Not first.

not a surprise that such a looooser is using his pathetically stupid faith-based politics as a crutch. I hope he has the state bar's attorney fees assessed against him.

Did he go to Regent?

he failed the passachusetts bar? dude.

Maybe I'm not understanding his argument. How did the Massachusetts bar exam turn him gay exactly? You'd think they'd warn you of that ahead of time or something.

Well, we know he's not representing himself.

Maybe if this guy can't handle making an argument that doesn't comport with his personal views, he shouldn't be a lawyer anyway.

I wouldn't call someone's religous beliefs 'pathetically stupid faith-based politics'.
That being said, since gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, it seems well within reason that he would have to accept it for the purposes of the bar exam. Seems like a cheap excuse to get away from failing the exam. (Plus, isn't the Mass bar known as 'Passachuseetts?' I thought it was one of the easier bars to pass).

Ridiculous. It sounds like he would be a terrible lawyer anyway.

i wonder what the question said. i wonder how long it took him to come up with this, too.

teh gheys are in ur country, marrying ur gheys.

It's just a question. It's not like they asked him to take it in the ass.

ARBDC: "faith-based politics" does not equal "religious beliefs." It is entirely possible to hold religious beliefs worthy of respect and yet to hold faith-based political beliefs worthy of scorn.

wow, this guy is crazy. para 117 of complaint: "Plaintiff contends that neither Science nor Religion recognizes homosexuality as immutable; homosexuality is a voluntary human behavior that is changeable. Bisexuals voluntarily engage in relations with members of both sexes by choice, not by genetic predisposition. Societal recognition and perpetuation of rampant homosexuality is neither prudent nor wise."

anyone find the actual question?

he's not just suing the state bar. he's suing the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the justices who issued the original same-sex marriage ruling. insane.

Not to beat a dead horse but how much better are Laurie's posts than Merck's. Merck should never guest host again!

1:24(2) - I'm going to go out on a limb and say the caption for this suit was in his head before this d-bag put his pencil down.

wow. just, wow. I mean, I think the death penalty is unconstitutional and should be barred, but if I had been asked about penalties available for murder when I took the bar, I would still be incorrect if I failed to mention the dp.

full complaint and question links: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/07/the-gay-dog-ate.html

Gotta agree about Laurie - it's like she's an almost-Lat. Keep up the good work.

Anyone notice that Carney's "we're away on vacation" posting was removed? Probably a good move on ATL's part. Trying to get folks to click on ads is pretty hard when the guest poster tells everyone he's out of the office.

He's going pro se. Bad move.

On second thought, he failed the bar, so it's not like a job is going to interfere with him arguing pro se.

This complaint is a riot. I especially like 7, where he uses "proscribed" instead of "prescribed". One of the better malapropisms I've seen in some time.

the exam question:

Mary and Jane, both attorneys, were married two years ago in Massachusetts. The day before their marriage, Mary and Jane each fully disclosed their assets to the other and signed an antenuptial agreement (the “Agreement”) in which each of them agreed that if they were ever divorced (i) they would divide any joint marital property evenly, (ii) they would not seek or accept any property that the other brought into the marriage, and (iii) they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other. The Agreement was drafted and reviewed by an attorney representing Jane. Mary did not hire an attorney to review the Agreement as she “trusted Jane.”

At the time of the marriage Jane had a two year old adopted child, Philip, and Mary was three months pregnant. When Mary gave birth in Boston six months later to Charles, Mary and Jane were listed on his birth certificate as his parents. Mary has treated and referred to Philip as her son, although she did not adopt him. Mary, Jane, Philip and Charles lived in a house in Boston owned by both Mary and Jane. The down payment for this house came only from Mary. Jane was the sole supporter of the family, while Mary stayed at home taking care of Philip and Charles. Mary had no savings, while Jane had over a million dollars in savings from an inheritance that she received when her mother died three years ago. Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa.

What are the rights of Mary and Jane?

