SBM Blog

What Does It Mean When Bar Exam Scores Are "Scaled"?

The dramatic drop in the passage rate for the July 2012 Michigan bar exam has been attributed, at least in part, to the decision by the Michigan Board of Law Examiners to stop scaling the raw essay scores of the test, which has precipitated considerable discussion about the meaning and point of scaling in testing. The best explanation I've read about bar exam scaling is this, from The Faculty Lounge:

• Scaling helps ensure that differences in scores from component to component, or from administration to administration, are due to differences in performance, rather than to differences in the relative difficulty of questions, or of the graders. The NCBE uses questions from prior exams to scale the raw scores on the MBE. Forty-six states use the distribution of the final MBE scores in their states to scale raw scores on the state components of their Bar exams.

• Forty-five of the scaling states combine the scaled scores on each of the components, and then compare the combined score to the state's minimum passing score.

The post, which focuses on the Illinois decision to ratchet up the passing score of that state's bar exam between now and 2015, points out that the widespread adoption of both scaling and combined-score grading means that the primary determinant of the relative difficulty of a particular state's bar exam is the state's minimum passing score, or cut score. Michigan's deviation from that practice makes it more difficult to determine the relative difficulty of the Michigan bar exam.

Study: U.S. Legal System 50% More Expensive Than Europe's

Sure, no surprise that the U.S. legal system is the world's most expensive. But, one and half times more than the Eurozone average? Wow. Corporate Counsel reports that was the conclusion of a study commissioned by the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) that compared liability costs as a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product.

The 13 countries included in the study have similar levels of regulation and legal protection, leading analysts to conclude that higher costs could be attributed to more frequent and/or costly claims. The U.S. costs were about 1.7 percent of GDP. Countries on the low end of the range—the Netherlands, Belgium, and Portugal—had costs around 0.4 percent. Legal liability costs in the U.S. were found to be about 50 percent more than costs in the U.K.

The ILR, which holds a dim view of the U.S. legal system generally, says that excessive litigation is putting U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage globally. Presumably that means that if the U.S. had the Eurozone's legal system the our economy would be outperforming Europe's even more than it already is doing now.

Annals Of Lawyers With Time On Their Hands, First Installment

Gordon Hay, a partner in the Edinburgh office of CMS Cameron McKenna who heads the firm's banking and finance team in Scotland, whose bio lists as his only language "English," has completed a six-year project translating the New Testament into his native Scots dialect, Doric.

A sample:

The Acks o the Apostles, Chaptir 14, verse 8

**Noo, at Lystra, there was a cripple mannie vrang amo e feet fae e day he wis born, nivver haein waalkit. He wis hearknin tae Paul as he spak, an Paul, leukin him straicht in e ee an seein he hid e faith tae be made aa better, says till him wi a lood vice: "Stan straicht up on yer feet!" He jumpit up an set oot waalkin. An fan e crood saa fit Paul hid deen, they roart oot o them in their ain tongue, "E gods hiv come dooon till hiz in e form o a mannie."

Personally, I'm looking forward to the podcast version.

HT: Language Hat

In Memoriam: Robert B. Webster, 55th President of the State Bar of Michigan

The Hon. Robert B. Webster, of Royal Oak, died May 15 at the age of 81. In addition to distinguished service as a lawyer and judge, Mr. Webster served as a major in the Michigan Air National Guard.

After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School in 1957 he clerked for Judge Ralph M. Freeman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. In private practice, he specialized in civil litigation, family law and alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation, and brought his practical expertise to bear in his work as  chair of the State Bar Committee on Civil Procedure, and as the chairperson of the Committee to Revise and Consolidate the Michigan Court Rules. He was a co-author of Michigan Court Rules Practice, Martin, Dean and Webster, West Publishing Company.

He was appointed an Oakland County circuit judge be Governor Milliken in 1973 and served until 1982, including service as chief judge.  He was elected President of the State Bar in 1989. From his contributions to the seminal work of the Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century to his long years of leadership on the Judicial Qualifications Committee, he contributed immeasurably and tirelessly to his profession and to the improvement of the administration of justice in Michigan.  In 1993, the State Bar awarded him the Roberts P. Hudson Award for outstanding and unique service to and on behalf of the State Bar of Michigan, the legal profession, and public. The Hudson Award is considered the highest award conferred by the State Bar. 

