Pastors From Accross the Country, Thumb Their Noses at Tax Law

The Washington Post reported today of religious leaders from across the country who are defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia."

The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, "The point that the IRS says you can't do it, I'm saying you're wrong."

The campaign, organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium based in Arizona, has gotten the attention of the Internal Revenue Service. The agency, alerted by opponents, pledged to "monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."

Each campaign season brings allegations that a member of the clergy has crossed a line set out in a 1954 amendment to the tax code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.

In an open letter Saturday, a United Church of Christ minister, the Rev. Eric Williams, warned that many members of the clergy are "exchanging their historic religious authority for a fleeting promise of political power," to the detriment of their churches.

"The role of the church -- of congregation, synagogue, temple and mosque -- and of its religious leaders is to stand apart from government, to prophetically speak truth to power," Williams wrote, "and to encourage a national dialogue that transcends the divisiveness of electoral politics and preserves for every citizen our 'first liberty.' "

In the modern red-brick Living Stones Church in Crown Point, a town of 28,000 residents 50 miles southeast of Chicago, Johnson explained why he thinks a minister should dispense political advice. He then laid out his view of the positions of Obama and McCain on abortion and same-sex marriage, which he called two issues "that transcend all others."

"We want people when you prick them, they bleed the word of God," Johnson said.

Johnson said ministers have a responsibility to guide their flocks in worldly matters, including politics, calling the dichotomy between the secular and the sacred a myth: "The issue is not 'Are we legislating morality?' This issue is 'Whose morality are we legislating?' "

Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.

The congregation greeted Johnson's reasoning and his criticism of Obama with applause.

"When things of the world don't line up with Scripture," said Ed Kraus, 61, who executes reverse mortgages for a living, "he has a right to say they don't."

Ruth Stiener went a step further. "He has a duty," she said. "Heaven forbid that that is ever taken away from our pastors."

Robert Tuttle, law professor at George Washington University, is skeptical that the Alliance Defense Fund project will result in a new judicial interpretation of the 1954 law. "The only way this gets into a court is if the IRS, number one, decides to enforce and the enforcement mechanism they choose actually causes an injury to a church," said Tuttle, who studies the intersection of law and religion. "That's not something that happens often in campaign activity."

More than 180 members of the clergy have signed a pledge from the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington-based group that seeks to separate faith and politics, agreeing not to endorse a candidate on behalf of their house of worship.

"I have no objections to clergy taking off their robes and walking out the door of their church, synagogue or mosque and immersing themselves in political campaigns," said Rabbi Jack Moline of Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, chairman of the Interfaith Alliance board. "But a sanctuary should not be a place of political agitation on behalf of a candidate. On behalf of issues, yes. Of candidates, no."

Moline added: "Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is saying, 'This is what our God says should be the government of the country.' I think that is a nightmare scenario for a country that introduced the Bill of Rights to humanity."


This is a very interesting legal argument and one that we will keep our eye on.

$700B Bailout, Good For Attorneys?

The wildly unpopular $700B Wall Street bail out did not pass The House today in a 205-228 vote. Even though the Bill did not pass today it is still very likely that some form of a bill will be passed and when it is I think it will be great for attorneys all over the country because of the huge number of law suits that it will bring. Congress can't pass a $700B bail out in a few weeks of debate/review without huge loop holes and Constitutional issues. the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 will give the Treasury Secretary $700 billion to buy up bad mortgages from banks, but with conditions: Instead of handing over all of the money at once, the bill allocates $250 billion now and requires the president to certify that the next $100 billion is needed.
Congress can hold up delivery of the final $350 billion.
Companies whose bad loans are purchased must give the government an ownership stake so that taxpayers will benefit from their future growth.
The bill requires the Treasury to help the people whose mortgages and purchases keep their homes, something on which Democrats insisted. And in a provision Republicans fought for, it also sets up a program under which banks could buy government insurance for some of the loans, rather than selling them outright.
There will be restrictions on companies who sell those bad loans to the treasury, as well as limits on executive compensation, and on golden parachutes, and the bill sets up oversight: The Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve Chairman and other government officials must review what's done under the new law.

What about individual banks or home owners that probably should receive relief but won't? Sounds like those issues will need to be resolved in a court of law and that will be good news for attorneys all over the country.

Heller Ehrman of San Francisco is Dissolving

Heller Ehrman a mega law firm of San Francisco, California is dissolving. Are there more of these Megafirms to go BK before it's all over? What is going to be the long term trickle down affect of this closure?

This is a copy of the letter given to the Heller Ehrman employees notifying them of the companies demise.

I regret to inform you that The Firm has adopted a plan of liquidation and will shut down substantially all of its operations on or about November 28, 2008. At the time of the shutdown, the employment of The Firm's employees will be permanently terminated. Until then, please be aware that The Firm has work for you and expects you to report to work. Employees will be paid full salary and benefits until the shutdown. Where applicable, employees with accrued but unused vacation time may be scheduled for vacation prior to November 28.
You do not have displacement or bumping rights for other positions within The Firm. However, in order to conduct an orderly liquidation, The Firm may continue to employ a very limited number of employees after the date of the shutdown. If you wish to be considered for such work, please notify me by email; The Firm will let you know about past November 28 work within the next few days.

This letter constitutes notice to you pursuant to statute. As a terminated employee, you may be entitled to certain benefits, which will be the subject of a separate communication. The shutdown is being treated as a plant closing under relevant law, and includes the termination of employment of employees employed at 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94104.

