Boston Man Sues Over Gay Marriage Question on State Bar Exam

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Finally, let's put this claim that legal specialists don't need to be worried about generalist concerns. It's 100% specious. No one individual is going to be versant on every aspect of the law, but it is reasonable to expect any lawyer to be able to respond to generalist topics of the law with a little time and research! That's exactly what the MA bar was testing of its aspiring lawyers - the ability to reason through a relatively new legal problem with some degree of reasonable preparation.

Nice straw man argument. The claim that you suggest is 100% specious was never advanced, yet you act as if it had been. Not all of the areas tested by the bar qualify as purely generalist concerns. For instance, child custody is not a generalist concern in the sense that contracts are.

So, to re-re-re-re-re-reiterate, there are attorneys who are not only competent, but expert, in their fields, who know nothing (as a practical matter) of child custody. You might have to know a bit to pass the bar, but then you can abandon that body of law altogether, depending upon what sort of practice in which you'd prefer to engage. Most of your clients would happy you weren't wasting time maintaining competency in areas you never intend to touch - the only downside would be losing the type of person (of which there are evidently a few here) who would quiz you in irrelevancies and find you wanting. Probably problem clients anyway, so no biggie.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,382
Media
114
Likes
17,871
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
Nice straw man argument. The claim that you suggest is 100% specious was never advanced, yet you act as if it had been. Not all of the areas tested by the bar qualify as purely generalist concerns. For instance, child custody is not a generalist concern in the sense that contracts are.

So, to re-re-re-re-re-reiterate, there are attorneys who are not only competent, but expert, in their fields, who know nothing (as a practical matter) of child custody. You might have to know a bit to pass the bar, but then you can abandon that body of law altogether, depending upon what sort of practice in which you'd prefer to engage. Most of your clients would happy you weren't wasting time maintaining competency in areas you never intend to touch - the only downside would be losing the type of person (of which there are evidently a few here) who would quiz you in irrelevancies and find you wanting. Probably problem clients anyway, so no biggie.

Legal competency is demonstrated in one's ability to reason through the law! It's not about an area of specialization.

Either way, the whole point is again, MOOT. The Bar Association of Massachusetts believes that its newly minted lawyers should be able to demonstrate their ability to reason through a novel case of gay divorce and its legal ramifications. Old lawyers should be able to reason - emphasis on the process of reasoning - through the law as well, if given the appropriate amount of time to prepare.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Legal competency is demonstrated in one's ability to reason through the law! It's not about an area of specialization.

Either way, the whole point is again, MOOT. The Bar Association of Massachusetts believes that its newly minted lawyers should be able to demonstrate their ability to reason through a novel case of gay divorce and its legal ramifications. Old lawyers should be able to reason - emphasis on the process of reasoning - through the law as well, if given the appropriate amount of time to prepare.

All true. But it has nothing to do with an attorney who has selected not to practice certain areas, regardless of the reason. And yes, that would include an attorney who has determined he will not represent gays because he believes them to be morally represensible. He COULD, but he WON'T. That attorney may still be quite competent, which is the point.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
All true. But it has nothing to do with an attorney who has selected not to practice certain areas, regardless of the reason. And yes, that would include an attorney who has determined he will not represent gays because he believes them to be morally represensible. He COULD, but he WON'T. That attorney may still be quite competent, which is the point.
Please type this same response again, except quote post #1 instead of post number #104 (or whichever one you quoted...), since the original post is the point.
 

snoozan

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Posts
3,449
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Does this mean that you are baseball-99 or Bill Clinton?:confused::smile:

BINGO!!

Did you know baseball99 claimed to have multiple people posting from his one very opinionated account? He's also a 100% straight married man with a penchant for PMing cute gays boys with, "you're so cute, i'm thinking of changing my percentages."

