pageok
pageok
pageok
The South Carolina Bar Scandal:

There's a little scandal brewing in South Carolina over the state Supreme Court's decision to eliminate the results from one question, allowing several people to pass who would otherwise have failed, including the daughter of a influential local pol. Louisville Dean Jim Chen has been on the case. He provides background and links here, and an update here.

UPDATE: Jim Chen has still more:

Legal professionals, in South Carolina and the rest of the nation, have every reason to question the Supreme Court's decision to mint 20 new lawyers who, by every account, flunked South Carolina's July 2007 bar exam. They have reason to doubt the high court's outlandishly illogical explanation. This sort of thing has happened before; now it is being reinstitutionalized anew. Not Very Bright's timeline leaves no room for doubt: this was a hamfisted, naked power play by South Carolina's judiciary, carried out at the expense of that state's bar and larger public. Yet, like many observers who are far closer to South Carolina than I am, I too expect this scandal to fade from public view as attention turns to Thanksgiving and this weekend's Clemson-Carolina football game. Panem et circenses, indeed.

The simple explanation is, as usual, correct and complete. South Carolina's lawyers, by my informal survey, are horrified by the Supreme Court's abuse of power. They rue how this episode will resonate for years, even decades, as yet another generation of South Carolinians learns that power, not prowess, that pedigree, not performance, holds the key to success. They cringe at the thought of outsiders consigning this most quintessentially Southern of Southern states to perpetual cultural irrelevance in the American pageant.

bgp:
I really don't see what the big deal here is. The court's actions only prompt eyebrow raises if you still buy into the idea of the bar exam as a qualifications/licensing examination instead of a simple barrier to entry to the profession.

How many of the 20 retroactively admitted students are actually going to practice in the area of Wills, Trusts, and Estates? Why will my bar exam have questions about criminal procedure when I never want to be involved in a criminal case in my life? Why, although law is becoming an increasingly specialized profession, do we still have one big general bar examination?

The exam is just a barrier to entry. That these folks passed the exam with just one more passing section means that they meet some objective level for smarts and legal knowledge. Allowing them entry to the bar isn't a travesty, it's more of step in the right direction.
11.25.2007 1:23pm
Siona Sthrunch (mail):
Wills, Trusts and Estates is not the sole point of that question. Instead, the bar is testing the ability to learn a small body of legal rules, to apply those rules, and to explain this application coherently. Lawyers who cannot understand the law impose substantial external costs on society and the legal system in baseless motions, in raising costs to other parties who take time to explain the law to them, and in harm to their own clients. Lawyers who cannot express themselves coherently impose substantial costs on the courts and other parties who have to decipher their filings. Lawyers without basic skills can also severely harm their own clients.

I disagree with Adler that we have too few lawyers: I think we have too many, and that the requirements for bar passage should be sharply tightened. In my opinion, with tighter bar requirements we would never have seen the Nifong situation, or to many other victims of poor lawyering.

Asking applicants to learn a few pages of basic Wills is hardly onerous.
11.25.2007 1:41pm
Siona Sthrunch (mail):
Oops, editing error above: change "or to many other victims of poor lawyering." to "e.g."
11.25.2007 1:44pm
Cornellian (mail):
I really don't see what the big deal here is. The court's actions only prompt eyebrow raises if you still buy into the idea of the bar exam as a qualifications/licensing examination instead of a simple barrier to entry to the profession.

Even if one buys your logic (which I don't) there's still an issue as to why they chose to waive this particular question and not some other question, or all questions. If waiving this specific question results in children of influential local politicians passing the bar, but waiving some other question does not, and there's some evidence the two are connected, that's something that needs to be looked at, regardless of whether one considers the bar exam a mere "barrier to entry." In other words, even if it is just a barrier to entry, it's still improper for it to be applied selectively and post hoc in order to benefit a handful of influential applicants.
11.25.2007 1:49pm
33yearprof:
Are South Carolina justices appointed (thus non-political but unaccountable) or elected (thus Political and accountable)?
11.25.2007 2:16pm
33yearprof:
BTW, I had an out-of-state governor's daughter in class once. She made nothing of it, studied hard, worked at learning to be a lawyer like everyone else, and passed the bar exam on the first try. I'm told she's a good attorney too.
11.25.2007 2:19pm
CDU (mail):
In my opinion, with tighter bar requirements we would never have seen the Nifong situation, or to many other victims of poor lawyering.