Judge Webster is survived by his children Anne E. Webster Jacobs and husband, Chris Jacobs; Allison D. Webster Giddings and husband, Gavin Giddings; Peter H. Webster and wife Penny; James B. Webster; by their mother, Marilyn Hey Webster; and by his grandchildren: Colin Jacobs, Samuel Giddings, Ethan Webster, Kyle Jacobs, Glennie Webster, Alexander Jacobs and Sydney Giddings.

Visitation will be held at Sullivan Funeral Home in Royal Oak, Michigan, on Tuesday, May 21, from 4 to 8 p.m.  A Memorial Service will be held at a later date. Memorials to Boys and Girls Club of Oakland and Macomb Counties or the Crystal Lake and Watershed Association are suggested.

A Master Of Laws, Without The J.D.

It's the J.D. that gets you the right to run the gauntlet of character and fitness and the bar exam and to claim the prize of a law license, but for those who just want to learn about the law or to burnish their professional resumes some law schools are now offering another option -- a Master's in law. National Law Journal's "Law for Laymen" says that nearly 30 law schools have or soon will offer a master's degree for nonlawyers, up from just a handful two years ago. What the degree is called differs from school to school --  MSL; Juris Master (J.M.); Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.); and Master of Science in Legal Studies (M.S.) are a few of the names. The programs usually are marketed to working professionals such as human resource professionals, business people, and accountants. The trend is in line with two common predictions about the emerging future of the practice of law -- a shrinking base of lawyers and a wider base of non-lawyers collaborating with lawyers in the provision of law-related services.

Breaking: February Bar Examination Passage Statistics

From the Board of Law Examiners, here's a PDF of the statistics, summarized below:

Passage Rate

• All Takers: 58% (last year's February passage rate was 59%)

• First-time Takers: 65%

• Retakers: 48%

By Law School

Thomas M. Cooley

• All Takers: 55%

• First-time Takers: 61%

• Retakers: 42%

Michigan State University

• All Takers: 60%

• First-time Takers: 71%

• Retakers: 55%

University of Detroit Mercy

• All Takers: 49%

• First-time Takers: 59%

• Retakers: 45%

University of Michigan

• All Takers: 82%

• First-time Takers: 87%

• Retakers: 71%

Wayne State University

• All Takers: 63%

• First-time Takers: 90%

• Retakers: 50%

University of Toledo

• All Takers: 69%

• First-time Takers: 67%

• Retakers: 75%

Other Law Schools

• All Takers: 68%

• First-time Takers: 76%

• Retakers: 58%

Thinking Outside The LSAT At Michigan

ABA Journal flags a Careerist interview with Michigan Law dean of admissions Sarah Zearfoss:

Zearfoss tells the Careerist that applicant numbers are “dramatically down”
on a national level, and down by about 3 percent at the University of Michigan
Law School. “I'm very conscious that there are fewer great people in the pool,”
she says.

Zearfoss concedes “there's been an arms race with LSATs and GPAs” among top
law schools seeking the best students. “I think the shrunken pool has forced
admissions officers to think about what we really need in our class, and it's
not just the LSAT,” Zearfoss says. “I think we are choosing substance over
LSATs.”

The Careerist suggests that “substance over LSAT” is a radical concept. “I
don't thinking focusing on scores is the way to go,” Zearfoss responds. “It's
not fair to the individual. It's not fair to the institution.”

The comments to the ABA Journal story are entertaining. Personal favorite: "Instead of dropping the LSAT, they should come up with a SHADOW SCORE for the LSAT.  That means they would give partial credit for the SECOND BEST answer so as to better determine that the person wasn’t a total idiot."

Give Me That Old-Time To Do List

"To Do" lists must be an important part of the human condition (1. Hunt 2. Gather 3. Eat 4. Sleep), which surely explains even the earliest office management software included an automated To Do list.

But it turns out that some of us can't handle automated To Do lists (my own automated list still has items from 2008).  We have, perhaps shamefully, gone back to paper lists. Is there hope for us?

