Guest Blog: The October LSAT is just around the corner...

By Hank Layton

The October LSAT is Saturday. Hopefully if you are taking said exam, this is not a surprise.
Before you sit for what will likely be the most important test of your life (no pressure or anything), you’ll have to make it through these last few days. Here’s how you can do just that the smartest way possible:
Keep Taking LSAT Practice Tests, But Don’t Overdo It – At this point in your LSAT prep, you’re not going to learn anything new. You should be refining your skills. Don’t overdo it on PE’s this week. This week should be one of the more lax of the last couple months. Especially Friday, the day before the LSAT. Get away from the books and have a relaxing, headache-free day. Again, you’re not going to learn anything new at that point.
Make the LSAT Practice Tests Realistic – The more your practice tests mimic real testing conditions, the better you’ll do on LSAT test day. This means that you should take practice LSATs in a test-like environment, without eating or drinking or taking unnecessary breaks. Whenever possible, your LSAT practice tests should also be taken in the morning. If your practice feels like the real thing, then the real thing won’t feel like a big deal, and you’ll feel a lot less pressure. If you can simulate noisy LSAT proctors, by all means do. They’re sure to be there Saturday.
Regulate your Sleep – This isn’t exactly a study habit per se, but it’s very important. For the rest of the week, you should go to sleep and wake up at the same time everyday. You want to be rested and refreshed Saturday morning, and that’ll be hard to do if you’re waking up a lot earlier than normal all of a sudden. Go to bed at, say, 10 p.m. every night, and wake up at, say, 7 a.m. each morning, or whenever you plan to wake up on LSAT test day.
Also, be sure to visit your LSAT testing center sometime this week so that you know the exact route to take and where to park. You don’t want to be one of the many students we hear from who miss out on the LSAT because they didn’t think ahead. And make sure you have all the test day materials required by LSAC.

You should know by know whether or not you’re ready for the October LSAT. For those who are ready, good luck. For those who aren’t, I guess we’ll see ya in December.

Hank Layton runs Most Strongly Supported — the LSAT and law school admissions blog for Blueprint LSAT Prep. For more info on the LSAT, visit Blueprint’s Free LSAT Help area.

Are Lawyers Happy: "A Law Firm Where Money Seemed Secondary"

As students considering entering the profession of law, it's difficult to refrain from imaging what life might be like if, someday, we were making millions of dollars. It surely doesn't help that as a student it's hard to find time to go food shopping and instead of enjoying 'Mad Men'-esque lunches of caviar and raw oysters, we generally snack on an instant bowl of couscous. Reporter James Steward, in his article, A Law Firm Where Money Seemed Secondary" directly challenges prospective lawyers, such as ourselves, to answer bold and difficult questions. Will I love working 26 hours a day? Will I enjoy coming to work among hundreds of nameless faces? Is this worth quitting my quartet, or soccer team, or my amateur poker club? Steward's article paints a bleak picture of the world of corporate law, showing few lawyers today who love their work. Do we agree with his portrayal?

Please read Steward's article here, curtsy of Professor Baulig.

New JMPLHS Executive Board elected for 2012-2013

In keeping with the drafting of new by-laws for the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society (JMPLHS) at F&M, elections were held on March 20th for the Executive Board positions of Chair, Secretary-Treasurer, Admissions Director, Events Director, and Public Relations Director. Members of JMPLHS had the chance to review statements of interest and to ask questions of the candidates before casting their votes and electing the following students:

Chair: Akbar Hossain '13
Secretary-Treasurer: Ian Cummings '14
Admissions Director: Amanda Duckworth '13
Events Director: Elizabeth Murray '13
Public Relations Director: Michelle Carroll '13

These students will work to enhance JMPLHS and the entire pre-law program at F&M during the upcoming academic year.

Legal Film Series concludes TONIGHT (3/21) with "To Kill a Mockingbird"

The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Society and the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) concludes TONIGHT, March 21, with "To Kill a Mockingbird." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the Ware College House Great Room. Click here for more information.

Considered by many to be the best legal movie ever made, this film is based on the Pullitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee. Gregory Peck won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Atticus Finch, a courageous small-town attorney who battles prejudice in the Depression-era south.

Greg Randall Lee, J.D., who teaches law at Widener University School of Law, will introduce the film and answer questions and talk to students.

Guest Post: An F&M alumnus' reflection

By Sean Quinn ’97, Trial Lawyer at Sheridan & Murray, LLC (Philadelphia)

Fifteen years ago this coming May, I graduated from Franklin & Marshall. I was 22 years old and I thought that I had it all figured out. My plan: go to law school, make law review, land a high-paying corporate law position at a big firm, play lots of golf, and make tons of money. Easier said than done, but what did I know….that was my plan.

I started law school that fall. I was a proud member of Penn State Law’s first class of students. I was prepared and ready to work hard to achieve the goals that I had set for myself. Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Property, Contracts, Torts, Research & Writing didn’t stand a chance. I was going to excel no matter what class they threw at me. I saw those classes as hurdles that I needed to clear before I could get to the corporate and business law classes that would spur my career as a big-time corporate lawyer.

Then a funny thing happened though, I found myself drawn to the litigation classes like Torts and Civil Procedure, and hating transactional law classes like Contracts and Property. I blamed it on my professors and was confident that my zeal for corporate and business law would return during the second semester. Well, that didn’t happen and it caused me to reflect on my plan and my future.