In the event you require additional information, please feel free to contact [redacted]

First Year Billable Hours

Ford & Harrison, an Atlanta-headquartered labor and employment law firm eliminated billable hour requirements for its first-year associates under an innovative program called "Year One." This program is proving to be a huge success. The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported that Year One is being well received by the firm's clients, associates, and partners alike. Under the program, first-year associates get to work directly with clients, and those clients are generally pleased to see a second lawyer working on their cases--at no extra charge. The associates enjoy the chance to work on depositions, negotiations, mediations, and arbitrations while first-year associates at other firms often spend their time on research projects and document review. Partners like the program because, to their surprise, it is helping the new associates become proficient and productive in a short amount of time; the reduced pressure seems to yield greater productivity, earlier.

The new attorneys must still account for 1,900 hours of work, but that work can be either billable to clients or time defined as training, such as working with partners on depositions, meeting with clients, and preparing cases for trial. Let's all tip our hat to this firm for finding an innovative way to increase client, associate, and partner satisfaction, and for developing a creative and successful alternative to the billable hour. Hopefully, we'll see more and more law firms taking a similar approach to first year laywers.

First Presidency Issues Letter on Political Participation

Political Participation, Voting, and the Political Neutrality of the Church

As citizens we have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects our communities and nation today and in the future.

Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.

The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.

Sincerely yours,


Thomas S. Monson
Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Utchdorf
The First Presidency

If you're not registered to vote hurry up and do it you only have a few days left!

Mormon Colonies in Mexico Documented

The term "Mexican colonies" conjures family lore for many Arizona Mormons.

Some can pull family histories from their bookshelves with rich stories of persevering ancestors who lived in thriving northern Mexican enclaves where polygamy was practiced and the large families made a living in the isolation of the mountainous desert.

These were places like Colonia Dublán Colonia Garcia or one of the "mountain colonies," like Cave Valley or Colonia Pacheco. A dozen colonies were established after 1885 in the states of Chihuahua and Sonora by families of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while the U.S. government was pressing Mormons in Utah to halt polygamy if they wanted statehood.

Some polygamists believed they were keeping Mormon plural marriage alive in that outpost so that one day it might be judged culturally and politically acceptable in the U.S.

Two Valley women, one a lifelong Mormon who lived 17 years in Colonia Dublán and gave birth to her four children there, are about to release a film documentary, "The Land of Refuge," about the Mormon pioneers who escaped persecution in the American Southwest almost 125 years ago. The film will be for sale on DVD, and they hope to market it to cable channels and PBS. (www.mormoncoloniesinmexico.com).

Pamela Jo Bowman, of Mesa, and Cyndi Greening, of Gilbert, collaborating as GREENing Productions (using Bowman's maiden name of Green and Greening's surname), found descendants, journals and histories to capture the stories of life in the colonies. Residents met upheaval in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, which ended the 35-year rule of President Porfirio Diaz and sent many Mormon families back to the U.S.

"There was a mass exodus because of the revolution" in the summer of 1912 when some 4,000 Mormons crossed into Arizona and temporarily settled in places like Douglas, Greening said. "Some of the colonies emptied out completely."

Today, only Colonia Dublán and Colonia Juarez remain viable, and the late church president, Gordon B. Hinckley dedicated a temple in Juarez in February 2000. Polygamy is no longer practiced there, although breakaway fundamentalists live in what is called Colonia LeBaron near Galeana. Bowman once visited with some of that sect while providing car breakdown help and transportation in the foothills of Sierra Tarahumara.

"What is clear to me is that the people who lived in the Mexican colonies were really devoted Mormons," said Greening, 51, who has been involved in filmmaking since 1983. "They really believed in their hearts and souls that they were doing what they thought was right for the church. So they married those extra women, and they had families and that is why they went to Mexico."

As a condition for Utah to be admitted as a state, the Mormon Church had to repudiate the practice of polygamy, which it did in 1890. It was made the 45th state in 1896. Ultimately, when the church formally ended polygamy, those in the Mexican Mormon colonies were "really crushed," said Greening, who is not Mormon. "A lot of people down there were shocked. They felt they were leading God's law."

Because many Mormons continued to practice polygamy, Joseph Fielding Smith, church president/prophet, issued the Second Manifesto in 1904 declaring excommunication would come to those who entered into plural marriage, triggering formation of the fundamentalist Mormon movement.

Bowman, 50, was a journalism student in 1980 at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, when she met another student, Christopher Bowman. As they dated, she applied her interviewing skills to get the shy man to tell her of his past. She learned he had grown up in a Mexican colony. Months later, they went to Colonia Dublán for his family reunion. "That was my first exposure to the colonies," she said. As a joke, Christopher showed her an adobe hut and said that was where he had grown up. "He just wanted to see my reaction," she said.

The couple married in 1983 and moved to the colonies where Christopher took over family property with orchards and cropland.

"My experience with moving down there was totally different than the experience for the women who went there in 1885," Bowman said. In the beginning, some lived in cavernlike holes along a river or in their wagons. It was a rigorous life of a new culture, isolation and building communities from scratch.

When Christopher became bishop of their ward, he asked Pamela to write a pageant play, in 1996, highlighting history of the Mormon colonies. It would include the challenges of getting land, the dangers of Pancho Villa and marauders in northern Mexico and efforts of Mormons to stay politically neutral. Although she never completed the play, her efforts provided grist for the eventual "Land of Refuge" documentary. She began taking filmmaking classes from Greening at Mesa Community College, then, together, they traveled to Zambia and produced a feature, "Bad Timing," and a documentary, "Voice of an African Nation."

With that experience, they formed their own production company and launched into the Mexican project, with Greening as producer and co-writer with Bowman. As they read through hundreds of journals and personal histories, they decided to select quotes, then find descendants in Mexico and the U.S. to voice those quotes on film. They also have vintage photos and film of the colonies.

"I want to show the strength of character of these people," with emphasis on the women, Bowman said. "They had nothing and they did whatever they had to do to raise their children in the way they wanted to raise them."