Now comes an app that allows you to automate your paper To Do list. Legal Technology News writes about  Retro List:

If you feel absolutely compelled to use dye suspended in solvent and fabricated treeware to make lists, you go for it. Once you've written your list the old-fashioned way, whip out your iPhone, open Retro List and take a picture of your opus. Click "manage" to view your digitized list. Then swipe your finger on the screen to cross out completed items. Problem solved!

Image: Actual list from Johnny Cash, courtesy of Julien's Auctions.

Image Hat Tip: Lists of Note

How Not To Respond To A Letter From Your Law School Suggesting You Might Be Litigious

Sue. Here's the apparent trigger language from a letter from Wake Forest Law School Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to law student Dan Skinner:

From my experience with you on this issue, if people disagree with you, you appear to assume that those persons are acting in bad faith and you accuse them of fraud and deceit.

HT: Above The Law

 

Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Seeking An Associate Director

On the heels of the announcement of deputy director Mark Armitage to succeed retiring executive director John Van Bolt, the Attorney Discipline Board (ADB) has published this announcement:

The Attorney Discipline Board is an arm of the Michigan Supreme Court responsible for adjudicating attorney discipline matters.  The ADB seeks an attorney to work under the supervision of the Executive Director & General Counsel in the field of legal ethics and attorney regulation.  Duties include drafting for hearing panels and the nine-member Board which sits as an appellate tribunal, assistance with administrative duties, and some public speaking.  Strong research, analytical, writing, and interpersonal skills required.  Compensation is commensurate with experience and qualifications.  The ADB is located in Detroit, Michigan.  For a link with more information about the position and application instructions go to: www.adbmich.org. Application Deadline: June 17, 2013. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Michigan Bar Exam Results Mailed, Stats To Follow Soon

The Board of Law Examiners has released the results of the February bar exam to takers by mail today.  SBM Blog has been told that the statistics on passage rates will be available soon, and we will post the information as soon as we receive it.  In the meantime, here are some statistics from all takers of the Multi-state Bar Exam (MBE) in February, according to Bar Professors Blog:

The average raw score for the MBE subjects is:
Evidence: 19.03 out of 33
Const. Law: 19.17 out of 33
Property: 19.63 out of 33
Contracts: 20.06 out of 34
Criminal Law/Pro: 20.07 out of 33
Torts: 21.25 out of 34

It appears that the scaled score this year fits within the usual range of 12-15 extra points, depending on where you fall for the raw score. That is consistent with prior years.

A Law Professor Shows How To Admit A Mistake

It's law school final exam time, and time once again for the horror stories of exam screw-ups. Above The Law's Elie Mystal gives NYU prof (and former Michigan Law prof) Rick Pildes high marks for this classy apology for his screw-up:

I just learned 20 minutes ago about the enormous mistake made with our exam today. First, I want to convey my deepest apologies. You were not meant, obviously, to retake one of the prior exams I had posted for you (or any other prior exam). I can only imagine how miserable this experience is for you and I cannot adequately convey how sorry I am that this has happened, especially after such a wonderful semester we had together.

Second, I feel you are entitled to an explanation as to how this came about. I have tracked down what happened. I did, of course, write a new exam for you. I printed that exam out and left it in my office for my assistant. I do not send exams to anyone, including my assistant, by email, for security reasons. We also needed a new cover sheet for the exam. I took an old cover sheet and modified it appropriately; I needed my assistant to add the number of the course and the time of the exam to that cover sheet. I emailed that cover sheet to him and asked him to make those modifications, then attach the new cover sheet to the hardcopy of the exam that was in my office. The file with the cover sheet, however, contained the prior exam starting on the next page. My assistant simply made the changes to the cover sheet and then printed the whole efile out and did not use the hardcopy of the exam in my office that I instructed him to use. That appears to be how this happened.

Third, the question now is how we rectify this terrible mistake. As soon as I finish this email, I will resume talking with the relevant academic authorities and administrators so that we can figure out the fairest and most decent way of resolving this, given all the other constraints you have with other exams and the like. You will not be graded on the basis of the prior exam alone, of course, and we will try to be as accommodating as possible about the solution, or solutions, we develop for an alternative. We will let you know as soon as possible about the structure of that alternative. Since there are several institutional figures who must be involved in resolving this, I cannot make the decision on my own.