I realized, for the first time, that my plan was doomed. It became apparent to me that my plan was predicated solely upon potential earnings, and not my interests and talents. Litigation was where I was meant to be. I thought to myself: how did I not know this sooner?

My plan had changed, and I quickly refocused the direction of my education. I took every litigation and advocacy course available. I competed for moot court and was named captain of our national trial team. I worked tirelessly outside of the classroom as well clerking for a local law firm, interning for a civil trial judge, and externing for the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office.

I found my passion and calling in litigation. Over a decade later, I remain proud to be a trial lawyer.

If I could give you only one piece of advice as you move on to law school, it would be to do something that you are passionate about. It is the key to a successful career.

-Sean Quinn ‘97

Sean E. Quinn, Esquire
SHERIDAN & MURRAY, LLC
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-977-9500
squinn@sheridanandmurray.com
LinkedIn: http://tinyurl.com/7tyo4lc
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/squinn71

Recommended Reading: the future of affirmative action

Affirmative action, for better or for worse, may come to an end in the United States during the Supreme Court's next term. On February 21, the Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, in which Abigail Noel Fisher, a former applicant to the University of Texas, contends that her denial of admission was based on race (she is white) and that minority students with less-impressive academic credentials were admitted instead of her due to the influence of race-based affirmative action on the university's admissions process. The issue at hand is whether the Fourteenth Amendment's assurance of "equal protection under the law" supports or invalidates the system in place at the University of Texas in particular and race-based affirmative action in general, and whether standing jurisprudence on the issue should be re-affirmed or discarded as a consequence.

Obviously, this case has the potential to have a profound impact on higher education, since affirmative action could be definitively ruled unconstitutional, radically impacting admissions procedures at colleges and universities throughout the United States. Since the Supreme Court is much more right-leaning than it was the last time this issue was brought before the justices (in the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld, affirmative action at the University of Michigan, with minor alterations), that potential is now much closer to a reality. Fisher v. University of Texas may be the most important upcoming Supreme Court case after the challenge to the Affordable Care Act and President Obama's health care reform agenda.

Therefore, as you can imagine, everyone from established journalists to opinionated pundits have weighed in on affirmative action both in the aggregate and with respect to the specific case of Ms. Fisher. Here's a selection of some of the better pieces, all of which are worth reading if you're interested in understanding this important issue from all sides:

"Affirmative action review due next term"
Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog, as always, is the best source for a summary of the case, a history of the issue at hand, and a discussion of the different sides, their arguments, and how the Court will likely react.

"Room for Debate: Beyond Race in Affirmative Action"
Various contributors, New York Times
The New York Times provides a great collection of contributions from law professors, authors, and even a theoretical physicist in a special "Room for Debate" section devoted purely to the controversy surrounding Fisher v. University of Texas and affirmative action in general. Six individuals comment on the politics, history, and merits of each side of the issue and provide a variety of unique perspectives.

"College diversity at risk"
Lee C. Bollinger, Washington Post
Bollinger is the president of Columbia University and served as a defendant in the 2003 affirmative action cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. He argues in this op-ed, which came out before the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, that affirmative action is essential to preserving diversity in college campuses, and that the court should not only refuse to hear the case, but that it should re-affirm its prior rulings in favor of race-based affirmative action.

"Bad Marriage: Why the Supreme Court Should Stay Out of Affirmative Action"
Richard Thompson Ford, Slate Magazine
It's obvious that Ford supports affirmative action, but his argument that the Supreme Court should stay out of such a politically-charged and controversial issue is compelling nonetheless. He suggests that the Court's previous decisions on affirmative action "have been a disaster: They haven’t made university admissions any fairer, and they’ve sown confusion, resentment, and frustration," and, in comparing the debate to "a couples therapy session in a dysfunctional marriage," characterizes the Court as "an incompetent therapist, [which] has encouraged anger and distrust while making it harder to confront the root causes of disagreement."

"Will the Supreme Court End Affirmative Action?"
Dan Slater, The Daily Beast
Slater writes in reaction to the outcries from supporters of affirmative action over the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Fisher case and argues that precedent and Court protocol suggest that the justices won't be so bold as to strike down something as influential and mainstream as affirmative action. He says that the combination of a lack of both disagreement among the lower courts and demonstrable harm to Ms. Fisher (she already attended and graduated from Louisiana State University upon being denied admission to the University of Texas and is, essentially, only seeking a refund of her $100 application fee) all but guarantee that the Supreme Court won't overturn decades of precedent to make a statement on affirmative action.

Legal Film Series continues TONIGHT (3/2) with "The Paper Chase"

The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Societyand the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) continues TONIGHT, March 2, with "The Paper Chase." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the New College House. Click here for more information.

This film famously depicts the first-year law student experience and is a must-see for any potential law students. Food will be provided by New College House and a discussion of the film will follow. All are welcome to attend.

Trip to Temple Law hopefully the first of many

A group of F&M students traveled to Temple University's Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia on Tuesday to expose undergraduates and potential applicants to the inner-workings of one of Pennsylvania's premier legal education programs. Attendees took a tour of the law school, met with the Assistant Dean of Admissions and F&M alumni currently at Temple Law for an information session and Q&A, and sat in on two classes: Constitutional Law and Property Law.