So was he planning on violating his oath to support the Mass constitution?

i expected more from this headline, like a noise from a all-day gay dance party next door interrupting the exam. what a let down

I'm not worried about this kid, I'm sure President Bush will pardon him.

I'm in love with Mary Jane.
She's my main thing.
She makes me feel alright.
She makes my heart sing.

Pity. It's been assigned to Judge Woodlock, a former BigLaw litigation partner (but also chair of the Mass. CPCS, the state's public defenders' organization). I was kinda hoping he woulda drawn Judge Gertner, who's a renown liberal lioness. Either way, though, the case ain't gonna last long.

-- ET!

My urge to make gay love to the examinee sitting next to me caused me to fail the Mass bar exam.

Can I has lawsuit?

How on earth did he calculate those damages? Why did he stop there and not just ask for an even $10 mil?

Also, funny that he's singling that question out as the reason he failed, when he obviously missed enough other questions to push him past the tipping point. This poor soul doesn't have a chance. I hope to G-d this git didn't go to my school!

I heard this guy was going to Wilmer. Thank God they've got so many unnecessary new hires on deck.

I wish all the bigots failed the bar exam. Then SCOTUS might not suck so hard.

snap!

The bar exam tests what the law currently is, not what each examinee thinks the law should be. And lawyers have to work with the law as it exists, regardless whether they agree with it or not. If it violates this guy's religious beliefs to write an answer explaining what the law is under the fact scenario provided, then he has no business being a lawyer.

That said, the exam question has an overly fussy, pedantic quality to it - like questions that go out of their way to use a lot of "ethnic" names, or that make all the professional people women, to avoid alleged stereotyping. But being annooying and excessively PC is not actionable.

So who was the soap opera script-writer who came up with that question? It's a screamer....

"That said, the exam question has an overly fussy, pedantic quality to it - like questions that go out of their way to use a lot of "ethnic" names"

You mean ethnic names like Mary, Jane, and Phillip?

And I love how fussily and pedantically it says "Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa"

God, how fussy and pedantic. What emotional language they've used to report the facts.

3:00 -- I think that is pretty typical for Mass. bar questions that implicate litigation in the Probate and Family Court (domestic relations, wills, and the like). I seem to recall the will and trusts essay from a couple of years ago had all kinds of familial intrigue. I suspect it goes with the territory.

Does anyone in the Boston area (or the greater Commonwealth, for that matter) know which law school made this guy its social promotion pilot program?

is it really "excessively PC" to create a gay couple comprised of a bat-wielding drunk and an adulterer?

If that was the actual exam question posted above, the Mass. Bar of Examiners are a bunch of leftist pricks. Even though at least half the state is vociferously opposed to gay marriage and a large majority of that segment finds it offensive to their faith, the Bar chooses to put a standard family law question on the exam with two "married" women to shove it those applicants' faces. Even though his complaint is stupid, I'd love to see him win.

Well Anon 3:20, it's pretty clear that you're a poster child for the right...angry, bigoted, and misinformed. You are aware that gay marriage is LEGAL in the Commonwealth where this guy took the bar? So you know, the LAW is kinda something a LAWYER should know...regardless of whether he agrees with it.

3:20, you are completely right. Having faith gives you the right to tell other people how to live their private lives.

My faith tells me that I'm entitled to use the property of fundamentalist Christians at my whim, because I am a representative of God come down to earth to proclaim the One Holy Truth of Excessive Personal Hygiene. Further, my religion authorizes me to destroy any unnecessarily dirty items in your possession. Please provide me with your address so that I may conduct the Holy Cleansing which I am instructed to undertake by my burly, balding God, Mist Ercleene, whose name may only be spoken by the Holy Cleansed.

@3:20

Buddy, something like 80% of the state supports gay marriage. Opponents couldn't even get 25% of the state legislature to send it to a vote. Furthermore, most of the oppositon comes from the elderly. I'd bet you something like 90% of MA residents taking the bar support gay marriage. As for the out-of-staters, well, we have our secret gay ways of convincing them.

3:20, do you also call Hispanic Americans, "Americans," because you don't like that the law allows brown people to be citizens?