I fail to see how tighter bar exam requirements would have changed anything in the Duke Lacrosse case. Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans were victims of Nifong's poor ethics, not bad lawyering. A stricter bar exam isn't going to help raise lawyers ethical standards.
11.25.2007 2:28pm
Flash Gordon (mail):
I say when in doubt follow the rules which would require them to treat the Bar Examiners' results as final. That will allow one person to be admitted who did not actually pass the Bar, but at least it doesn't allow 20 people to be admitted who did not pass the Bar.

Of course there is another way to analyze this. If the Bar Examiners' original scoring as to this person had erroneously failed him would the Supremes have made an exception to the rule and corrected the error in order to admit him? Is so, why not simply correct this error and re-notify him?

Passing the Bar for lawyers is like paying taxes for everyone else. We all had to do it and by gosh the next guy or gal ought to do it too.

I took and passed the Bar Exam 32 years ago, and this last July I took and passed the Wyoming Bar Exam because Wyoming does not have reciprocity with my state. Most old f---- like me don't relish the idea of taking another Bar Exam and during my 2 months of study I found that a lot had changed. And of course, much of the Exam was on stuff I've never needed and never will. So what? That's the drill, I did it, I feel good about it. Now, if I had failed......well, I hope I'd think the same way.
11.25.2007 2:39pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Wow, dirty. I favor a more free-market approach to law practice, but given this regulatory system, corruption like this still stinks. SC o' SC abandoning the rule of law, whodathunk?
11.25.2007 3:35pm
hattio1:
I agree with you CDU, Nifong's problem was not legal acumen, but morals. You stated;

A stricter bar exam isn't going to help raise lawyers ethical standards.

I would note that stricter applications of the ethical standards might. And I don't mean on the front end (ie., character and fitness review of bar exam) I mean on the other end, sanctioning attorneys who play fast and loose with the rules.
11.25.2007 3:46pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
The California Bar had a similar issue in 1975 when it added a legal ethics test to the bar exam as part of post-Watergate reforms. They screwed it up big-time and there was a stink about it. I was one of the affected recent graduates.

The first two times the ethics exam was required were the February 1975 and July 1975 bar exams. The questions properly asked what an attorney could do in a dicey situation, but the required answers were what an attorney should do. I.e., legally accurate responses to the questions resulted in failing grades.

I had worked for the SEC's Enforcement Division during my third year at Hastings (1974-75), and one of my jobs was investigation of a crooked attorney. I knew very well what an attorney could and couldn't get away with. So I passed the general bar exam in July 1975 and failed the ethics exam.

There was a threatened lawsuit over this screwup as hundreds of recent graduates were in my position, but nothing ever came of it. The bar examiners promised to revise the required answers to future exams so those would conform to the law.

We all retook the Ethics exam in February 1976, gave the same answers to approximately the same questions, passed and began our legal practice.

I have never since given the California State Bar a dime I didn't have to, and never will.
11.25.2007 3:53pm
Wondering Willy (mail):
One wonders to what extent Jim Chen's opinion is colored by the fact that he was passed over as dean for the University of South Carolina?
11.25.2007 4:17pm
Gaius Marius:
Well, if Catherina Salley Harrison was truly honest with herself, she would strike her name from her law license and replace it with her father's name since he is the one who "earned" it for her. Maybe one of these days, House Judiciary Chairman James H. Harrison will quit changing the diapers for his daughter, Catherine, and let her grow up.

BTW, Chen fully disclosed he was passed over for dean for the University of South Carolina.
11.25.2007 4:27pm
Wondering Willy (mail):
Gaius,

I didn't accuse Chen of failing to disclose anything. I simply wondered to what extent his opinion was colored by the fact that he was passed over as dean. Some of his comments regarding the situation could be interpreted as bigoted towards South Carolina.
11.25.2007 4:38pm
Jim Chen (mail) (www):
Thanks for blogging about this issue, Jonathan. I've since written a follow-up post. I also highly recommend Not Very Bright's coverage.

Jim Chen
11.25.2007 4:58pm
33yearprof:
In South Carolina, Justices are elected ... by the state legislature. Each term lasts a decade. There are no term limits.

And when the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says "****" they do.
11.25.2007 5:25pm
John (mail):
The South Carolina Supreme Court's statement on this "scandal" is here.