The trip was designed to give underclassmen the opportunity to see what law school is like and to make a more educated evaluation of whether applying and, subsequently, attending law school is right for them. Upperclassmen had the chance to look at a regional institution that might be of particular interest to them as they are currently in the midst of the application process.

Beth Throne, F&M's Associate Vice President for Student and Post-Graduate Development (and an alum of both F&M and Temple Law) organized the trip and sees it as being the first of many such excursions to law schools throughout Pennsylvania and even New York and Washington, DC. There is no better way to learn about law school and to see if it's right for you than to visit the institution and experience its academic and social culture by interacting with students and sitting in on classes. Stay tuned for more opportunities for trips like this in the future which will only serve to benefit F&M's pre-law community.

Legal Film Series continues TONIGHT (2/17) with "Philadelphia"

The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Societyand the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) continues TONIGHT, February 17, with "Philadelphia." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the Brooks College House Great Room. Click here for more information.

This screening is also part of the Multi-Faith Week of Meaning and Culture sponsored by the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life at F&M. Food will be provided and a discussion of the film will follow. All are welcome to attend.

Ware Institute summer internships offer legal service opportunities

From Susan Dicklitch, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the College, Professor of Government, and Director of the Ware Institute for Civic Engagement at Franklin & Marshall College: 

On behalf of the Ware Institute for Civic Engagement, I'm pleased to announce that the Public Service Summer Internships (PSSI) applications are now available on our website. Every summer for the past sixteen years, Franklin & Marshall has awarded stipends to well qualified students (rising sophomores, juniors and seniors) to work in local public and/or community service organizations.

During this nine-week program (June 6 - August 3) students work full-time in paid internships throughout Lancaster City and County in such areas as human services, county government, law and justice, education, health care and economic development.

Participants are paid a $3,300 stipend. Housing is not provided. Four days a week are spent at the internship site. Each Wednesday, the PSSI members come together as a team to participate in weekly seminars, engage in group discussion and reflection, and perform community service.

You can find links to agencies we've previously worked with on the PSSI web page. Placements are selected based on a combination of community requests and student interest with a focus on key community partners. As of today, we've received intern requests from the following agencies:

• Church World Service: working with resettled refugees assisting with cultural orientation
• Domestic Violence Services - Legal Clinic: work to support representation of domestic violence victims in a civil setting
• Domestic Violence Services: assisting at the shelter and with the children's component
• Fulton Theatre: a variety of options
• Lancaster General Health - Community Wellness: promotion of public health initiatives and focusing on deliverables for a Community Transformation Grant.
• Milagro House: work with senior service coordinator on delivering services and executive director on marketing and outreach.
• Project Access Lancaster Co. (PALCO): evaluating program
• Schreiber Pediatric Rehab Center: marketing and planning fundraising events

If you have any questions about specific agencies please make an appointment with Lisa Wolfe (lisa.wolfe@fandm.edu) to review the requests.

Follow the link below to the PSSI web page to find out more and for the link to the online application.

PSSI LINK to web page and application

You are also required to have a faculty or professional staff recommendation with your application. The link below should be given to the faculty or professional staff who will complete the online form on your behalf.

PSSI Faculty or Professional Staff Recommendation link

The deadline for submitting both the application AND the faculty recommendation is Friday, February 24 by midnight.

The Clinton Global Initiative University

The Clinton Global Initiative University was established by President Bill Clinton in 2005 in hopes of gathering global leaders to ‘devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges.’ The program accepts applications from individuals and student groups throughout the world, and every year, nearly 1,000 student leaders are chosen to attend a conference, where they make a ‘commitment to action’ for their ideas.

For those interested in making a difference, or impacting the lives of others through innovative ideas, this is a great opportunity. The main focus areas for the program include: education, environment and climate change, poverty alleviation, peace and human rights, and public health. Applicants propose a commitment that they are passionate about, and are selected based on focus area. Here’s a great video that summarizes the program really well.

This year’s conference will be taking place at the George Washington University, on March 30th-April 1st, in which Jon Stewart, Chelsea Clinton, and President Bill Clinton will be making guest appearances. Christian Hartranft '12 Akbar Hossain '13 of the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society were selected as two of the participants for the Clinton Global Initiative 2012! They will be representing Franklin and Marshall College amongst hundreds of other student leaders and innovators from all over the world.

Jeffrey Toobin brings Ninth Circuit decision on Proposition 8 down to earth

Jeffrey Toobin, staff writer for The New Yorker on legal affairs, wrote a recent piece celebrating the civil rights progress made by the Ninth Circuit in its ruling striking down California's Proposition (the controversial ballot measure banning same-sex marriage), but he simultaneously clarified the decision by arguing that the specific nature of Judge Richard Steinhardt's decision made it far less sweeping (and therefore less monumental in its impact on the gay rights movement) than many had been led to believe.

Toobin suggests that the Ninth Circuit's decision was carefully "tethered" to the "unique facts" of Proposition 8 and this particular challenge to its constitutionality. He writes that Judge Reinhardt "did not rule, as he was surely tempted to do, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, enforceable in every state in the union." Rather, he tailored his ruling to an issue specific to Proposition 8, which is that the people of California voted to strip a group of citizens of their rights, as guaranteed by the state constitution. It was primarily that fact, and not the fact that same-sex couples be allowed or not allowed to marry that drove the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Toobin says that Judge Reinhardt "crafted a narrow ruling, one that is unlikely to draw the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States." The conservatives on the high court may agree with him, but they don't necessarily form a majority of the justices. How this issue is resolved remains to be seen.