"Some of the women said they loved their sister wives and became best friends," Greening said. Certainly, there were some women who had jealousies," such as a woman who was so stressed that her husband was with another wife, she would stay up all night cleaning house.

"If you talk to anyone from the colonies, 95 percent of them will tell you they are so proud and happy to have had that experience," she said. "They feel such a tie and bond with the colonies."

Besides the 70-minute documentary, they have set up a Web site where Mormons with historical ties to the colonies can post information, stories and photos at http://mormoncoloniesinmexico.wetpaint.com.

Bowman and Greening are exploring doing a documentary on two American colonial women, midwife and religious activist Anne Hutchinson and Quaker martyr Mary Dyer. Hutchinson was put on trial in 1637 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for arguing people could communicate directly with God without the help of ministers (all men) and the Bible. She was convicted and banished from the colony. At the height of anti-Quaker fervor in Boston, Dyer was imprisoned for her activism, then banished. But when she defiantly returned, Dyer was hanged in 1660. Their persecution, Greening said, helped feed Thomas Jefferson's historical writings on the principles of freedom of religion. As original told in the East Valley Tribune

Mormons are Contributing Huge Amount To Ban Gay Marriage In California

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have contributed more than a third of the approximately $15.4 million raised since June 1 to support Proposition 8. The ballot initiative, if passed, would reverse the current right of same-sex couples to marry.

The Mormon Church decision to enlist members on behalf of the same-sex marriage ban has given supporters of Proposition 8 a fund-raising lead. The campaign to defeat the initiative has collected around $13 million so far, said Steve Smith, a top campaign consultant for No on 8, Equality for All. Both sides raised roughly equal amounts in the early stages, said Mr. Smith, but "all of a sudden in the last few weeks they are out-raising us, and it appears to be Mormon money."

The top leadership of the Mormon Church, known as the First Presidency, issued a letter in June calling on Mormons to "do all you can" to support Proposition 8.

Mormon donors said they weren't coerced. "Nobody twisted my arm," said Richard Piquet, a Southern California accountant who gave $25,000 in support of Proposition 8. He said Mormon Church leaders called donating "a matter of personal conscience." Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn't give. Church spokesmen said any such incident wouldn't reflect Mormon Church policy.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in California after the State Supreme Court ruled in May that an existing ban, enacted by referendum in 2000, was unconstitutional. That prompted opponents to organize the current ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, banning same-sex marriage.

Since then, the fight over the initiative has come to be seen as a crucial battleground: If voters uphold the right of gay couples to marry in the nation's most populous state, it could give momentum to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage elsewhere.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is bucking the conservative wing of his party to campaign against the initiative. The latest statewide poll, taken at the end of August, shows that 54% of the state's likely voters oppose the initiative while 40% support it.

The battle has drawn in money from around the country. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic group, has given $1 million to support Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization composed mainly of evangelical Protestants, has given more than $400,000. The Yes on 8 campaign has received "more proportionally from the Latter-day Saints Church than from any other faith," said Mr. Schubert, 35% to 40% of the total.

The Mormon Church encouraged its members to send their donations to a separate post-office box set up by a church member, said Messrs. Schubert and L. Whitney Clayton, a senior Mormon Church official involved in the campaign. Mr. Clayton said the church didn't keep track of how much individual Mormons donated, just the cumulative total. He said members bundled the donations and forwarded them to the campaign.

A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state's Web site. The site's founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised.

Robert Bolingbroke, a Mormon who lives near San Diego, said he and his wife decided on their own to donate $3,000 in August. Later, he was invited to participate in a conference call led by a high church official, known as a member of the Quorum of Seventy. Mr. Bolingbroke, a former president and chief operating officer of The Clorox Co., estimates that 40 to 60 Mormon potential donors were on that call, and he said it was suggested that they donate $25,000, which Mr. Bolingbroke did earlier this month. Mr. Bolingbroke said he doesn't know how he or the other participants on the call were selected. Church leaders keep tithing records of active members, who are typically asked to donate 10% of their income each year to the Mormon Church.

Same-sex marriage hits at the heart of Mormon theology, said Terryl Givens, a professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond. According to scholars and documents on the Mormon Church's official Web site, couples married in a Mormon temple remain wedded for eternity and can give birth to spirit children in the afterlife. Most importantly, Mormons must be married to achieve "exaltation," the ultimate state in the afterlife. Mormons also believe they retain their gender in the afterlife.

"This all explains the Mormon difficulty with homosexuality," said Mr. Givens. In a theology based on eternal gender, marriage and exaltation, "same-sex attraction doesn't find a place."

The church, which typically stays out of political issues, has occasionally entered the fray. In the 1970s, for example, it opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

The prominence of Mormon donors in the Proposition 8 fight has also led to alliances with evangelical Protestant groups and other Christian religions, some of which have deep theological differences with Mormons.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, "I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for" the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a "friendship" with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain "unbridgeable."

But he noted how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed tight bonds through their joint work against abortion, and he said a similar process might occur with Mormons.

Asked if working on Proposition 8 might improve the standing of Mormons in the eyes of evangelicals, Mr. Whitney said, "That's just not been on our radar."

He said he would be happy to work with "anyone else who would be willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work to try to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. That's our interest."--The Wall Street Journal

If you would like to also donate go to the website www.protectmarriage.com

Law Professor's Book Examines Legal Cases of Book of Mormon

By Kevin Earl of BYU Newsnet. The trials of Abinadi, Alma and Amulek, Nehor and Korihor help law students and others better understand the culture and laws of the Book of Mormon and how they shaped Nephite society and history.

More than 28 years of research on the legal cases found in the Book of Mormon have been compiled in a BYU law professor's most recent book, "The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon."