This guy sounds exactly like him and I bet buhballs is PMing the cute gay boys, too.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
Those little news blurbs about the case were, as usual, garbled and generally useless. They appear to be conflating several independent factors. Reading between the lines just a bit, it looks like there might actually be a case there. To the extent that it is attacking rampant PC-ness in the machinery of Justice in Massachusetts, it may get a more sympathetic reception than might be assumed. The system here in MA is horribly PC, and not a few people know it. If the plaintiff can turn the question into a choice - do we want justice for all, or do we really want to sacrifice it on the altar of political correctness - he may have a serious case, and one which may influence events in other jurisdictions even if it fails here in PC country.

Obviously, lacking any decent information at all, I wouldn't care to make a guess as to the real merits of the case. But it may be premature to dismiss them out of hand.

The only problem I have with what you say is that you appear to be ignoring the fact that this guy could have gotten the two measly points missed on any of the answers for which he did not receive full credit and passed. Or he could have gotten one more point on each of two of his answers for which he was not given full marks. The fact remains he didn't blow this exam by one question but instead by any one or two of quite a few.

When I read between the lines, I see that he has decided to try to make a name for himself getting interesting things added to MA case law. I think he's a smart guy (just a lousy test-taker, perhaps a lousy student) who saw a "Plan B".

In his copmplaint he apparently refers to homosexuality as “voluntary human behavior that is changeable.” As that hasn't been proven and much evidence (though largely anecdotal) exists to the contrary it could be argued that that is a dangerous argument to support with a legal decision.

I still think we'd never have heard of him had he not failed. He'd be buried as someone's research bitch in the legal department of some obscure corporation.

If he really feels that the decision permitting gay unions is unconstitutional, then it is his duty as an American to fight against it with everything he's got. Somehow, I just don't get the feeling that's what he's doing.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
BINGO!!

Did you know baseball99 claimed to have multiple people posting from his one very opinionated account? He's also a 100% straight married man with a penchant for PMing cute gays boys with, "you're so cute, i'm thinking of changing my percentages."

This guy sounds exactly like him and I bet buhballs is PMing the cute gay boys, too.

I don't know who baseball99 is, but perhaps you ought to spend more time with your husband than trying to figure out what I do with my spare time.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
This is a viewpoint that relates primarily to American English; I work regularly with a British publisher, and she and I are frequently driven to despair by the reluctance of American contributors to embrace 'they' as a singular pronoun. In British English, it has been embraced by most of the leading authorities for over twenty years, as a neat shorthand for avoiding gender-specificity; in Australian English, meanwhile, the use of 'they' as a singular pronoun has effectively enjoyed official government backing since 1998, when the Australian Guide to Legal Citation was officially enshrined as a uniform system of legal citation.

Yes, and I have had the same 'problem' although in a different context. It's an effective means of avoiding uncessarily verbose sentence construction in both speech and writing. After all, spoken and written language styles are under no express requirement to co-incide and seldom do.

...Although many scholarly and professional writers and editors have been educated to avoid singular they as substandard...

Yes, though I've find they tend to do so as a result of 'rote' based learning rather than any meaningful confusion in comprehension. It's a common perception that American English is a corruption of British English whereas, in reality, such 'corruptions' lie rather closer to 'home'.

Meanwhile, the British publisher and I keep on changing every 's/he', 'he/she', 'he or she', etc. within contributions by American writers to 'they'... and nobody's ever batted an eyelid. :rolleyes:

Most people neither notice, nor care about linguistic minutiae unless they either break some 'arbirary' rule they learned at school (common), or cause real confusion (rare). The last time I checked there really are no definitive, universally accepted rules for English grammar, in the way there are for French for example. By any meaningful measure that makes many such 'rules' opinion at best, and pendantry at worst.

On topic:

I think AE is correct, the most effective way to challenge the constitutional validity of a piece of legislation would be after passing the bar, rather than as it appears, using alleged unconstitutionality as a convenient excuse for having failed to do so.
 

Big Dreamer

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Why do you insist on derailing/hijacking the thread? Why do you refuse to debate the original topic?

It looks to me like he's more intent on engaging certain individuals than in honoring the topic at hand. Give him a few more days to lose his cool and reveal himself as a past menace.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
@ Everyone: Sorry I started two threads and then fell off the face of the internet. Oops.