Government and Law Internship Panel TONIGHT at F&M

Trying to find a summer internship in government or law? Be sure to stop by this discussion tonight in Bonchek College House!

The Government Club and John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society at F&M will be co-hosting a panel for those interested in learning about legal and government orientated internship opportunities and how to go about getting them TONIGHT, February 8, at 6pm in Bonchek College House. The event will consist of a moderated panel of upperclassmen who have had a variety of internship experiences with a Q&A session, followed by an open forum to allow attendees to connect with individuals who might be able to help with their particular needs. Beth Throne, J.D., '95, Associate Vice President for Student and Post-Graduate Development, will also be there to answer any additional questions about institutional support for internship-seekers at F&M. More information can be found below.

Government and Law Internship Panel
Wednesday, February 8, 6:00pm (TONIGHT)
Bonchek College House Great Room

Franklin & Marshall College 

Moderator: Caitlin Krutsick '13

Panelists: Christian Hartranft '12 (interned for the U.S. House of Representatives and for the State of Delaware in the Office of the Public Defender), Laurie Barth '12 (interned in the White House in the Executive Office of the President and for NASA), Alexa Moser '12 (interned with the Republican National Committee), Amanda Duckworth '13 (participated in American University's Washington Semester program and interned in the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia)

This event is only open to members of the Franklin & Marshall College community. Pizza and soda will be provided. Sign up to attend by visiting the Facebook Event.

Appeals Court upholds (correctly) the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8

In a landmark decision today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a 2010 decision made by the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California which determined that Proposition 8 (a 2008 ballot measure approved by California voters which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage - something which was previously allowed) was unconstitutional. The 2-1 ruling was made by a panel of judges from the circuit court, and it remains to be seen whether the proponents of Proposition 8 will request to be heard by the full court or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. If they decide the latter, there is little doubt that the highest court in the land will take the case and finally rule on an issue that has divided our politics and our society for decades.

The nullification of Proposition 8 by both the district and, now, circuit courts is based on the determination that the decision by California voters to deny same-sex couples the same classification with respect to "marriage" as heterosexual partners violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling reads:

"All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage,' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution [particularly the Fourteenth Amendment] simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'...the People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."

Interestingly, the court's ruling in this case only applies to the specific circumstances surrounding Proposition 8 and California. The court was careful to point out that its ruling has no bearing on other states and on the broader question of the ultimate constitutionality of same-sex marriage in general (or any limitations thereof). This adds to the virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will hear the case so as to settle the question once and for all.

I am of the opinion  that Proposition 8 and, indeed, any attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its mandate that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This "Equal Protection Clause" has been called an embodiment of the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that "all men are created equal," and has served as one of the Constitution's most essential provisions since its addition to the document in 1868. As with most written law, however, its meaning and purview have been subject to continuous interpretation. Immediately following its passage, the Equal Protection Clause aided in the removal of various segregationist laws which banned African Americans from participating in basic civic functions. Many forms of segregation, however, remained intact, under the doctrine of "separate but equal" until it was thrown out by the Supreme Court in the mid 20th century.

The legal battle over same-sex marriage, in my view, is a modern day version of the civil rights struggles which ensued following the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War and beyond. In essence, we have created a "separate but equal" doctrine for marriage with the institution of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other so-called "marriage equivalents" for same-sex couples.

In the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education which ended school segregation and determined that "separate but equal" was illogical and unconstitutional, the court stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," which highlighted the essence of why that doctrine was so flawed. Separation implies inequality when it comes to elements as essential to our society as education, facilities usage - and marriage. Why separate when there is no practical reason for doing so unless one group is viewed as lesser than the other? The Supreme Court in Brown wrote that "the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group." I would argue that giving marriage licenses to heterosexual couples while granting civil unions to homosexual couples (or denying any legal recognition of their partnership at all) denotes a similar inferiority of the "homosexual group," (to use the same terms). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit seems to agree when it writes that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Today's decision marks a milestone in the ongoing legal battle for equal rights in this country, not only for same-sex couples wishing to marry, but for all people denied "equal protection of the laws" in one form or another. The constitutional questions involved in this case are as large as the controversy surrounding the issue it seeks to address. Let's hope that when the issue of same-sex marriage eventually reaches the Supreme Court that the justices, like in Brown, once again position themselves on the correct side of history.

To read the full opinion on Proposition 8 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit click here.

Group working to protect workers' rights at F&M

A student group has begun an investigation at F&M into the treatment of employees of the college's custodial and food services staff, both employed by outside contractors Aramark and Sodexo. They are examining both college policies and Pennsylvania law and working to ensure that these contract employees are treated in accord with state and federal regulations (both Aramark and Sodexo have a history of workers' rights violations). Many of these employees do not receive benefits and experience very little job security. This project involves both legal research and a continued discussion of how workers are (and should be) treated by both society and the law.

Students interested in participating in this project should contact Laura Morse '12 at laura.morse@fandm.edu. The Workers' Rights Group also meets at 11:30am on Tuesdays in Stager Hall room 112.