Loving the crazy Fundie scare quotes.

DUH, 3:16, the excessive PC-ness is in acknowledging that gays are human. Everyone knows they're 3/5 of a human AT MOST.

3:20: should we also eliminate names like Jamaal or Hernendez if racists find it offensive?

3:20 here again. I see that nothing I wrote was actually responded to. The question does not address whether gay marriage is permitted in MA, which would be a legitimate question. It's a not so subtle dig at people who are opposed to it and have lost after a bitter fight. The question involved plain family law issues and could have been illustrated with a simple man and woman as husband and wife. The Bar Examiners wanted to stick it in the eye of the people like the plaintiff. I bet they all got a good laugh disparaging those crazy "fundies." I'm no fundy and haven't been to church other than Christmas and Easter for a few years.

The quotes around marriage are for people like me who use a dictionary to define it. Referring to 2 men or 2 women married is simply an abuse of the English language whether or not you are in favor of these unions.

3:20/4:14. unless it were in the true/false portion of the exam, there would be no reason to ask whether gay marriage is permitted in MA.

4:14: huh?

4:19:

Precisely. So, there was no point other than to irritate a large number of the applicants to including in a family law fact pattern two wives.

4:14, and who defined "marriage?" I hope it's not the same group of people who defined blacks as 3/5's of a person.

Re: 3:16:
His complaint says he's a graduate of a "prestigious Boston law school." Did somebody say Suffolk?

Legally Chocolate: you're an idiot.

3:20: wtf again. there are real same-sex married couples in MA. lawyers will have to spot issues in real practice that involve same-sex married couples. the fact that people like you think it's an abuse of English to call a same-sex female couple married, even though the state recognizes them as such, is a powerful argument in favor of having questions like this: so bigoted retards like you will learn to see them as married and spot all the legal issues that go along with that.

in fact, because of bigoted retards like you, there are likely to be more disputes concerning same-sex marriages than different-sex marriages (per capita). that makes it even more important that lawyers know their way around the relevant law.

finally, the question DOES address whether gay marriage is permitted in MA. someone who did not know that would answer the question as though Mary and Jane were unmarried, thus betraying his lack of knowledge and getting the question wrong as a result.

also, did I mention that you're a bigoted retard? because you are. HTH.

Also, I find it hilarious that people are offended by the fact pattern when in fact allowing gay marriage doesn't "injure" anyone. The people offended are essentially completely unaffected by the law. On the contrary, prohibiting the right to marry causes great injury to a class of people. Three cheers to ignorance and using the Bible to demean others!

Anon 4:27, a true legal scholar.

hallelujah, 4:28. thanks. bigoted retards are fun to mock. here's to hoping none of them procreate.

Maybe if Soloway followed the "prescribed" rather than "proscribed" protocol, Dunne would have passed. One letter means a world of difference...1.134 points and the right to be barred.

Metafilter says the guy went to NESL

If the state said the sky was green, would that make it so? As an adult, I'm able to compartmentalize. I can understand that legally, there is such thing as "gay marriage" in Massachusetts, but linguistically, it is a gross abuse of the English language. Therefore, I'll use quotations, which indicates that it exists but is a misnomer.

So, everyone opposed to "gay marriage" is a "bigoted retard"? That would have been, what, 99% of the population prior to 1950, 90% prior to 1980, 85% prior to 1990, and 75% or so now? Why do I bother responding?

Anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last couple years knows that there is "gay marriage" in MA. The question obviously was not designed to test this, but rather to rub it the collective faces of all those to opposed to this variety of "progression."

4:30: I plan on having several children. Uh oh!

If you don't want your face rubbed by teh gays, then don't practice law in MA.

Legally Chocolate:

There's no reason to respond to arguments that are manifestly idiotic to anyone with an IQ over 90.

>Therefore, I'll use quotations, which indicates that it exists but is a misnomer.

"Gay Marriage"
"Seperate but equal"
"Women's Sufferage"
"Japanese Internment"
"Interracial Marriage"

Words, like people, change.

