Monday, April 20, 2009

April SAYLA Luncheon

It's that time again: This month's San Antonio Young Lawyers Association luncheon will take place Tuesday at the usual venue, Paesano's at Lincoln Heights (near the Alamo Quarry Market).

In addition to the meal, attendees receive a 0.75-hour CLE on the False Claims Act, with Dan Hargrove speaking on this subject.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Piatt Claims De Facto Tenure

Last month I blogged about how three individuals will not be back to teach at St. Mary's law school after this semester. I just received an email from one of the three, Instructor Rosanne Piatt. She said that because she has been a full-time faculty member at St. Mary's for ten years, she has tenure.

Here's her email, in its entirety (links added by yours truly):
St. Mary's Law School is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). One of the conditions of membership is that member schools agree to adhere to the standards regarding academic freedom and tenure of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The AAUP standards describe two categories of full-time teachers: probationary (up to 7 years) and tenured. If a school continues a full-time teacher beyond seven years, that professor is tenured, per the AAUP (and AALS). Twice now the American Association of University Professors has written to St. Mary's, informing St. Mary's that I hold tenure and requesting my reinstatement, or the initiation of formal tenure revocation proceedings, with the burden on the university to show cause. St. Mary's has refused to comply. I will be able to share additional information within a week. Thank you for your interest.
According to the AAUP, de facto tenure exists if, after the probation ends, a faculty member continues teaching or working at the school:
Upon continuance of full-time service beyond the maximum probationary period, faculty members who so serve should be recognized as having an entitlement to the procedural safeguards that accrue with tenure, even in the absence of institutional regulations to that effect or of specific action by a particular college or university.
However, the case law on de facto tenure runs both ways. The AAUP lists a number of federal and state court cases on this subject, including a couple of federal cases from Texas:
  • Owens v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern University, 953 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. Tex. 1986): Faculty manual adopted subsequent to plaintiff's appointment explicitly provided that tenure would be granted only upon affirmative action by governing board and would not be granted automatically. Factual question existed as to whether plaintiff had rights under earlier manual that administrator testified provided for tenure by default through length of service. Court denied university's motion for summary judgment.
  • LaVerne v. University of Texas System, 611 F. Supp. 66 (C.D. Tex. 1985): Under the applicable university regents' rules, there was no tenure by default, de facto, or "common law" tenure. When university published written tenure procedures, "the legitimacy of a claim to tenure acquired outside the procedures is vitiated because there is no basis for mutuality." Because no entitlement to continued employment existed, no property or liberty interest existed.

I will post more on this subject as soon as I hear anything.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Who Will Be the Next U.S. Attorney?

Now that Johnny Sutton, the somewhat controversial U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, has announced his retirement (his last day will be April 19), who will take over his job?

Maybe an attorney from San Antonio--one with a St. Mary's connection. According to news reports, potential replacements include:
I would love to see a San Antonio attorney step into this office, but who knows?

Hat tip: Grits For Breakfast

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

April Subpoena is Up

The April 2009 issue of the Subpoena, the official newsletter of the San Antonio Bar Association, has been posted online. Back issues of the Subpoena can be found here.