I take full responsibility for this unfortunate situation. Again, I apologize deeply to all of you and we will be in touch as soon as we have a concrete alternative solution.

Legal And Other More Or Less Scholarly Commentary On The IRS Scandal

WSJ Law Blog points out that it was a random question from a tax law practitioner at an ABA tax law conference that prompted the tepid revelation about the IRS wrongdoing that ignited the subsequent conflagration. Rick Cohen at NPQ says the timing of the revelation probably wasn't accidental and draws a connection to Citizen United and campaign finance reform. Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker says the real scandal is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way. Boak and Planin at Business Insider say the scandal may be trouble for Obamacare because the IRS is entrusted with the major enforcement authority of the act, which coincidentally suffered its 37th vote for repeal in the House this week. And for historical context, libertarian James Bovard offers "A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting" op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

On Angelina Jolie And A Pending U.S. Supreme Court Decision

As Angelina Jolie explained in this New York Times op-ed this week, her decision to have a prophylactic double mastectomy was based on a defect in the BRCA1 gene that greatly increased her risk for breast cancer. The test for the gene, she noted, costs more than $3,000 in the United States -- “an obstacle for many women.”

The affordability of the test is at the heart of a case argued last month before the U.S. Supreme Court, Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. In addition to several research universities,  Myriad Genetics challengers included several patients.

Writing today in his Atlantic blog, Andrew Sullivan predicts the outcome of the case:

It is more likely than not that the justices will uphold Myriad's patent -- its monopoly -- over research for these genes. This is that type of Court. But no matter what the justices do in this case Congress has the authority to amend federal patent law to make it harder for companies like Myriad to control for so long the research and development of such genetic testing. In the meantime, the Affordable Care Act also will play a critical role in making it easier for women who are not Angelina Jolie to have more access to timely BRCA testing. "BRC Testing Granted Preventive Care Designation Under the Affordable Care Act," screamed Myriad's press release on March 6th. How do you like Obamacare now?

Jolie or no Jolie, the Myriad litigation is a perfect example of how poorly the law is suited to adapt quickly to biological or technical advancements. In the area of gene-patenting, like so many other areas we care far less about, the medical science is developing far more quickly than the courts can fathom. Patents are supposed to be tools to encourage the creation of things that better society as a whole. And Myriad says that these particular gene patents are economically necessary to fuel research and development. But how many more women -- and men -- might have been able over the past four years to afford BRCA1 or BRCA2 testing in the absence of those protective patents?

That's Andrew Cohen. For a more egg-heady but enlightening view of the case, read the thoughts of IP legal guru Robert Merges at SCOTUSBlog.  For example:

When I look to the real world I see that isolating and purifying a human gene is a capital-intensive and knowledge-intensive procedure. I realize that sequencing genes has become much easier over time. However, that does not mean there is less human intervention. Instead, it is easier because of very expensive machinery and a high degree of skill on the part of the researchers. The human intervention, in other words, is these days embodied more in machinery and know-how than it used to be. But it’s still there. I would focus on this fact. The debate amongst the Federal Circuit judges in their second Myriad opinion captures some of this reality. But I still find Judge Lourie’s disquisition on covalent bonds to sound a bit too much in essentialism. The question is not so much whether the isolated gene is, in its essence, a new thing; it is instead whether it takes significant human intervention to go from the chromosome in its native state to a purified and isolated gene. I think it does; and that the gene as claimed ought therefore be deemed a new (patentable) thing. The fact of significant human intervention, and the importance of purified genes “commercially and therapeutically,” leads me to conclude that we should call them non-naturally occurring inventions. I fully understand that these claims are not as important as they once were. But the Court took the case, and it ought to reach the right result even if the economic impact of the wrong result is not as big as it once would have been. It is important to get the principle right.