4:48:

WTF are you talking about? Try again.

4:40 - Yes, that's exactly what the bar examiners had in mind "Hmmm, how can we write a question that will best screw with the minds of those right-wing whack jobs who are opposed to gay marriage?" You are brilliant, 4:40, if you think the reason bar examiners write bar questions is to f*ck with those opposed to something that is here to stay in our state.

And hey, 4:40, that's exactly what that question was designed to test - whether someone would discuss the LEGAL status of the women's relationship beyond just the contractual issues. BTW - it IS a different question that if it had been a man/woman marriage because of a recent SJC decision that addresses child support of children born to same-sex MARRIED couples. F8cking moronic a$$hole!

@3:20 - Even if it is a dig at "people" who "lost" the "fight" to "ban" "gay" "marriage", does that make it less valid as a question for a bar exam?

And actually, opposing gay marriage has always made you a bigoted retard. It's just lately that it's become less socially acceptable in the state of MA to be this particular variety of bigoted retard.

4:52: finally, a real argument.

If there are sub-issues I didn't identify because I'm unfamiliar with MA law, then I concede and the question was legitimate. I assumed that because "gay marriage" is recognized in MA that any rule involving a marriage would apply equally to a gay married couple or a boring ol' straight married couple. If there is law that applies only to gay married couples vs. straight married couples, then of course the question actually tests something involving that fact. However, I don't understand why the law would be applied differently.

And no, I would not be surprised that lawyers who are likely on the far left of the political spectrum and who, like the majority of this board, look down on people with "traditional values," (there are those quotations again, this time in your favor!) would come up with facts, irrelevant to the question, to rub it in. Considering that the bar examination process is one big hazing exercise, why would that surprise anyone?

I'm rather indifferent on gays marrying or not marrying. Do what you will. But, I find it amusing that all of you preaching tolerance are rather intolerant of “fundie/right” opinion. They are just as much allowed to disagree with gay marriage as you are with their views. As for the db who is suing, well he’s just a angry bed-wetter.

4:59, so let me get this straight...we should be tolerant of intolerance? This is totally...blowing...my...mind...

This Plaintiff is a total fucking idiot. Pro se. Terrible punctuation, grammar, spelling, and citation [why no poinpoint cites for your quotes, asshole???] skills. Worse, he is WRONG ON THE LAW. Wrong on equal protection. Wrong on interstate commerce. Wrong on due process.

Finally, he wouldn't have passed "but for" refusing to answer this ONE question. He'd have passed but for fucking up any number of the other, easy questions he flunked on.

This douchebag should NOT be practicing law. No in MA, not in fucking Bangladesh. Scary.

"I assumed that because "gay marriage" is recognized in MA that any rule involving a marriage would apply equally to a gay married couple or a boring ol' straight married couple. If there is law that applies only to gay married couples vs. straight married couples, then of course the question actually tests something involving that fact. However, I don't understand why the law would be applied differently."

And so what if the law was exactly the same? Why would that make any difference? According to the State of Massechusetts, marriage is marriage, whether the partners are same or opposite-sex. So why would it make a difference what sex the parties involved were? Policy preferences aside, they're still legally married under the law of the state being tested on the bar exam.

And as far as I know, because civil marriage is something created and adminstered by the State, the State has the ability to define marriage as it sees fit, Webster's definition and you own preferences notwithstanding. So if Mass. says two women or two men may marry under its law, they're married, not "married."

4:59 (and back), you may not be bigoted because of religious beliefs, but your whole argument gives you away as anti-gay and far from objective. Couch it in faux-detached language all you want, but at the end of the day your visceral reaction against applying the term "marriage" to a same-gender couple is no more or less enlightened than the views of this dumbass who is suing.