When public health and the First Amendment clash on college campuses

A controversy that has plagued the campuses of Catholic colleges and universities for decades has reached a new level recently as the Obama administration is putting pressure on these institutions to cover the costs of birth control in their student health plans in accord with federal regulations. For years, Catholic institutions of higher education have stood against state and federal laws regarding the provision of contraceptives and related services to students due to deeply-held religious beliefs which consider it "morally wrong to prevent conception by any artificial means, including condoms, IUDs, birth control pills and sterilization." Administrators at the likes of Fordham and Georgetown claim that their universities have the right to First Amendment religious freedom protections and that they should not have to violate spiritually-motivated moral guidelines because of government-mandated health care regulations. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is relying "on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers that [has] concluded that birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary "'to ensure women’s health and well-being.'" The result is a high-profile clash between public health concerns and the First Amendment with no clear outcome.

A recent Supreme Court decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (written about here in The New York Times) granted an exception to religious institutions with respect to fair hiring and employment discrimination laws, arguing that "churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference." If the First Amendment extends into the realm of who can be hired and who can be fired by a religious organization, one has to ask why it can't also, therefore, give Catholic colleges and universities (private institutions) the right to decide what kinds of medical care to provide their students.

For the record, I see a difference between the waiver of select anti-discrimination regulations to allow churches to choose who their ministers are and allowing religious dogma to trump documented and proven public health concerns, but neither the Supreme Court (nor, in an objective reading, the Constitution, for that matter) may agree. This is a classic case of how far we are willing to extend the broad protections of the First Amendment - protections, with respect to speech, which have already been granted (for better or for worse) to epithet-spewing protesters at the funerals of veterans and to corporations wishing to play a role in the political process. The question, in this case, is: how many rules that we expect the rest of society to follow do we want to bend - or break - in the name of religious freedom? I don't know the answer, and it's hard to tell how this issue will be resolved. For now, however, the battle continues to rage - on college campuses and elsewhere.

Legal Film Series kicks off TONIGHT (1/29) at F&M

The Legal Film Series at F&M (sponsored by the Center for Liberal Arts & Society and the John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society) kicks off TONIGHT, January 29, with "A Civil Action." The film will start at 7:30pm and will be showing in the Bonchek College House Great Room. Click here for more information.

John Capowski, J.D., who teaches civil procedure, evidence, and litigation at Widener University School of Law, will introduce the film and stick around to answer questions and talk to students. See you there!

New LinkedIn group established to connect F&M legal alumni

Are you on LinkedIn? Many students are hesitant to join the social networking site - commonly referred to as "Facebook for adults" - without a prompt, but it might not be a bad idea, especially if you want to network with F&M alumni in the legal profession.

Sean Quinn, a 1997 F&M alum and graduate of Penn State (J.D.) and Temple University (LLM) law schools has started a "Franklin & Marshall Lawyers Network" on LinkedIn which aims "to promote professional networking and referrals amongst the F&M alums in the legal profession." The group will bring lawyers and others interested in joining the field together to network, learn, and share experiences. The network is already growing - be sure to check it out if you're a graduating senior looking for a job in a law firm (or looking for advice on law schools) or if you're already an alum and are looking to network and expand your career opportunities.

POLITICO: "Citizen's United v. FEC decision proves justice is blind--POLITICALLY"

As an avid follower of politico.com, I get unusually excited about opinion contributers. This article should be intriguing to all who are interested in Constitutional Law and the future of the Supreme Court in this country. Only week after Nina Totenberg's enlightening Common Hour on the Supreme Court, this article by Jeffrey Rosen provides another facet to Totenberg's discussion; how political knowledge can benefit a politically naive court.

Rosen argues that today's Supreme Court is out of the touch with the nature of today's politics as well as how our country functions politically. He writes that the Supreme Court is essentially naive about how their decisions affects our country politically, and most importantly how America's feel about their politial system. Rosen addresses the two year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United v. FEC decision, and writes that the case was "remarkable for its combination of judicial overconfidence and political cluelessness".

Start your day with a little judicial controversy. And some orange juice.

Internship Panel at F&M on February 8

The Government Club and John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society at F&M will be co-hosting a panel for those interested in learning about legal and government orientated internship opportunities and how to go about getting them. The event will consist of a moderated panel of upperclassmen who have had a variety of internship experiences with a Q&A session, followed by an open forum to allow attendees to connect with individuals who might be able to help with their particular needs. Beth Throne, J.D., '95, Associate Vice President for Student and Post-Graduate Development, will also be there to answer any additional questions about institutional support for internship-seekers at F&M. More information can be found below.

Government and Law Internship Panel
Wednesday, February 8, 6:00pm
Bonchek College House Great Room

Franklin & Marshall College 

Moderator: Caitlin Krutsick '13

Panelists: Christian Hartranft '12 (interned for the U.S. House of Representatives and for the State of Delaware in the Office of the Public Defender), Laurie Barth '12 (interned in the White House in the Executive Office of the President and for NASA), Alexa Moser '12 (interned with the Republican National Committee), Amanda Duckworth '13 (participated in American University's Washington Semester program and interned in the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia)

This event is only open to members of the Franklin & Marshall College community. Pizza and soda will be provided. Sign up to attend by visiting the Facebook Event.

Navigating your way to the right law school (guest post)

By Radhika Singh-Miller,  program manager of educational debt relief and outreach at Equal Justice Works.  

Finding the right law school can be a daunting task, especially since there is no “one-size fits all” approach to determining which law school will meet your needs. Anyone applying to law school must weigh the costs and benefits of earning a J.D. as well as determine what will make your law school experience fulfilling. This is particularly true for those interested in pursuing practical skills training in specialized areas as part of their law school experience. To make the most of your search for the perfect law school, examine three important areas when looking at a law school: experience and training opportunities; professional guidance and support; financial assistance, tuition and fees.