@ Alex: Thanks for finding the exam for us. I knew you would if you were around. *huggles*


Would the fellow still find the question morally reprehensible, simply because it referenced homosexuality (and therefore refuse to answer the question) or would he most likely jump on that one with glee?

Now THAT'S what I'd like to know!

...some suggested that if an attorney declines to represent someone because he finds their behavior/beliefs morally reprehensible, he is somehow less than competent, or acting in a fashion inconsistent with his oath...
No, all that I understood to have been said whas that if he wasn't able to represent them he's incompetent. He can decline if he likes, but he needs to know how to represent them. So-called reprehensible people generally have the same rights as anyone else.

...One would have to struggle mightily to miss this point.

QED again.

You prove nothing ever. Please stop QED-ing us to death. This isn't mathematics. I agree that one would have to struggle mightily to miss the point. Why does a lawyer who won't practice family law need to understand family to be a comeptent lawyer? Simple. Competent lawyers are licensed. The state bar in MA has decided understanding of family law is neccesarry to receive a license. Several others have pointed out even better reasons.

If Stephen Dunne wins his case, I hope he'll do the honorable thing and sue to protect my "right" not to recognize marriages which offend me. Like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, 'cause they're a freakshow. Or Hugh Jackman and Deborra Furness, 'cause it spoils my fantasy... ;)
LOL

Your point is correct as far as it goes. While family law is clearly on the bar, it isn't on the list of things all attorneys need to have familiarity with in order to practice. That antitrust lawyer need know nothing of pre-nups or custody.
No, but he does need to know about contracts becasue contracts come up in every facet of law practice. If Mr. Dunne had been able to discuss some issues with the pre-nup in the question, he might have gotten his two points. They do give partial credit, you know.

Sorry the guy couldn't pass the test. He needs to do what everyone else does that fails the test the first time. Go home and relearn what he has forgotten and try to pass the test again.

I don't remember the statistics, but it is not unusual for people to fail their first attempt at taking the bar exam.

It's not unusual, however, most do. The more times it is taken, the less likely, statistically speaking, one is to pass. Attached is a screenshot with the current stats. I recently saw stats ranging over 5of the past 10 years, but I can't find them now.


You're nuts. It is true that there are general practitioners, and it is true that lawyers are expected to demonstrate competency in a number of practice areas, but many areas of the law have been specialized for years, and practitioners in those areas, after being a decade or two away from the bar, may very well be clueless, for all practical purposes, about wide swaths of the law. And only the truly ignorant would consider them incompetent.

Yeah. I think it would be a good idea to offer that proof. I've had no previous accounts.
Uh... He's an admin. He can probably see your address. I know of at least one moderator here who knows how to find out exactly where you are based on your IP address. Are you sure you want them to publicly provide proof?

...The claim that you suggest is 100% specious was never advanced, yet you act as if it had been. Not all of the areas tested by the bar qualify as purely generalist concerns. ...

Which is why partial credit is granted for answers that are partially correct. Provide some of the points they want made in your essays, and they'll give you some of the credit. All of the questions (And I have read them.) seem to require both basic knowledge, and extensive knowledge of that area of law. 74% of the people who took it for the first time passed. What's wrong with Dunne?
 

Attachments

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
You prove nothing ever. Please stop QED-ing us to death. This isn't mathematics. I agree that one would have to struggle mightily to miss the point. Why does a lawyer who won't practice family law need to understand family to be a comeptent lawyer? Simple. Competent lawyers are licensed. The state bar in MA has decided understanding of family law is neccesarry to receive a license. Several others have pointed out even better reasons.

"Understanding of family law is necessary to receive a license." As a practical matter, not necessary to keep a license. QED.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
"Understanding of family law is necessary to receive a license." As a practical matter, not necessary to keep a license. QED.

As I said, this isn't math, please save the fucking QED'S for your mother. Savce the condescension for thed same.

What you fail to recall is that before one can KEEP a license he first must not fail to obtain it. Have you ever tried to keep a license you never earned?