As I understand it, this is what happened:

1. One test taker had flunked the Wills, Trusts and Estates (WTE) section of the bar exam, but his score was misreported and he was given a passing grade.

2. The Supreme Court thought it inappropriate to de-pass the applicant ("it would be inappropriate to reverse the affected examinee's[2] previous notification of successful completion of the examination. See Rule 402(i)(5) ("The results reported by the Board of Law Examiners is final…").

3. To do this, the court decided that the WTE part of the exam should be ignored.

4. Having decided to do this for the one applicant, the court had to do it for all.This seems to be the weak point of the reasoning, since the others had not had there scores misreported. However, letting in similarly situated applicants doesn't strike me as exactly the end of the world.

5. Thus, 20 people who had failed the exam because they failed the WTE section now passed the exam.

While the court's reasoning is weak, it is not, to me, a "scandal" unless it was the product, as some have suggested, of improper influence. Certainly this result will have no measurable impact on the quality of the practice of law in S.C., as the 20 new lawyers were obviously very close to passing anyway.
11.25.2007 6:07pm
tarheel:
Given that the state supreme court's own rules bar it from hearing an appeal of a failed exam, I think scandal is a fair word to describe this.

And CDU, you must not be aware of the first commandment of The VC - it's always about the Duke case. ALWAYS.
11.25.2007 6:58pm
Jim Chen (mail) (www):
Regarding Gaius Marcus's suggestion that "some of [my] comments regarding the situation could be interpreted as bigoted towards South Carolina," I repeat: I have blogged about this issue as extensively and passionately as I have because I am a Southerner, because I love my home region, and because I wish better for South Carolina than this.

Jim Chen
Louisville, Kentucky
11.25.2007 7:26pm
Jim Chen (mail) (www):
My apologies. I meant "Wondering Willy," not "Gaius Marcus."

Jim Chen
11.25.2007 7:31pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Gaius Marius,

Aren't you being more than a little unfair to Catherina Harrison, in the absence of any evidence that her father played any role in the grade changes, much less any evidence that she had anything to do with it?

There is, apparently, no evidence that the identities of those whose failures would change to passes were known to the Court. Thus, at present there is reason to wonder but no actual scandal. There is, similarly, no evidence that any of the candidates or their fathers exerted any improper influence.
11.25.2007 7:56pm
SC LAW Student (mail):
SC SC Rule 402(d)(i)(7) states:
Prohibited Contacts. An applicant shall not, either directly or through an agent, contact any member or associate member of the Board of Law Examiners or any member of the Supreme Court regarding the questions on any section of the Bar Examination, grading procedures, or an applicant's answers. This provision does not prohibit an applicant from seeking verification of the MBE score as permitted by (6) above.

Catherine's dad, by his own admission, contacted the Board. Seems like a clear violation of the rule to me.
11.25.2007 8:12pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
SC Law Student,

I don't see in any of the linked articles any information as to the nature of the contact between Harrison's father and the Examiners or the Supreme Court. How do you know that the contact was of the prohibited type as opposed, say, to a request for confirmation of the grade? In any case, if he did violate the rule, that doesn't mean he did so as his daughter's agent.
11.25.2007 8:40pm
Bama 1L:
But the underlying issue was not "questions on any section of the Bar Examination, grading procedures, or an applicant's answers." It had to do with whether the Board of Examiners could withdraw a duly given, though erroneous, notification of a passing score. Apparently it could not.

I agree with John: the weak part of the logic was deciding to scrap the section and pass the other students. (I am pretty sure Harrison was in the latter group; it was someone else whose failure was misreported as passage.) If the proper authority tells you that you have passed, then you have passed. But why does anyone else get a break? Someone on another board compared this to a bank accidentally depositing $1000 in one depositor's account, then deciding the best was to handle the situation was to leave that money where it had gone and make a similar deposit in several other depositors' accounts.
11.25.2007 8:52pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
The fundamental problem revealed here is one common to most states' bar processes... the star chamber secrecy of the grading process, which cannot be appealed. It is bizarre to me that the legal profession, of all things, ignores any concept of due process in its entrance procedures.

If the system was open and all applicants could challenge the grading of their exams (heck, if they could actually see the grading, rather than just get a "you passed/you failed" notice), then we wouldn't be wondering about whether these applicants got special treatment... there would be a normal, open process which all mistreated applicants could follow.