Professor John W. Welch came to BYU in 1980 and used the classes he taught and the atmosphere that allows for religious and secular study to help him complete a lifelong undertaking.

Welch's book expounds the trials readers of the Book of Mormon are familiar with and have studied in Sunday School, seminary and religion or institute classes. His book also helps those not familiar with the Book of Mormon.

"Another need is to build bridges of understanding between the young Mormon tradition and the long-standing Christian tradition," Welch wrote in a letter. "I have written this book with both Latter-day Saint and non-LDS readers in mind."

As law students study modern law to see how it shapes society, they can also study ancient law to discover how it shaped history and culture.

"Biblical and Book of Mormon law both describe what was understood by these ancient cultures in terms of practice and prescribe through concrete examples what ethics should be," stated David R. Seely, BYU professor of ancient scripture, in a peer review of Welch's book.

Students learn that modern court decisions shape society, just as the ancient legal cases of the Book of Mormon were turning and shaping points for Nephite society.

Welch says the trial of Nehor helped set a precedent with Alma being the chief judge making the final judgment just as Marbury v. Madison, which solidified the role of the Supreme Court as an equal partner in the U.S. government and set the court as the final authority on defining the Constitution.

Some cases that were analyzed include the trials of Book of Mormon prophets and their opponents.

The trial of Abinadi may be considered the most influential legal case in the book, Welch said. From that single point in Nephite history the leaders in the Book of Mormon, prophets and judges, can be traced from Alma all the way to Moroni, he said.

Law students are not the only ones who benefit from studying the legal cases in ancient scripture. Welch said it can help anyone "understand the messages of the Book of Mormon better."

However, as the Book of Mormon itself counsels in the writings of Moroni, one can only gain a testimony of the book through the Spirit of the Lord. Welch expressed this too in a BYU devotional address he gave in 2003.

"My testimony does not depend on finding such things," Welch said. "Rather, my mind looks with confidence for such things precisely because I know the Book of Mormon and the gospel are true."

Which is the better law School, Benjamin Cardozo or J. Reuben Clark?

Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School Quick Facts:
US News and World Report Ranking- 55
Established 1976
Location: New York City, New York
Median LSAT/GPA- 162/3.53
Tuition- $39,470
Highs- Located in largest legal metropolitan in the US.
Lows- High cost of living, high tuition.





J. Reuben Clark Law School Quick Facts:
US News and World Report Ranking- 46
Established 1973
Location: Provo, Utah
Median LSAT/GPA- 165/3.70
Tuition- $8,700
Highs- Low tuition, low cost of living.
Lows- Distance to nearest major legal metro.

US News and World Report Ranking- Advantage BYU
Year Established- Advantage BYU
Median LSAT/GPA- Advantage BYU
Tuition- Advantage BYU
Geographic Location- Advantage Cardozo
Overall Advantage- BYU

Is it time that Mormons replace Jews as the stereotypical lawyer? There is a strong stereo type of Jewish lawyers that is carried out on TV, Movies, and popular media in general. How deserving is this reputation? The number of Mormon law students in school far outweighs the number of Jews in law school. How long will it be before the media begins to associate Mormons as the religion of lawyers?

BYU and University of Utah Are Not Being Considered

After our first ten top most Mormon friendly law schools posting we received a lot of feed back from people saying; "BYU and the University of Utah should be one and two on the list" and our response to that is of course BYU and the "U" are the two most Mormon friendly law schools in the country that's why we didn't rank them last year nor will we ever rank them in our list. We consider it a given that those two schools are on the list and that's why we didn't put them on it. So, everyone take a deep breath and relax, BYU and the University of Utah and great schools and both (obviously) very Mormon friendly.

2007 First Year Law Salaries

Last year, NALP made headlines in the blogosphere with its now famous double bell curve graph showing the bimodal distribution of full-time salaries for the Class of 2006. Predictably enough, given the run-up of starting salaries at large law firms that happened during 2007, the graph depicting the distribution of salaries for the Class of 2007 still has two peaks but is even more dramatic. This graph clearly shows the sharp peak at $160,000 where large firm starting salaries have settled for now, and contrasts with the relatively symmetric double peaks of last year’s curve.

What this image makes visually manifest is the two very different legal employment markets that law school graduates face. While 16% of starting salaries were $160,000 far more, 38%, were $55,000 or less. The first peak in the graph reflects salaries of $40,000 to $60,000, with salaries of $40,000 and $50,000 each accounting for about 10% of salaries. Collectively, salaries in the $40,000 - $60,000 range (approximately the total area reflected under the left peak) accounted for 42% of salaries. Salaries reflected under the right peak, including the smaller bulge over $145,000, accounted for 22% of salaries. This bimodal distribution of starting salaries for law school graduates was not always the case however. As recently as 1999, starting salaries for law school graduates assumed a much more normal bell shaped curve with a single peak. (See Salaries for New Lawyers: How Did We Get Here?, NALP Bulletin, January, 2008.) For more detailed information on the class of 2007, see the press release on the Jobs & JD's report for the Class of 2007 or order Jobs & JD's and Starting Salaries through the Bookstore.

Law school tuition is bounding far ahead of pay raises at firms of all sizes. Whether new lawyers land jobs at giant international firms, where salaries recently hit $135,000 plus bonuses, or at small practices in the Midwest and elsewhere, they are paying up to 267 percent more for their education, compared with costs in 1990. At the same time, new associates are earning on average just 60 percent more than what they were in the private sector in 1990, a figure that does not take into account decreased earning power due to inflation.
The result means that beginning lawyers -- especially those in midsize and small firms -- are shouldering proportionately much more debt at graduation than did their predecessors, a situation that some observers fear will lead to more loan defaults, attrition and job dissatisfaction.