Evaluate specialty, experience and training opportunities
Specialized courses, clinics and professional skills training opportunities tailored to your interests can provide valuable knowledge and lay the foundation for your legal career. Learn about which schools provide valuable hands-on experience, allowing you to work with clients and practicing attorneys. Remember when choosing a law school that it is important to develop additional techniques and skills not taught in the classroom but essential for jumpstarting a successful career. Pro bono programs and requirements often provide opportunities for students to learn outside of the lecture hall.

Look at the specific courses, clinics and internship opportunities available at law schools and use this information to make a more informed decision. These training opportunities, especially in the field in which you hope to work, are ideal for discovering your passion, honing your skills, and making connections with future employers. Think about where and in what field you will want to practice after graduation and allow that to impact your decision on which law school to attend.

Professional guidance and support
If you are the type of person who prefers a lot of career guidance, look at schools’ specialized departments. For example, if you are interested in pursuing public interest law, many schools have a public interest law department; some even dedicate a public interest advisor to counsel students on courses and career opportunities. Smaller schools may not have the same resources, but they can still offer tremendous support. Look at a school’s available resources that you will be able to utilize throughout your experience, including the number and type of student groups as well as career services such as career fairs and alumni networks.

When thinking about future employment, be sure to look at the school’s employment statistics for graduates to see what type of work they tend to pursue as well as the number and type of employers that participate in any campus career fairs.

Remember to consider everything in context. A small school may not have the resources for a full-time dedicated counselor but if it has strong ties to the community in your chosen geographic area, or has a valuable network of graduates in the sector of law you hope to pursue, or curriculum is focused on areas of interest to you, you'll still get the support you need.

Evaluate financial assistance options side-by-side with tuition and fees
When considering law school, cost should be a top priority. Law school is not cheap and often requires you to take out large amounts in student loans. Be realistic! Assess your financial situation and determine the availability of aid as well as repayment options after graduation.

Look for information on tuition and financial assistance programs that will allow you to determine which law school is affordable for you. Not only examine the costs of attending a school, such as tuition and fees, but also look at a school’s financial aid offerings, available grants and scholarships as well as loan repayment assistance programs (LRAPs) that will help you repay loans after graduation. In addition to academic scholarships, many schools offer public interest grants, scholarships and opportunities for funding that can help with living costs and costs of attendance.

Finding the perfect law school can be a long and tedious journey, but there are tools available to help you make more informed choices. You can start with the Equal Justice Works Guide to Law Schools, which allows you to examine a school’s available curricula, financial aid options, and staff and faculty engagement. While designed especially for students interested in public interest law, this interactive, free online tool provides extensive data on the availability of specialized courses, clinics and externships; financial aid and loan repayment assistance programs; the allocation of faculty and administrative resources; and other information valuable to helping students determine which schools best fit their interests, financial parameters, and future career goals. The Guide allows students to search schools by geography, tuition, and more, and create side-by-side comparisons of schools to learn more. We wish you luck on your journey and hope you’ll utilize the information provided in The Guide to navigate to the perfect school for you.

Radhika Singh Miller serves as program manager of educational debt relief and outreach at Equal Justice Works. In 2008, she served on the student loans team in the negotiated rulemaking for the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (CCRAA) and has extensive knowledge of this landmark legislation. She conducts educational webinars and presentations, advises schools and organizations, and advocates for legislation and policy. Prior to joining Equal Justice Works, Miller was a staff attorney at the Partnership for Civil Justice in Washington. She received her J.D. from Loyola Law School Los Angeles.

Book Review: "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions"

Last summer, the unthinkable happened; Borders Book Store closed. In an effort to mourn the loss, I decided to peruse the 75% off section of Law Books. I stumbled on The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions by Anna Ivey, the former Dean of Admissions for The University of Chicago Law School. Immediately my interested was piqued. The University of Chicago’s Law School is one of the most prestigious institutions and the country and I’d have to be crazy not to accept the book as Gospel.

Ivey’s book is cleverly organized with each chapter addressing a question that every undergraduate considering law school has asked; what are admissions officers really looking for, “how do I even write an application essay," and “what on earth do I write in my personal statement." Ivey does not shy away from these questions and instead provides a myriad of helpful stories that she has encountered during her time as an admissions Dean.

I believe that this book is helpful for everyone, regardless of one’s place in the ‘law school admissions cycle.’ I purchased this book very early on, but there are later chapters that unveil the mystery behind law school interviews and addendas in an application. This book is brutally honest and doesn’t shy away from exposing the difficulties that are associated with applying to law school. Ivey also provides clear examples of sample recommendations, sample person statements, and “WOW factors.” Her chapter on “WOW factors” is an extremely important read. She addresses the chapter to applicants who are “in the mushy middle” of the pile. Her list of factors includes everything from not so subtle reminders to double, triple, and quadruple check every aspect of your application to ensure correct spelling, to a command to NEVER mistreat anyone on the phone. Ivey’s The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions is a witty, well thought out guide that can help any undergraduate feel as if they have been given the secret to the law school admissions process.