Remember, that's the basis of the possibility that these 2 kids got special treatment: not that the court's action was objectively unfair or unsupportable, but that non-connected applicants would never have been able to get the court to even consider taking any action, because according to the rules, no action can be taken.
11.25.2007 9:28pm
Justin (mail):
Bill Poser,

That's not correct. Kendall Burch sent an email that noted that her dad and Catherine's dad were planning on taking it up with the Supreme Court personally.

See the Not Very Bright Timeline, October 30, 2007.
11.25.2007 9:46pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
What does Mr. Chen's unsuccessful attempt to become Dean at South Carolina have to do with anything? I highly doubt he would feel any differently if he got the job, or if he bever tried to get it in the first place.

Sad that the first reaction to a story like this is to blame the messenger.

I took the bar and studied 12 hours a day for 6 weeks (no BarBri or anything like that, didn't need it) and passed my first time out. I think it is the pinnacle of lunacy to compound the error by admitting 20 other people as a result of an error that should have only wound up benefitting one person.

Disclosure: I shot a 108 at a golf course in South Carolina in 1998 and I am still mad about it. (I think that has as much effect on my opinion as Mr. Chen not landing that job)
11.26.2007 1:24am
HappyConservative:
Give me a break.

The South Caroline Supreme Court did a reasonable thing.

It would have been very messed up to inform someone they passed, and then later try to take that back.

But, it does not seem fair that people in the exact same position as this person would fail, while he passed.

Perhaps the bar examiners should have been even more aggressive, and allowed people to fail any two sections, rather than just Wills, Trusts and Estates.

Overall, bar exams are not all that great as a tool to separate people who should practice law from those who should not. The bar is not so much an exercise that demonstrates one's ability to represent clients as it is an exercise in memorizing a massive amount of material that will soon be forgotten after the exam. Overall, an inefficient exercise that seems to benefit BarBri and other test prep outfits more than future clients.

I agree that we should have a bar exam. But it would be nice if it was actually geared to demonstrating that one could serve clients. The bar exams we have now seem like meaningless exercises that are more justified by the irrational sentiments like this: "Passing the Bar for lawyers is like paying taxes for everyone else. We all had to do it and by gosh the next guy or gal ought to do it too."

Yeah, I am glad that you used to walk to 5 miles to school in the snow, uphill both ways in your day. That doesn't really mean everyone should do the same. There is this thing, called progress....
11.26.2007 3:59am
David M. Nieporent (www):
The South Caroline Supreme Court did a reasonable thing.

It would have been very messed up to inform someone they passed, and then later try to take that back.
Here's where the argument falls apart, at the very first step.

To speak colloquially, that would suck. Big time. They told you you passed, and then they contacted you and corrected their error. If it happened to me, I'd be some combination of angry, upset, disappointed, depressed. But here's the thing: you didn't pass. It was just a mistake when they told you you passed.

If they take the licensing exam seriously, then your personal feelings shouldn't outweigh the fact that you couldn't pass it. If they don't take it seriously, then why not just scrap it and let everyone be lawyers?
11.26.2007 5:42am
Marklar (mail):

In my opinion, with tighter bar requirements we would never have seen the Nifong situation, or to many other victims of poor lawyering.



Conservative Commandment One: "Those people" should give up belly aching about slavery etc.

Conservative Commandment Two: It was really, always, about Nifong. We've never seen such an egregious miscarriage of justice as the Duke Lacrosse case. Even if defendants didnt spend a night in jail. And hundreds of others have spent decades. After all, those "others" may have been innocent, but they werent victimized by a pampered, whiny faculty.

FWIW, I understand that Nifong graduated with Honors, and was by all accounts, an excellent attorney till March 2006, when he threw away a lifetime's work by engaging in illegal, not just unethical conduct.