Tuition and costs at public and private law schools have skyrocketed since 1990. For in-state residents at public law schools, students are paying 267 percent more than in 1990, according to information compiled by John Sebert, consultant on legal education to the American Bar Association. For nonresidents, public law school costs have soared by 197 percent. Private tuition since 1990 has risen by 130 percent. Tuition in 2004 at public law schools for in-state residents averaged $11,860 and $21,905 for nonresidents, and at private schools, tuition was $26,952.

About 80 percent of law school students obtain loans to pay for law school, and the average loan debt is $76,763 for private law school graduates and $48,910 for public school graduates. While law school costs have exploded, associate compensation has not. According to the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), the median salary for first-year associates in private practice in 2004 was $80,000, the last year that figures for comparison were available. The 2004 number represents a 60 percent increase over the median salary in 1990, which was $50,000.

Aditionally, the United States recently became the first country in the world with 200 law schools. With more law schools, producing more lawyers, this will further drive down earning potential among most attorneys. All of these gloomy statistics raise the question: why do more people keep going to law school each year? Is there a better career path that young college grads should be taking?

2009 Top Ten Mormon Friendly Law Schools Release Date Has Been Set

On Monday April 6, 2009 the Second annual Top Ten Most Mormon Friendly Law Schools will be made public. We have already begun to compile basic data for the list. Next year's top ten list will come from these 55 law schools.
ASU
Arizona
Cal. Western
Case Western
Chicago
Creighton
Cornell
Columbia
Colorado
Dayton
Duke
Franklin Pierce
Florida State
George Mason
George Washington
Gonzaga
Georgetown
Harvard
Houston
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
LaVerne
Lewis and Clark
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri- Columbia
Missouri- KC
Nebraska
NYU
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Pacific McGeorge
Penn State
Pepperdine
Saint Louis
San Diego
Seton Hall
Stanford
Texas Tech
Tulsa
UCLA
UNLV
Valparaiso
Vanderbilt
Washburn
Washington and Lee
Whittier
Willamette
William and Mary
Wisonsin
Wyoming
Yale

Additionally, the criteria to measure the schools will be increased from 5 elements to 10. If you have a good argument as to why we should expand the list to a law school not on our list let us know.

Gaming The US News Law School Ranking

Posted by Dan Slater of WSJ
It’s no secret that top law schools game the U.S. News & World Report rankings by admitting students with sub-par LSATs and GPAs into the part-time program only, since those students’ so-called entering credentials will then be excluded from the rankings calculus.
As early as January, that loophole might be excised. On today’s front-page, the WSJ’s Amir Efrati reports that U.S. News is “seriously” considering reworking its ranking system to crack down on the practice, according to Robert Morse, director of data research at the magazine, who manages the all-mighty rankings. LB noted this possibility in July.
“Counting part-timers would roil the law-school rankings,” writes Efrati, “which have a big impact on where students apply and from where law firms hire.” Moreover, law school administrators say the methodology change could narrow a traditional pathway to law school for minorities and working professionals, who often perform worse on the LSAT. If the ranking calculus changes to include part-timers, schools could feel pressure to raise their admission thresholds, making it harder for these groups to gain admission.
A change in criteria would “catch the outliers but punish part-time programs that have existed forever and aren’t doing it to game the system,” says Ellen Rutt, an associate dean at the University of Connecticut. If U.S. News makes the move, many schools with part-time programs would have a tough choice: Leave their admission standards for part-timers unchanged, which could hurt their rank, or raise the standards, likely shrinking the programs and cutting revenue.
Tom W. Bell, a law prof at Chapman University who has developed a rankings model that mimics the one used by U.S. News, says that if the U.S. News change had already taken place this year, some schools could have fallen from the magazine’s “first tier” of the top 50 schools to the second tier, and some from the second to the third. Bell ran several schools’ data through his model, at WSJ’s request. For example, Southern Methodist University and the University of Connecticut, tied at 46th, might have fallen out of the top 50, and Hofstra and Stetson universities might have sunk below 100.
These kinds of drops can put the jobs of law school deans in jeopardy. Nancy Rapoport, the former dean of the University of Houston Law Center, resigned in 2006 after the school had fallen from 50th to 70th in the span of a few years. (The school is now ranked 55th; Rapoport has moved on to teach at University of Nevada-Las Vegas.) In the 2009 rankings, Buffalo law school experienced the most precipitous drop in the rankings, from 77 to 100.

Official Letter From Mormon Church Explaining It's Opposition To Same Sex Marriage

The Divine Institution of Marriage

SALT LAKE CITY 13 August 2008

Introduction

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” [2]

In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [3]

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. [4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” [5]

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. [6] This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [7]
Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [8]
Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. [9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.

Challenges to Marriage and Family

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.

In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. [12]

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.



________________________________________________

[1] Genesis 2:24.

[2] Matthew 19:4-6.

[3] Genesis 1:27.

[4] M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, November 2005, p. 41.

[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.

[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).

[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.

[8] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.

[9] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 219-220.

[10] Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99,” National Vital Statistics Reports 48:16 (18 October 2000); and Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 56:7 (5 December 2007).

[11] Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” In Brief, July 2008.

[12] Christine Vestal, “California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate,” stateline.org, 16 May 2008, updated 12 June 2008. Stateline.org is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

[13] Matt. 19:19.

[14] John 8:11.

[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.

[16] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.

[17] Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Douglas Laycock, Jr., et al., eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, forthcoming).

[18] Marc D. Stern, “Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the Scholar’s Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006.

[19] “European Parliament Resolution on homophobia in Europe,” adopted 18 January 2006.

When is Going to Law School A Mistake?