Legal Film Series at F&M during the Spring 2012 semester

A series of legal films will be shown at Franklin & Marshall College during the Spring 2012 semester. Each film will be shown in one of the College Houses (unless otherwise noted) and the screenings will be open to the public. The series is sponsored by F&M's Center for Liberal Arts & Society, John Marshall Pre-Law Honor Society, and College House system. The schedule and description of the films are below. You can also visit the series' website here for more information.

"A Civil Action" (1998)
Sunday, January 29, 7:30pm
Bonchek College House Great Room

A real-life legal thriller based on the book by Jonathan Harr, John Travolta stars as a small-time tort lawyer who risks everything in his lawsuit against two of the country’s largest corporations. Did the companies’ toxic waste cause the deaths of several children in the community? F&M alumni (hydrogeologists) were involved in the actual case, which presented complex issues of scientific proof and legal causation.

"Philadelphia" (1993)

Friday, February 17, 7:30pm
Brooks College House Great Room
A lawyer becomes a client after being fired from his law firm because he has AIDS. Homophobia is on trial in this powerful film directed by Jonathan Demme and starring Tom Hanks (who won the Academy Award for Best Actor) and Denzel Washington. Bruce Springsteen also won the Academy Award for Best Original Song for the title score, "Streets of Philadelphia."

"GATTACA" (1997)

Wednesday, February 22, 7:30pm
Lisa Bonchek Adams Auditorium, Kaufman Hall
What if your options in life were limited by your genes? In this futuristic film starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law, the legal system serves society’s interests in protecting “superior DNA,” and not the rights of the individual. Come see why film critic Roger Ebert considered GATTACA “one of the smartest and most provocative of science fiction films, a thriller with ideas.”

"The Paper Chase" (1973)

Friday, March 2, 7:30pm
New College House Seminar Room
The experience of being a first-year law student is immortalized in this film starring John Houseman as an intimidating professor of contract law. “You come in here with a skull full of mush,” says Charles W. Kingsfield, Jr., on the first day of class, “and you leave thinking like a lawyer.” Woe to anyone who comes unprepared to Professor Kingsfield’s class!

"To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962)

Wednesday, March 21, 7:30pm
Ware College House Great Room
Considered by many to be the best legal movie ever made, this film is based on the Pulitzer Prize- winning novel by Harper Lee. Gregory Peck won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of Atticus Finch, a courageous small-town attorney who battles prejudice in the Depression-era south. This film also reminds us that the best lawyers are also great teachers.

Temple's alternative for those with low LSAT scores

For students who performed poorly on the LSAT, Temple University's Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia offers an alternative "discretionary admissions process which avoids over-reliance on the LSAT or any other arbitrary and abstract measuring factor in the admissions process" called "Sp.A.C.E." I'm not entirely sure what Sp.A.C.E. stands for, but essentially it provides a refreshing alternative for academically strong students who simply could not master the LSAT by making the admissions committee aware, up front, that you believe your full application, not including your LSAT score, should make you worthy of admission. As we all know, many schools look at LSAT score first, followed by GPA, and that they may not even examine your personal statement or work history before making an admission decision. Temple, however, offers this alternative, which expressly requests that the full application be reviewed, and students who aren't pleased with their LSAT score would be wise to strongly consider applying to Temple - an excellent law school with a very strong reputation - through this option.

Not anyone can apply through the Sp.A.C.E. program, however. A description of the program on the Temple Law School admissions page's "Application Procedure" section reads:

"The faculty has identified the following characteristics as priorities in determining whether or not a particular applicant should be admitted under this discretionary admissions process: applicants who have overcome serious long-standing economic deprivation, or who come from working class families historically foreclosed from higher education; applicants who come from racial or ethnic minority groups; applicants whose families are recent immigrants to the United States; applicants who have demonstrated exceptional leadership ability in college, community or career activities, or who have evidenced a commitment to service through Peace Corps, VISTA, military or other service work; applicants with academic honors, graduate or undergraduate degrees of unusual merit, or undergraduate grade point averages of 3.8 or higher and standardized test scores that do not reflect this academic strength; applicants who worked during college to finance their education or support their families;applicants who identify as gay, lesbian or transgendered; applicants with significant or unusual career achievement since graduation from college; applicants with serious physical disabilities; and applicants with other unique strengths and achievements."

So while Sp.A.C.E. is definitely worth considering if you don't think you could be admitted with your current LSAT score, you should carefully consider the criteria before wasting your time. Nevertheless, the fact that Temple Law School provides this option is encouraging in the midst of a cutthroat law school admissions environment, and should lead students to consider applying there who otherwise may not have thought about it.

Supreme Court to hear oral arguments today regarding an important environmental law case

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in Sackett v. EPA, an environmental law case in which Mike and Chantell Sackett of Idaho are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over an alleged violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process. When the Sacketts attempted to build a house on property that they purchased in 2005, the EPA determined that what they owned was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act, and issued them with an Administrative Compliance Order (ACO) as a means of halting their construction without harsh penalties and fines. Since ACOs may not be challenged in court, the Sacketts sued, claiming that the EPA was denying them due process.

One the surface, this seems like an obvious complaint on the part of the Sacketts, but I examined this issue further in a paper that I wrote for Prof. Rich Pepino's "Environmental Law" course this past semester, and saw that not only does the EPA have a strong case supported by both the law and the facts (and favored by every lower court that has ruled on this issue), but that the implications of a Supreme Court decision in support of the Sacketts would be devastating to the EPA's regulatory capabilities and, indeed, the ability of the federal government as a whole to enforce all sorts of laws.