Secondly, I assure you that North Carolina has a tough bar. We're not all country bumpkins down here. Whatever else happened in L' Affaire Nifong, lax bar standards had nothing to do with it.
11.26.2007 7:53am
DJR:
So the logic was thus:

1. One person got a windfall because a grader accidentally reported that the person had passed a section he failed;

Therefore

2. Everyone else that failed that same section should get the same windfall.

Assuming that you buy this logic (that everyone should have the benefit of an error that helped one test taker), why should the correction be limited to wills &estates? If it's unfair that one person should pass the exam even though he failed a section that he needed to pass in order to pass the exam, shouldn't every test-taker who missed passing the exam because they failed one section get the same benefit? Why should someone who failed the exam because they failed a different section fail, while someone who failed because they failed wills &estates passes?
11.26.2007 8:21am
Happyshooter:
I am impressed. The rising tide lifted all boats, not just the children of the powerful. This sort of thing happens, but at least the poor and middle class kids got a break.

That was much more fair than Michigan's system of individual appeal, where the children of the connected magically get enough points to pass.
11.26.2007 9:59am
tarheel:
Actually the tide only lifted the boats that happen to suck at Wills and Estates. Of course, that group miraculously included the children of some powerful, well-connected people.
11.26.2007 10:02am
ronnie dobbs (mail):
DJR makes a great point. Why treat the WTE section as particularly worthy of being discarded? There's no evidence that the questions were unfairly ambiguous or that the grading was substantively incorrect. As far as I can tell, it seems that the Court is treating the WTE section as tainted, even though the Court's own statement concludes that the error was a non-substantive "scrivener's error." If the Court feels that all test-takers are entitled to a windfall if any other test-taker gets a windfall (as many others have pointed out, a dubious proposition), then the remedy should be broader than simply throwing out the WTE section, which would be the appropriate remedy if there was something defective about that section (or the grading thereof).

All of this makes one wonder if something along the lines of the following occurred:

1. The politically connected examinees (and their daddies) lodge complaints about the WTE section, hoping to find an anomalously high failure rate, which would indicate substantive unfairness.

2. Calls are made to the bar examiners, specifically asking whether there were any substantive anomalies in the WTE section.

3. Bar examiners report back that while there were no substantive defects in content or grading, a transcription error was discovered.

4. While this wasn't exactly what they were hoping for, the politically connected examinees (and their daddies) cobble together the "If one gets a windfall, all get a windfall" theory.

5. Knowing that if applied consistently, the aforementioned windfall theory would cause a substantial rise in SC's overall bar passage rate but also desirous of helping out the examinees (and their daddies), the Supreme Court decides apply a substantive cure (throwing out just one section) to a procedural ill (mistranscription), hoping that no-one will notice.

6. We've noticed. Rut-roh!!!
11.26.2007 10:19am
Ex parte McCardle:
I predict this will provide the philosopher-kings of South Carolina with yet another opportunity to declare secession.
11.26.2007 10:20am
DangerMouse:
South Carolina's lawyers, by my informal survey, are horrified by the Supreme Court's abuse of power. They rue how this episode will resonate for years, even decades, as yet another generation of South Carolinians learns that power, not prowess, that pedigree, not performance, holds the key to success.

What makes you think this complaint is limited to South Carolina, or to these specific facts? Courts always abuse power, including the US Supreme Court. And anyone who has a brain can tell that power still holds the key to success, and that performance doesn't matter. Didn't this blog just post about the firing of Rachel Paulose last week?
11.26.2007 10:53am
Adam J:
I find it kind of shocking that people are justifying this under the premise that it's okay because the bar exam is not an accurate test of legal acumen. I tend to agree that the bar exam is indeed merely a barrier to entry and a rather poor test of legal skills (In the interests of disclosure; I too just took and passed the NY bar exam). This argument would justify removing or revising the bar exam, but it does not justify the corruption of the bar exam. The solution to fixing the problem is quite clearly not lowering this barrier to entry for the politically connected applicants.

Also, PatHMV, I don't understand your argument. You say the problem is that the process is closed by citing an example of how they opened it for these politically connected applicants. But how logical is that, if the process was open, who's complaints and arguments would the court be most responsive to? It seems to me that it would clearly be the very same applicants. And the courts wrongful actions would be far less obvious in that case, since they wouldn't have to clearly violate the rule that grades were final in order to help these favored applicants.
11.26.2007 11:03am
Philistine (mail):

DJR makes a great point. Why treat the WTE section as particularly worthy of being discarded? There's no evidence that the questions were unfairly ambiguous or that the grading was substantively incorrect. As far as I can tell, it seems that the Court is treating the WTE section as tainted, even though the Court's own statement concludes that the error was a non-substantive "scrivener's error."


Interestingly, the WTE had significantly more failures than any other essay section (and slightly more failures than the multistate.