This is a very interesting article I found on The Calico Cat Blog. It does raise the question, when does it not make sense to go to law school? With the cost of tuition, cost of living, and competition for legal jobs it's something that every pre-law student should consider.

Law school: the big lie
Every year tens of thousands of wannabe lawyers enter law school. The majority will be extremely disappointed by their career opportunities.

Thus the title of this essay: law school is a big lie. People enter law school with the idea that a law degree is their ticket to a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle. In fact, just the opposite, law school for most is a ticket to a worse financial state than if they had not attended at all.

This news is hard for people to accept, because “everyone knows” that lawyers make a lot of money. Right? Well look at the salaries for government lawyers in your area. They probably start in the 30s. Why would anyone take a job paying in the 30s if law jobs pay six figures? They wouldn’t. After a decade or more of service to the state, you salary will most likely max out in the five figures. That’s a pretty lousy salary for a job that requires three years of graduate school education. There are plenty of people without any graduate education earning six figures, and they don’t have to pay back the student loans that lawyers have to take out in order to pay for law school. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world and he doesn’t even have an undergraduate degree.

There are some lawyers who start out with a good salary. They work for what they call “BIGLAW” on the internet message boards. Big law firms pay their associates a starting salary in the six figures. But here’s the sad news: only a tiny percentage of law school graduates will ever get these six figure jobs at big law firms. Unless you go to a top law school, the six figure big law firm job will most likely not be yours.

There are only 14 top law schools. That’s right. Not 10, not 15, but 14. They are, in descending order of prestige: Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, UC Berkeley, and Georgetown. And that’s it. Go to any other law school, and your chances of getting a big law firm job will be slim to none.

There are also distinct levels of prestige within the top 14. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are head and shoulders above the rest. Then Columbia, NYU and maybe Chicago round out the top 6. Attending one of these top top law schools will vastly improve your odds. The guy graduating at the bottom of the class at Harvard will have better career opportunities than the guy graduating at the top of the class at an ordinary law school.

Outside of the top law schools, the only law school graduates having decent job opportunities will be those who graduated in the top ten percent of the class and who made law review. Law review and top ten percent are usually the same people because at most law schools the law review members are selected from those whose grades are in the top ten percent at the end of the first year. If like me, your grades weren’t in the top ten percent at the end of the first year, but you managed to graduate in the top ten percent, you are screwed because you weren’t on law review. Furthermore, most big law firms make offers to their summer associates, who get interviewed and hired during the second half of the second year, thus it’s mostly your grades during the first three semesters of law school that determine your entire legal future.

If you are reading this, and you’re a law student who already received your first semester grades, and they aren’t top ten percent, then my advice is to drop out now instead of throwing more money down the law school black hole.

Despite being warned that the only way to get a decent job in law if one attends a non-top 14 school is to make law review and the top ten percent, tens of thousands of suckers will enroll anyway. They think “I will be the one who makes the top ten percent” or “even if I don’t make the top ten percent, things will work out.” Let’s state the odds clearly: 90% of the class will not make the top 10%. You are not the only person in law school thinking they are going to bust their ass to make the top ten percent. 80% of the people start out thinking they are going to bust their ass. And some people from the 20% who are slackers are going to wind up in the top 10% too, because law school grades have a huge random element. One of the biggest slacker/party girls in my first year law school class made the top 10%. She wound up getting a high paying job at a big law firm because the law school gods decided to randomly grace her during her first semester.

The law schools will trick prospective students with bogus statistics about the great career opportunities available to graduates. Don’t believe everything you read. First of all, there are the documented lies, like the admissions brochure for my law school alma mater, Arizona State University College of Law (ASU), which listed the average starting salary for graduates with job offers at graduation from private law firms. But what percentage of the class graduates with a job offer in hand from a private law firm? About 10%? Trumpeting the average salary for 10% of the class is damned deceptive.

I further suspect that some law schools outright lie on their reported career placement statistics. Think about public companies. They have a strong incentive to lie on their financial statements, so that is why they have to prepare their statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and the accounting has to be audited by an independent public accounting firm. Despite these safeguards, companies like Enron are still caught lying on their financial statements.

Law school career placement statistics do not have to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles, and they aren’t audited by independent public accountants. Therefore they can’t be trusted. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because they are “non-profit” they can be trusted, or that they are run only for the benefit of the public. There’s no such thing as no one making a profit. “Non-profit” only means that no one owns the residual profits from the law school, there are plenty of stakeholders making out like bandits. Law schools are run for the benefit of the law professors who have cushy six figure jobs, and the money for their salaries comes from the gullible suckers called law students.

How cushy is a job as a law professor? Law professors earn six figures and only have to work six hours a week. And they get summers off too. How much better can it get? That’s right, law professors are only allowed to teach six hours of classes a week. If they taught more than six hours a week, the law school would lose its accreditation. Maybe some of the new law professors have to spend some time preparing for class, but by the time the law professor has a few years under his belt, he knows the material cold. Some of the older law professors were able to recite the entire textbook without ever even looking at it. In class one day, all the students looked quizzically at the law professor while he recited the exact details of a case that wasn’t in the textbook. Finally this was brought to his attention. It turns out that he was reciting from the last edition of the book. He didn’t even bother to look at the textbook in front of him to see that the case wasn’t in there.

The only time that law professors have to do any real work is when they grade exams. And law school exams are only given once at the end of the semester. So we are talking about two weeks of real work at the end of each semester. And in one case, a law professor at ASU, Dale Furnish, was apparently too lazy to even put in his two weeks of work and he made up fake grades for the students in his class. When his deception was discovered, all he got was a temporary suspension, and a short time later he was back at law school teaching law.