Look, you say that it is a "linguistic" "abuse" to say that a same-gender couple is married. Well, there are two sources of definition for the term "marriage" - one is the law, since it's a legal status, and one is the culture, since it's an institution that is also larger than the laws that express it. You're obviously wrong if you believe that it is a "linguistic" mistake in terms of the legal definition, since we're talking about MA and we all know that the definition of "marriage" under MA law includes same-gender couples now. So you must be talking about the cultural definition of marriage. And here is where your confidence is misplaced and your bigotry exposed, because you do not speak for everyone in this culture. You only speak for bigots. For many people, and the number increases every day, the cultural definition of marriage lies in the commitment between two people, the mutual support, and the public declaration that the commitment and support is for life (they hope). For some people, like you apparently, it's more important that those people fit the right classifications, in this case gender (and back in the day race, and still sometimes religion). Why would you care so much if you weren't unduly invested in those classifications (gender, race, religion) and maybe unconsciously desperate to preserve a way of life that restricts people's freedoms based on those classifications?

As the tide changes, it is only the bigots who so petulantly hold onto the gender-based cultural definition of marriage, and who are bothered enough by something as trivial as this annoying bar exam question that they would pick a fight in such a self-righteous way. I hope you can get over it, because you're going to lose this "linguistic" - and really, I think you mean "cultural" - battle in the end.

5:08, it seems that the definition of tolerance in this chain is "accept gay marriage or die". Disagreeing with gay marriage is not being "intolerant". Jailing (or worse) people for being gay is intolerant. I don't agree with the death penalty and I don't agree with abortion? Does that mean I'm intolerant of justice or choice? No, that means I respect life, but tolerate the laws of the land. You should be tolerant of other opinions and try to understand and discuss why people may not feel right about same-sex marriage and pose a well thought out argument for it. Most people on this chain immediately started bashing and labeling the ones who do not agree with same-sex marriage. Do you agree with Polygamy?

5:29: the difference would be that the facts were included as they were for no other reason than to rub the union of two people of the same sex, legally referred to as "marriage" in MA, in the faces of those so deeply opposed to it for religious reasons. However, if the question can turn on the facts (other than that one recognizes "gay marriage" exists in MA), then it was perfectly legitimate. "Legitimate" might not be the best word because it's legitimate regardless, but it was distasteful and tacky.

5:31: I stated that there is a legal definition that must be recognized and a real definition.

As for bigot, I'm not so sure this isn't an example of the pot calling the kettle black (uh oh, was that bigoted too?)

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

5:31: I forgot to mention. I agree that there is a cultural battle as well, and I'm on the the side of tradition, no doubt. However, the reason to use quotes is because a man and a man cannot in reality be married. They can be legally so in MA, but that's the extent of it.

Anon4:40
If the state said that the sky was "green", then legally speaking the sky would be "green" and in order to practice law in that state you would have to be able to defend that opinion. If the state declaration was maintained long enough, eventually the language of the citizens would adapt; those who were incapable of adaptation would be considered retarded. Anyone faced with this variation who reacted explosively would be considered a bigot.

"a man and a man cannot in reality be married."

That's a very telling way of couching the problem. What do you mean, "in reality"? Do you think marriage has some "reality" other than legal or cultural?

5:40 PM: so you will not recognize their marriage and the state of Massachusetts will. As between those two, I'd place more weight on what the state of Massachusetts will recognize (in reality) than on what you will.

Wow... 5:31... that is some seriously circular reasoning.

While I'm skeptical of "view from nowhere" arguments, I can also see that a distinction can be made between having some fealty to the quasi-objective countours of language (or culture) and bigotry. Your argument as to why someone *must* be a bigot f they are skeptical of gay marriage seems to boil down to a rigid insistence on some quasi-platonic idea of bigotry, as though it's the same everywhere and in every culture.

I disagree with the guy's lawsuit as well, but this is not what is interesting about the issue of homosexual marriage.