From here:

Out of 552 examinees, 428 initially got passing scores. The failure rates on various sections:

Equitable Remedies &Domestic Relations—52
Wills, Trusts, &Estates—107
Insurance—58
Federal &State Procedure—58
Commercial Transactions &UCC—77
Corporations, Agency, &Partnership—76
Multistate Bar Examination—99
11.26.2007 12:42pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):
Philistine: That is interesting. Makes you wonder why the Court didn't simply come right out and say that there was something so wrong with the WTE section to justify throwing it out and instead relied on this weird "everyone gets a windfall" business.
11.26.2007 1:00pm
Adam J:
Dobbs- so are you suggesting that something is "wrong" with the WTE section merely because it had a lower pass rate?
11.26.2007 1:34pm
TruePath (aka logicnazi) (mail) (www):
Just as a point of interest I believe Harvard had an issue several years ago where they printed incorrect acceptance letters to undergraduates. Despite the fact that such letters very well might have caused these students to take actions on that basis Harvard apparently still went ahead and notified them that they had made a mistake and denied them entry.

My memory is a bit hazy on this one though so if someone else knows more details that would be great.
11.26.2007 1:55pm
DJR:
Philistine: I'm not sure what it adds to the debate over the remedy that the pass rate for the WTE section was lower than other sections. Presumably if a grader had accidentally given a passing mark on Equitable Remedies where the person had actually failed it would be a different set of test-takers who got the windfall.

It's bizarre that the Court even included the footnote you cite, unless it is trying to make the implication you're making -- that something was wrong with the WTE section. But if that were the case, why wouldn't they just say so?
11.26.2007 3:32pm
Philistine (mail):
DJR:

I thought it was interesting, given ronnie dobbs' comment about the releative levels of WTE passing rates.

Given the footnote, it seemed somewhat likely to me the Court was attempting to suggest, without actually coming out and saying it, that the WTE might have been too difficult this year, and so throwing it out was no big deal. This seems bolstered by their inclusion of the February bar tests where the failure rate of the WTE section was substantially lower.

My take is that, of course they're not going to "just say so" because that would open the floodgates to people seeking to have any section where a disproportionate # of people failed dropped in the future—but who knows.
11.26.2007 4:03pm
Smokey:
bgp:
How many of the 20 retroactively admitted students are actually going to practice in the area of Wills, Trusts, and Estates? Why will my bar exam have questions about criminal procedure when I never want to be involved in a criminal case in my life? Why, although law is becoming an increasingly specialized profession, do we still have one big general bar examination?
I advise you to never take the California real estate broker's exam.

Unless you're up to speed on metes & bounds. Not that you'll ever see either one.
11.26.2007 4:48pm
ronnie dobbs (mail):

Dobbs- so are you suggesting that something is "wrong" with the WTE section merely because it had a lower pass rate?


I'm not saying that at all. However, I don't think it would be unreasonable to draw that inference and then do a little investigation to see if the questions on that section were ambiguous or if the grading was unduly harsh. What's interesting, however, is that the Court seems to note the disparity but then ignores it by basing its decision on this crazy notion of "similarly situated" persons being entitled to the benefit of a transcription error that affected only one person who was not, in any conventional sense, similarly situated to the other 20 test takers.
11.26.2007 5:19pm
Ben P (mail):

I advise you to never take the California real estate broker's exam.

Unless you're up to speed on metes &bounds. Not that you'll ever see either one.


In all mock seriousness, I advise you to never practice real estate law in rural Mississippi.

Prior to law school I clerked at a firm that did a substantial amount of real estate business in the three state area of Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi.

Proof reading deed descriptions of properties in Miss. that were outside of cities was the bane of my existence for some time.


Attempting to proofread a paragraph of "N42 35'W 57 feet to an iron pin in the middle of a road, thence S19 10'W to the middle of a creek, thence W45 15'N to a large oak tree... and on and on" is a mind numbing activity.
11.26.2007 11:46pm
c.gray (mail):

And anyone who has a brain can tell that power still holds the key to success, and that performance doesn't matter.


Anyone willing to claim "that performance doesn't matter" when practicing law, or in most other professions, probably was last in line when brains were passed out. Having powerful relatives helps when getting started, but its not decisive over the long haul, let alone "key".
11.27.2007 11:32am