So we see, law professors have cushy jobs, therefore they have a strong incentive to lie on the career placement statistics because those are equivalent to a for-profit company’s financial statements, and it’s what the prospective law students look at to decide if they want to “invest” in the law school education.

Another fallacy that prospective law students hold onto is that the law degree has some kind of value outside of law. They think, “if I don’t practice law, at least it’s a prestigious degree that will help my non-law career.” This is completely false. Having a law degree hurts your chances of getting non-law jobs. No one wants to hire you if you have a law degree. Because “everyone knows” that lawyers make so much money, they can’t understand why someone with a law degree would want to do anything else but practice law. If you say “I couldn’t find a job practicing law.” which is probably the truth, they will think “this person is a loser because everyone know how easy it is to find a job practicing law, and we don’t hire losers around here.” If you say “I was just exploring my options but decided I didn’t want to practice law,” then they will think “this person has no idea what he wants to do, we want to hire people who know where their career is going.” There is absolutely no way to spin the law degree in a way that it helps you get a non-law job. Hiring managers are looking for cookie cutter resumes, not resumes where people have education unrelated to the job. From their perspective, they’re not hiring a lawyer so they don’t give a crap if you know how to synthesize appellate cases (assuming they even know what “synthesize appellate cases” means, which is unlikely). The only way I have been able to find any jobs outside of law is to leave the law degree off my resume. Whenever the law degree has been on my resume, it has been the kiss of death that prevents me from finding a job.

Finally, this essay would be incomplete if it didn’t discuss the burden of student loans. Whatever salary you make after graduating from law school has to be discounted by the cost of your student loan repayments. The student loan payments are not tax deductible (except to a very limited extent which will likely not apply to you). Your marginal tax rate will probably be around 45%, which means that for every $100/month in student loan payments, you need to have a stated additional salary of $182/month to cover the student loan payments. This means that if your law school education adds $500/month in student loan payments, you are paying $6,000/year in student loans and you need to earn an extra $10,910/year to cover the payments. This means that a $40,000/year job as a law school graduate gives you the equivalent disposable income of a $29,090/year job if you didn’t have a law degree. And it’s a lot easier to find a $29,000/year job with a bachelor’s degree than it is to find a $40,000/year job with a law degree.

Even if you are one of the rare and lucky law school graduates who can obtain a six figure job at a big law firm, those jobs are rumored to suck. I can’t say much about this because I never worked at a big law firm, but according to what I’ve been told, a large percentage of the partners at big law firms are assholes who treat their associates like crap and make them work ridiculously long hours. Some of this may be unjustified whining, because I was treated like crap at a job where I was making $9/hour. Nevertheless, one needs to consider that the ultimate goal of law school, a big law firm job, attained by only a small percentage of law school graduates, may not be the great reward it’s supposed to be.

I predict that some prospective law students will find this essay, read it, and not believe it. Because no matter how much you try to tell a prospective law student the truth about law, they don’t believe it. “Everyone knows” that lawyers make a lot of money, how can this be true? Believe me, it’s true, and if you attend law school you will learn this the hard way. Don’t waste three years of your life and go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt that can never be discharged in bankruptcy to find out that your career opportunities suck after all that. For the love of God, learn the truth now.