Photo Credit: Georges Biard

Governor Appoints Stephen Carras To Midland Circuit Court

Governor Snyder has appointed Stephen Carras, Midland County district judge, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of 42nd Circuit judge Jonathan E. Lauderbach. Judge Carras was elected to the District Court bench in 2006. A lifelong resident of Midland, he is a graduate of the University
of Detroit Mercy School of Law, and also holds a Master of Laws degree from Wayne State
University Law School.

Legal Commentary On The AP Subpoenas

The legal commentators are starting to weigh in.

From Lynn Oberlander's "The Law Behind the A.P. Phone-Record Scandal," The New Yorker:

The cowardly move by the Justice Department to subpoena two months of the A.P.’s phone records, both of its office lines and of the home phones of individual reporters, is potentially a breach of the Justice Department’s own guidelines. Even more important, it prevented the A.P. from seeking a judicial review of the action. Some months ago, apparently, the government sent a subpoena (or subpoenas) for the records to the phone companies that serve those offices and individuals, and the
companies provided the records without any notice to the A.P. If subpoenas had been served directly on the A.P. or its individual reporters, they would have had an opportunity to go to court to file a motion to quash the subpoenas. What would have happened in court is anybody’s guess—there is no federal shield law that would protect reporters from having to testify before a criminal grand
jury—but the Justice Department avoided the issue altogether by not notifying the A.P. that it even wanted this information. Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts.

From Orin Kerr's "Did the Leak of the CIA Operation in Yemen Justify “Very Aggressive Action” to Investigate Its Source?", Volokh Conspiracy:

The AP story tells us three important things: 1) The CIA knew about the details of the plot during its planning stages; 2) The CIA not only interrupted the plot but actually took the bomb into its possession and then passed it off to the FBI; and 3) the CIA’s work was occurring as recently as a few days before the AP story was published on 5/7/2012.

Based on those three facts, it seems pretty likely that the CIA had people “on the inside” of Al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate who took possession of the bomb. As covert agents, they would have covered up their removal of the bomb by making it seem like something else had happened. That matters, I think, because it means that the Al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen have a ready way to find the CIA plant(s). Just trace back what happened to the bomb, and specifically find the folks who claim to have seen it last and who came up with some story about what happened to it around the beginning of May. Chances are, that would bring you to the guys working for the CIA. And that discovery probably means no more CIA plants working on the inside the next time, which may take away the person(s) who otherwise could disrupt future plots or tip off U.S. authorities to a future attack.

From Glenn Greenwald's "Justice Department's pursuit of AP's phone records is both extreme and dangerous," The Guardian:

The legality of the DOJ's actions is impossible to assess because it is not even known what legal authority it claims nor the legal process it invoked to obtain these records. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the DOJ's power to obtain phone records is, as I've detailed many times, dangerously broad. It often has the power to obtain those records without the person's knowledge (as happened here) and for a wildly broad scope of time (as also happened here). There are numerous instruments that have been vested in the DOJ to obtain phone records, many of which do not require court approval, including administrative subpoenas and "national security letters" (issued without judicial review); indeed, the Obama DOJ has previously claimed it has the power to obtain journalists' phone records without subpoeanas using NSLs, and in its relentless pursuit to learn the identity of the source for one of New York Times' James Risen's stories, the Obama DOJ has actually claimed that journalists have no shield protections whatsoever in the national security context. It's also quite possible that they obtained the records through a Grand Jury subpoena, as part of yet another criminal investigation to uncover and punish leakers.

None of those processes for obtaining these invasive records requires a demonstration of probable cause or anything close to it. Instead, the DOJ must simply assert that the records "relate to" a pending investigation: a standard so broad that virtually every DOJ desire will fulfill it. Even if a court were involved in the acquisition of these records - and that's unlikely here - it typically does little more than act as rubber-stamping functionary, just as it does when secretly approving the DOJ's requests for FISA warrants. This is what is reaped from continuously vesting the US government with greater and greater surveillance powers in the name of Terrorism and other fears.

