If You Can't Beat 'Em, Laugh at 'Em
The next best thing to solving a problem is to find some humor in it. Campus budget protesters to date have somehow managed to do neither. That's why I'd like to give a great big shiny gold star for UCMeP, a student group whose mission is to protest tuition hikes through satire. SF Gate article here.
I'd write a longer post, but I'm off to support our "hardest working public servants" by joining the Adopt a Regent campaign. Tra-laa!
I'd write a longer post, but I'm off to support our "hardest working public servants" by joining the Adopt a Regent campaign. Tra-laa!
Labels: Shiny Gold Stars
posted by Patrick Bageant at 11:19 AM
9 Comments:
Did anyone else get this bizarre email from Leslie Brodie to Dean Edley regarding some student wishing to stop receiving emails.
Apparently the email that was originally sent was about the lack of diversity in big firms.
The student sent an email asking that the journal be removed from the listserv.
Then this Leslie person reported to the student to the Bar.
In the email she sent to Edley, she referred to the student as "a presumed jewess female from the former U.S.S.R." which to me seems odd coming from someone with diversity concerns.
Letter please.
This is the email in its entirety. I can also post the original email regarding the petition that was sent out if you would like.
I have removed the student's name and any other identifiers to protect the student's privacy.
Dear Dean Edley:
Enclosed below, please find a complaint which was filed with the State Bar of California, Office of Admissions/Moral Character Determination against XXX, a student at Boalt Hall.
XXX lacks good moral character and should not be admitted to practice law in the State of California. She threatened to file an administrative complaint, in violation of Rule 5-100 and misrepresented the law in order to gain an advantage in a civil dispute. Also, she failed to show respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others as required by the Rules of the California State Bar, Rule 4.40.
About one week ago, an email was sent concerning the lack of diversity, racism, and sexism within big and elite law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many examples were cited, including that of Kerr & Wagstaffe, a relatively young law firm which was established by U.C. Hastings Law Prof., Mr. James Wagstaffe. The email alluded to the facts that out of 10 lawyers, all but one are white; out of seven partners, all but one are males; and all the associates are young and attractive white females. Later, a petition was created and some suggested that it is also surprising that there are no Jews and other religious minorities working at the firm.
The email was sent, purposefully, to many addresses including XXXX @law.berkeley.edu as we wished to receive the maximum exposure. Apparently, one of your students, XXXX became distraught and upset over receiving the unsolicited email. She immediately sent an urgent email from her personal Gmail account with orders to stop sending emails to XXX @law.berkeley.edu.
XXX email read: "Please discontinue sending your emails to XXX @law.berkeley.edu and unsubscribe this email address from all further emails. If you continue to send unsolicited emails to this account, I will report your email address and information to the FTC, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003"
By threatening to complain to the FTC, if I continue to send unsolicited emails, XXX breached Rule 5-100 of the California Rules of Professional Responsibility. As XXX is a 2010 Candidate, it is safe to assume that she already took a PR/Ethics Class, and is aware of this concept. Yet, she chose to knowingly disregard the rule in order to intimidate, harass and gain an advantage over me in a dispute concerning the legality of the unsolicited emails.
Also, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the "ACT") applies only to emails which are commercial in nature. It is obvious that the email which was sent was not intended to sell any goods or services, but rather was political in nature. As such, XXX also misrepresented the content of the ACT in order to trick and deceive me as to the state of the law in order for the unsolicited email to stop . This attempt to mislead and trick an opponent as to the content of the law is a very serious misconduct which also reflects negatively on her moral character.
Please instruct your students/faculty/staff at Boalt Hall to refrain from making any more threats concerning unsolicited emails which they receive via the U.C. email system. That system does not belong to them, but to the People of the State of California. Moreover, as stated above, the emails which were mailed were not for commercial purposes.
It is also regretful and disappointing that XXX did not support the petition, or at least express sympathy. After all, a presumed jewess female from the former U.S.S.R. is also a rare commodity at those firms. In the future, it is recommended that XXX join the writers at the NUTS & BOALTS blog and limit her writing to that forum.
Part 2
February 18, 2010
Office of Admission/ Moral Character Determination
State Bar of California
180 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Complaint against XXXX, a law student at U.C. Berkeley Boalt Hall.
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is a formal complaint against XXX, a U.C. Berkley law student. XXXX lacks good moral character and should not be admitted to practice law in the State of California. She threatened to file an administrative complaint, in violation of Rule 5-100 and misrepresented the law in order to gain an advantage in a civil dispute. Also, failed to show respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others as required by the Rules of the California State Bar, Rule 4.40.
About one week ago, an email was sent concerning the lack of diversity, racism, and sexism within big and elite law firms in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many examples were cited, including that of Kerr & Wagstaffe, a relatively young law firm which was established by U.C. Hastings Law Prof., Mr. James Wagstaffe. The email alluded to the facts that out of 10 lawyers, all but one are white; out of seven partners, all but one are males; and all the associates are young and attractive white females. Later, a petition was created and some suggested that it is also surprising that there are no Jews and other religious minorities working at the firm.
The email was sent, purposefully, to many addresses including XXX @law.berkeley.edu as we wished to receive the maximum exposure. Apparently, XXXX became distraught and upset over receiving the unsolicited email. She immediately sent an urgent email from her personal Gmail account with orders to stop sending emails to XXX @law.berkeley.edu.
XXXX email read:
XXXX
Please discontinue sending your emails to XXX @law.berkeley.edu and unsubscribe this email address from all further emails.
If you continue to send unsolicited emails to this account, I will report your email address and information to the FTC, in violation of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003.
--
XXXX
XXXXX
J.D. Candidate, 2010
UC Berkeley School of Law
By threatening to complain to the FTC, if I continue to send unsolicited emails, XXX breached Rule 5-100 of the California Rules of Professional Responsibility which reads:
Rule 5-100 Threatening Criminal, Administrative, or Disciplinary Charges:
(A) A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.
(B) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term "administrative charges" means the filing or lodging of a complaint with a federal, state, or local governmental entity which may order or recommend the loss or suspension of a license, or may impose ` or recommend the imposition of a fine, pecuniary sanction, or other sanction of a quasi- criminal nature but does not include filing charges with an administrative entity required by law as a condition precedent to maintaining a civil action.
(C) As used in paragraph (A) of this rule, the term "civil dispute" means a controversy or potential controversy over the rights and duties of two or more parties under civil law, whether or not an action has been commenced, and includes an administrative proceeding of a quasi-civil nature pending before a federal, state, or local governmental entity.
As XXX is a 2010 Candidate, it is safe to assume that she already took a PR/Ethics Class, and is aware of this concept. Yet, she chose to knowingly disregard the rule in order to intimidate, harass and gain an advantage over me in a dispute concerning the legality of unsolicited emails.
Part 3
Also, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the "ACT") applies only to emails which are commercial in nature. It is obvious that the email which was sent was not intended to sell any goods or services, but rather was political in nature. As such, XXXX also misrepresented the content of the ACT in order to trick and deceive me as to the state of the law in order for the unsolicited email to stop . This attempt to mislead and trick an opponent as to the content of the law is a very serious misconduct and also reflects negatively on her moral character and lacks respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others as required by the Rules of the California State Bar, Rule 4.40.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
I'm confused.
Is creating a smear campaign against a fellow law student by sending threatening emails to half the student body considered poor conduct by the bar?
What is the originating IP address of Leslie's email?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home