Mexico's Legal System Adopts Constitutional Changes

This is a fascinating article about the changes in Mexico's legal system. These new changes are to lower corruption and abuse against arrested parties.
By JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer
MEXICO CITY - Mexico is in the midst of a legal revolution, and Cristal Gonzalez is on the front lines.
The U.S.-trained lawyer is one of a growing number of Mexican attorneys putting judges, lawyers, investigators and clerks through crash courses in justice, now that Mexico has amended its constitution to throw out its inept and corrupt legal system.
Some of her lessons may seem blindingly obvious. Yet they drive home just how dysfunctional are Mexico's courts and police.
On a recent evening, the 30-year-old lawyer explained Mexico's new rules of justice to a class of 200 professionals with the clarity of a preschool teacher: "The accused is IN-NO-CENT until proven guilty! Confessions cannot be coerced. Which means the person cannot be submitted to ...?" She paused for a response.
"Torture," several students answered in unison.
Under the constitutional amendment passed by the legislature, approved by all 32 states and signed by President Felipe Calderon, Mexico has eight years to replace its closed proceedings with public trials in which defendants are presumed innocent, legal authorities can be held more accountable and justice is equal.
Calderon says Mexico's democratic and economic development depends on this judicial reform — along with fiscal and electoral changes he has pushed through Congress.
The country has tried to overhaul its major government institutions since 2000 when voters ended 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI — notorious for using the electoral and legal systems to maintain its hold on power.
Supporters of the change say Mexico has been missing out on millions in foreign investment because of its reputation as a lawless country where people are arrested randomly and criminals pay off judges — problems Calderon says also hamper the fight against organized crime.
Demands for reform of Mexico's police and courts have become much more vocal since Aug. 1, when a 14-year-old kidnap victim was found dead even after his businessman father paid a large ransom. The boy was abducted at a fake police checkpoint allegedly with help from detectives.
At a national meeting in Mexico City, the boy's father, Alejandro Marti, demanded that police and judges improve the judicial system. "If you can't do that, then quit," Marti said. "But don't just keep holding a government job. Don't keep receiving a salary for doing nothing."
Last weekend, more than 100,000 Mexicans took to the streets in cities nationwide to protest rampant crime and corruption.
Since the Spanish conquest in the 1500s, Mexico has had an inquisitorial system adopted from Europe in which the accused is not presumed to be innocent and proceedings are largely carried out in writing and in secret.
Inquisitorial systems are still used in many countries. But Mexico's version had become so corrupt, Gonzalez said, that "if police put someone's head in excrement and the person confessed, the confession was admitted if the paperwork followed procedures as far as fingerprints, the signature of the public minister, etc."
Without the threat of exposure in public trials, mistaken arrests, bungled investigations and confessions extracted under threats and torture have become common in Mexico.
The new system aims to prevent the errors and abuses that led to the ouster of the capital's police chief and top prosecutor in July after 12 people died in a police raid on a nightclub. A government probe found police caused a stampede by trying to detain hundreds of youths, rather than arresting only those found with drugs or alcohol. Male officers also forced 10 young women to strip naked even though they were not accused of any crime.
Under the old rules, suspects are routinely paraded in front of cameras before they have been charged, sometimes holding weapons allegedly used in crimes. Lawyers often pay witnesses to write favorable testimony, Gonzalez said, and there are no cross-examinations of witnesses, emotional courtroom exchanges or clever closing arguments.
Judges often get their shoes shined while presiding over trials. Gonzalez said the judges sometimes send court secretaries to oversee the closed proceedings, where the few questions asked of defendants often don't relate to the charges, such as "Are you Catholic?"
"It's an amazing change that judges will be listening to someone's voice," Gonzalez told her class at Mexico's Federal Judicial Institute. "The judge will look into the eyes of those testifying. He will see if they stutter, if they are nervous. Does all that count? Of course!"
Judges — not juries of peers — will still determine guilt or innocence. "This is not a copy of the gringo system," Gonzalez told the class.
Instead, Mexico chose a criminal code similar to the one adopted in 2005 by Chile, where cases are examined by three judges who consider the legality of the evidence and whether the defendant's rights were respected. Then, the judges send cases to trial or recommend other means of adjudication, such as a plea bargain or probation.
The new penal code is no miracle cure, but supporters say it has more safeguards, such as limits on detention without charges, the right to a lawyer and a speedy trial.
Still, many are skeptical.
"This favors the guilty," said court clerk Maria del Carmen Rojas. "It gives them too many rights, and because of the speedy trials, judges are not going to have time. Judges are going to be under a lot of pressure."
Other officials suggested that many police, prosecutors and judges would simply ignore the changes.
Some worry a new provision allowing organized crime suspects to be held for up to 80 days without charges could lead to abuses. New York-based Human Rights Watch says that's one of the longest pre-charge detention times of any Western democracy. Terrorism suspects can legally be held for no more than two days on U.S. soil without being charged.
No one knows exactly when the first federal oral trial will take place. Cases in progress before the constitutional change will continue under the old code. Gonzalez admits it won't be easy to change mentalities within Mexico's male-dominated judicial system.
At one session of her class, she asked three state prosecutors how they would resolve a rape case. All said they would order the attacker and victim to marry — a common practice in Latin America.
To help her in training professionals, Gonzalez studied law at Southwestern University in Los Angles. She was motivated to demand reforms after armed men seized her in a taxi and drove her around Mexico City forcing her to withdraw money from ATMs. One of the gunmen, hearing she was a lawyer, said: "Good luck with your career."
She didn't call police, she said, because she thought nothing would be done and feared her family could be harmed if the assailants found out.
"I didn't have the tools to do anything, and I am part of the system," she said. "I felt like a fool."

Baptisms for The Catholic Dead

In an article from an Irish Newspaper the Kerryman, Irish Catholics have raised the concern that Catholic records are being used by Mormons for proxy baptisms. BISHOP of Kerry Bill Murphy is battling to protect parish records to ensure they are not used by Mormons to baptise dead Catholics.

Archbishop Dermot Clifford and Bishop Murphy have written to the National Library outlining their concern over parish records being handed over to “all comers”.

Their fear is that the death records have been or will be used by Mormons — or members of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints — to posthumously baptise dead Catholics in the Mormon faith as part of a socalled “proxy baptism service”.

The National Library claims that three Catholic dioceses had lifted restrictions on access to the National Library's holding of microfilmed parish-registered records some years ago. In the case of the remaining three dioceses, the level of access varied from none, in the case of records from the diocese of Cashel and Emily, to minor restrictions in the case of the diocese of Cloyne and Kerry.

The Library also claims that microfilms of the Roman Catholic parish registers are already available in many local heritage centres throughout the country.

A spokesperson for the Mormons told The Irish Catholic newspaper that posthumous baptisms by proxy have been common practice for the Mormons for more than a century, allowing the dead to be baptised into the faith so they may be united in the after life.

The spokesperson also confirmed that all available records are used to carry out this practice. The controversy over parish records emerges just months after the Vatican warned bishops’ conferences around the world about Mormons accessing diocesan and parish registers.

A senior catholic source is reported as saying that there is now a fear among senior Irish churchmen that making the records freely available will “encourage Mormons to baptise dead Irish Catholics en masse”.

Bishop Bill Murphy was unavailable for comment, but Archbishop Clifford said that the Archdiocese has not surrendered its claim to copyright of the records held in trust at the National Library and that, in due course, a full statement will be issued on the matter.


Could it be possible for a Church or ethnic group to receive an injunction against the Mormon Church preventing baptisms of their deceased Church members? Is their any legal recourse these groups could take against the Mormon Church?

California Woman Fired Because She's Mormon

DESERT HOT SPRINGS, Calif.(AP)—A woman who says she lost her job because she is Mormon is suing three Coachella Valley mobile-home parks.
Judy Clark of Thermal says she was suspended and never asked to return to her job as a mobile-home saleswoman in 2003. She says just a few weeks earlier she had found a memo that referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult and said that its activities should be banned from the parks.
Parks co-owner Tim Manthei says Clark's suspension was based purely on performance, and that his business lets people practice any faith.
In the suit scheduled to go to trial Sept. 15, Clark says she is owed nearly $90,000 in sales commissions and other damages.
We'll keep a close eye on this case and keep you up to date.