How Law Firm For Detroit Restructuring Was Selected

AmLaw Daily has a detailed story about how Jones Day was selected (barely) over thirteen competitors --  including Michigan-based law firms Miller Canfield, Dykema Gossett, Lewis Munday, Butzel Long, Plunkett Cooney, and Jaffe Raitt -- to handle Detroit's restructuring. From the story:

Fourteen firms responded with proposals that Miller Buckfire rated in such categories as each firm's ties to Detroit and Michigan; its experience with large debtor-side bankruptcies, Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcies, and public finance work; and the potential for conflicts to arise if it took on the assignment. Guided by that matrix, and without conducting additional interviews, the city selected Jones Day on March 8, just two days after the deadline for submitting bids had passed. The firm, which received 21 out of 24 possible points on the Miller Buckfire matrix, signed a $3.35 million contract with the city on March 20 that runs at least through the end of September.

Attorney Discipline Board Picks A New Executive Director

The Attorney Discipline Board has selected deputy executive director Mark Armitage to succeed the agency's longtime executive director, John Van Bolt, when he retires at the end of September.

Mr. Armitage is a graduate of Albion College and the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Prior to joining the Board's staff in 1994, he clerked for the Michigan Court of Appeals, was in private practice, was a volunteer hearing panelist and served on the State Bar's Standing Committee on Grievance. He is a fellow of the Michigan and American Bar Foundations and has taught professional responsibility at Wayne State Law School, the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, and at Thomas M. Cooley Law School. 

A former president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC), Mr. Armitage has regularly lectured on legal ethics and professional responsibility at seminars sponsored by the State Bar of Michigan, the Institute for Continuing Legal Education (lCLE) and at national conferences conducted by the NOBC and the National Council of Lawyer Disciplinary Boards (NCLDB). He currently serves on councils of the ABA's Center for Professional Responsibility and the Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division of the ABA, and has been invited to serve on ABA consulting teams to review the operation of the discipline systems and present recommendations to the Supreme Courts of New Mexico and Tennessee.

Michigan Lawyers: Read This Now If You Need Inspiration, An Infusion of Joy

Michigan lawyers engage in acts of selflessness and courage on a regular basis. Here's a stunning example from the Michigan Quadrangle: "A Family for Feleke." Disclosure: one of the lawyers in this story is someone whose existence brings me joy, every day. From the story:

Before the lost visas and passports, before the treacherous travel and the frantic search for prednisone somewhere in the middle of Ethiopia, before one father asked another to keep his son on the other side of the world—before all of that, Kyle and Ruth Ann Logue had a conversation.

I dare you not to read on.

The Case Justice GInsburg Wishes The Court Had Taken Instead Of Roe v. Wade

Justice Ginsburg's comment last Saturday to University of Chicago law students that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, was too broadly written understandably has received national attention.  Less attention has been paid to her identification of the case she says she wishes the Court had taken up instead -- Struck v. Secretary of Defense.  ABA Journal describes the case:

The plaintiff Susan Struck, an Air Force captain had become pregnant while on duty in Vietnam—a violation of military regulations—and was suing to avoid being discharged from the Air Force.  Abortions were legal on military bases at the time, but Struck—although she was a nurse—had not considered that alternative because of her religious beliefs. Thus the issue involved Struck’s right to resist a government-sanctioned abortion to avoid her discharge from the service. It was a choice Ginsburg thinks would have better framed a woman’s constitutional right as a choice no man would be required to endure.

“I wish that (Struck) had been the first case,” said Ginsburg. “I think the court would have better understood.”

The case was granted certiorari, but was rendered moot later when the military agreed to waive Struck’s discharge. Ginsburg said she tried to revive the case, and even asked Struck if there were any issues of inequality that might allow the case to move forward. Struck said she had been denied the chance to become a pilot.

“We all laughed,” said Ginsburg. “In 1972 that was still an impossible dream.”

Coincidentally, NPR on Saturday aired an interview with Jeannie Leavitt, the first female U.S. fighter pilot.

Forget Printing Your Own Gun With 3-D Printer, Go For The Invisibility Cloak

Legal scholars are beginning to weigh in on the Department of State's request that the software instructions for printing your own plastic gun on a 3d printer be removed from the Internet. Here's the Forbes story. Turns out the primary promoter of the instructions and the strongest defender of the constitutional right to print the instructions is a University of Texas law student.  (How did you spend your spare time in law school, slacker?)