ACOs are perfectly constitutional because they do not contain penalties in and of themselves. Instead, should the Sacketts violate the EPA's order to stop building their house, the EPA will proceed with a suit against them in federal court - an action which does contain the possibility of penalties, but which the Sacketts may also challenge in the courtroom, thereby preserving their right to due process. Naturally, the EPA uses ACOs as a frequent tool to avoid costly and complicated legal battles. If someone is accused of violating environmental laws, the agency essentially asks them to stop their violation, allowing the violator to come into compliance with the law instead of facing civil or criminal charges in court. A Supreme Court decision in favor of the Sacketts (aside from being incorrect, in my opinion) would seriously disrupt the abilities of the EPA and other government agencies to enforce the law through means other than the costly, time-consuming, and complex federal court system.

SCOTUSblog, an online publication of Bloomburg Law which tracks and analyzes the Supreme Court and its decisions, provides a preview of Sackett v. EPA which, unfortunately, suggests that the Court may side with the Sacketts and strike a severe blow to the EPA. "It is quite rare for the Court to step in under those circumstances, and the temptation is strong to conclude that the Court has granted review in order to reverse." writes the blogger. "The Court has grown somewhat suspicious of the grasp of federal agencies — including the EPA," and this case may give it the opportunity to act where it has been unable to do so in the past. An observer of the argument has also posted that the lawyer for the EPA has been buckling under pressure from the justices - namely Samuel Alito - with respect to EPA's treatment of the Sacketts. The title of his post, "A weak defense of EPA," says it all. 

This case involves a complex and, I think, fascinating legal question with far-reaching implications. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the impact on federal law enforcement with respect to, and apart from, environmental regulations, will be significant.

The Socratic Method

For those interested in law school, you must have heard about the “Socratic Method.” If not, here’s a brief overview from The Princeton Review of the interesting technique almost universally used by first year law professors around the country.

The Socratic Method was made famous by Professor Kingsfield in The Paper Chase where he puts students in the “hot seat” and questions them repeatedly, in order to strengthen their arguments. This inquiry usually takes place in front of the entire class, so students get practice thinking and making arguments on their feet and also speaking in front of large groups. “When executed properly, it [Socratic Method] assists to develop student’s ability to think critically and present ideas in an effective manner.” There is also an argument that the Socratic Method is “psychologically abusive to students.” Here is an article published in the Albany Government Law Review that shows a good distinction between the ‘abusive’ and ‘effective’ use of the technique.

The method ensures that students are well prepared for class, as professors usually choose participants randomly and engage them in discussions. For those of us going to law school next year, let’s make sure we are well prepared for class, so we’re not embarrassed. And for those who are thinking about law school, be prepared… it’s coming!

An important consideration when applying to law school: bar-exam pass rate

Law school applicants usually pick their schools based on admission statistics, reputation, and location, but a recent New York Post article reminds us that we ought to consider other factors - namely, how well our legal education will prepare us for an eventual legal career. This consideration can be most easily seen in bar-exam pass rates, which the Post article discusses with respect to the City University of New York (CUNY)'s law school. Apparently, CUNY's pass rate has dropped from 83% (a respectable percentage, but nowhere near the near-100% rates of more well-renowned institutions) in 2008 to 67% this year. Such a low ranking is not only indicative of lackluster preparation by the school, but it places CUNY in jeopardy of losing its accreditation by the American Bar Association. Furthermore, CUNY's pass rate is now only 9 percentage points higher than the second-lowest scorer in the nation: Pace University.

If nothing else, this article and the statistics it discusses reminds us of one more factor to consider when evaluating potential law schools (as if we needed any more). Yes, you want to apply to and eventually attend an institution that you actually want to go to (based on programs, location, etc.) but what good is the education you are receiving if that school can't prepare you to pass the bar exam? This consideration may seem like a no-brainer, but as someone who is applying to law schools right now, I hadn't seriously considered this factor until now.

Think Again Before Applying to Law School

“A law degree that does not give you the strongest earning potential, then, will actually cost you substantially more than a JD from a top program.”

Here is an article published in the Top-Law School admission’s page that talks about the rational approach to choosing a law school from an economic perspective. People often want to be lawyers because of the prestige that comes with a JD degree and/or the earning potential that comes with being associated with top firms. No matter what your motivation, it is important to do a cost/benefit analysis of the career you choose to jump into. The article states that students entering law school today are competing with an ever-greater number of peers for a declining number of legal positions and are paying more for their degree than ever before. This does not necessarily mean law school is a bad idea it just means someone considering law school should do a lot of research before making their decision, especially when evaluating whether it’s a financially sound one. The article also has some great charts about salary comparisons for law school graduates.

"ABA-LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools"

The American Bar Association (ABA) and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) publish a report each year called the ABA-LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools. This document is exceptionally useful for both undergraduates contemplating applying to law school and law students preparing to take the bar exam. It provides detailed information about the law school application process, what to look for in certain law schools, and valuable application and admission statistics. The report also discusses when to start thinking about and how to approach each aspect of the application process (personal statement, LSAT, etc.) from an authoritative standpoint (this is the ABA providing this advice, not a random website), which can be especially helpful for those of us in the middle (or just thinking about) our applications.

Take a look at the 2012 report:  http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/2012_official_guide_for_web.authcheckdam.pdf