Here's an excerpt of Gerald Magliocca's thoughts at Balkinization:

Moreover, there could be a Second Amendment question lurking here.  Suppose I have a disability that makes shooting a gun difficult.  Still, I want one to protect my home.  3D printing would (in theory) let me design a gun that is customized such that I could fire it.  Do I have a fundamental right to do that? Would a total ban on 3D printed guns place an unreasonable restriction on me? 

While the jury's out on the constitutional question, we recommend skipping the gun and going straight for a 3d-printed invisibility cloak. No kidding.

Why Good People (Including Lawyers) Sometimes Make Bad Ethical Mistakes

An eternal question: why do people who not only should know better but who have exemplary professional records and to all appearances are morally upstanding in other aspects of their lives sometimes commit appalling ethical breaches?  A couple of recurring answers are depression and substance abuse, problems for which the State Bar provides help -- the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program.  But that explanation doesn't hold for all ethical lapses.

Behavioral Legal Ethics, a paper to be published in the Arizona State Law Journal, applies insights from psychology to the discussion of legal ethics lapses, and points to this observation from John M. Darley, The Cognitive and Social Psychology of Contagious Organizational Corruption, 70 BROOK. L. REV. 1177, 1180 (2005):

In our conventional way of thinking about ourselves, we are confident that we would know in advance that to do some set of actions would be morally wrong, and that this realization, occurring prior to the actions, would prevent us from taking them. These comforting thoughts turn out to be not true.

Key points: we don't think we're capable of acting unethically, we don't see the ethical dimensions of a challenge when we're grappling with it, we fail to understand how emotions will drive our conduct, we make small ethical lapses that lead to bigger ones, and we use post-hoc moral reasoning to justify questionable decisions. And as if that's not scary enough, the paper says that studies have found that you're likelier to lie if you're under time pressure and to make unethical decisions when you're suffering from a lack of sleep.

MSU College of Law's ReInvent Law Continues To Grab Headlines

We last highlighted Reinvent Law in March. The buzz continues, the latest from the ABA Journal which provided a forum for "Legal Rebels" and MSU College of Law professors Renee Knake and Dan Katz to explain their vision:

We do not purport to have solved all of the issues in legal education, but we are working thoughtfully and quickly to offer students the additional skills that employers have told us would make a difference in their respective hiring decisions. Most law students are not fully practice-ready at the moment of graduation. However, anyone can make meaningful contributions when they walk in the door, especially those trained in skills relevant to the growing use of technology and data analytics in legal services. To that end, we have launched a set of courses designed to equip a new crop of law students to add value immediately. These courses include: e-discovery, entrepreneurial lawyering, lawyer regulation and ethics in a technology-driven world, legal information engineering, quantitative methods for lawyers, and virtual law practice. Additional courses planned include topics such as project management, legal analytics, economics of the legal market, design thinking for lawyers, and artificial intelligence and law.

Legal Ethics And The IRS Auditing Scandal

John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum spots a legal ethics angle to the news that the IRS flagged groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their name for extra scrutiny:

For the most part, the news that the IRS audited groups based upon their politics isn't a legal ethics story. But the AP is now reporting that a "chief counsel" within the IRS knew about the problem back in 2011. Paul Caron's Tax Prof Blog has a round-up. We'll see how that plays out. Presumably that counsel was governed by the rules about representing organizations and by the role of government lawyer. Given that the IRS now concedes its behavior was inappropriate, one would expect that any lawyer brought into the loop would have obtained assurance that the behavior had ceased or would "run it up the org chart" to higher people in the organization. I don't want to speculate too much but if a lawyer knew back in 2011, it will be interesting to see what he/she did with the info.

A federal watchdog report is scheduled to be released this week.

Michigan: "World Capital of Anonymity-busting Subpoenas?"

A Court of Appeals decision addressing the right to anonymity of a blogger who is being sued by Cooley for defamation and tortious interference has prompted this post by an "IP maven" speculating that Michigan "just become the world capital of anonymity-busting subpoenas."  The post resides is the amusingly titled blog "Likelihood of Confusion," but, perversely, is clear and worth a read.