A strong case can be made that Goodridge violates the right to marriage under the federal constitution. After all, most people throughout the political spectrum would agree that we have a constitutional right to marriage (which can come from the Ninth Amendment, or possibly somewhere else). Unlike made-up "rights" to abortion, sodomy, etc., the right to marriage has never been disputed in American history; it has always (and in every state) been understood that we have this right. The right to marry also has always been understood as involving the union between a man and a woman. By recognizing homosexual marriages, Massachusetts redefines marriage to mean something else; Massachusetts residents no longer have the right to marry in Massachusetts if we understand "marry" to mean what the word has always meant historically. As such, Goodridge violates the U.S. Constitution and should (but of course won't) be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fed Soc: yes, because Massachusetts now prohibits unions between men and women, thus restricting heterosexuals' rights to marriage. All Massachusetts citizens are required to get gay married immediately.

I would like someone opposed to gay marriage to explain why they are opposed. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not in any manner inhibit a heterosexual couple's right to marry. Also, it is not a right that is one earns, i.e., something conferred based on merit, effort, etc. And it stands for things that are generally desired, like commitment and stronger family ties.

Why then do people oppose it so strongly? Seriously, opposers, give me something here.

7:01, this was not my argument. If you define marriage so that one of the main components of the definition is that it be "a union that can only be entered into between a man and a woman", then Massachusetts citizens do not currently have a right to marriage under this definition.

I mean sure, the accents are sometimes hard to take, but to suggest that Massachusetts is some sort of alternate "reality" is a bit much.

Ahhhh, Fed Soc. Thank you. The "come on, everyone KNOWS this" argument. Rest assured you're in no danger of being hemlocked for your dangerous radical philosophical insights.

3:20/4:14/etc.: why do you fucking CARE? Why should we use straight couples OVER gay couples -- isn't that just as much of a conscious decision of one over the other? Wouldn't that be ramming straight marriage down the throats of all the straight-hating gays (because CLEARLY wanting gays to have the right to make their own damn decisions equals being anti-straight marriage). Hey, I have a TOTALLY PC riddle for you. CAN YOU FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!

A man and his son get into a car accident. The man dies on the scene, but the son is rushed to the emergency room. When they get to the hospital, the surgeon reacts in horror and says "I can't operate on this boy! He's my son!"

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?????

Hint: only the PC progressives can answer this one. It's FORCING OUR PC PRINCIPLES DOWN YOUR THROAT!!!

Ok, so FedSoc is a fucking idiot. Let's focus on the brief, specifically the best part of this brief, from p. 158:

"Unlike socialist law where the interpretation of the law is ultimately political, the United States allocates that responsibility to the legislature."

And he's claiming legal fees despite not passing the bar. This is way better than the million dollar pants case.

7:26, how did a legal GENIUS like this not pass the bar??? This is a travesty!! This is the triumph of the America-hating liberal lefty pinkos!!!!!! There's no other possible reason this brilliant young man could not have passed the bar!!!!!

One of the issues with fundamentalism, of any sort, is it defined inability to adopt and adapt to new information in the paradigm. Whether that is a legal, cultural or any other kind of paradigm.

The belief that marriage is an immutable human 'state' as opposed to a cultural / legal definition is often rooted in certain mainstream religious doctrines that are intolerant of homosexuality.

I can't really accept cultural usage arguments to formally and in perpetuity define a human custom such as marriage, if for no other reason than that history teaches us nothing if it does not teach us that cultures (ours included) change.

The posters that have condemned the actions of the plaintiff could belong to a large range of cultures, classes, ages, wealth bands or even political views.

The posters that have provided succour to the plaintiffs situation (even of they can acknowledge the illegitimacy of his action) are more likely to belong to a smaller range of defining characteristics and will, in my opinion be most tightly grouped accrding to religous views.

Or of course they might still be denying themselves the inevitable.......

So really what i'm saying is.....

If you feel the need to spend time and energy defending an ancient religous custom in terms of modern law, especially when in the specific case the law itself was never in question....

Then the chances are you either follow a religion that is intolerant of homosexuality in a fundamental manner, or you need to admit something to yourself.....or both (like an unseemingly high number of priests of a certain demonimation)

7:01 here. FedSoc, yes that is true. And if you define marriage so that one of the main components of the definition is that it be "a union that can only be entered into between a man and a woman of the same race," then SCOTUS violated our constitutional right to marriage in the Loving decision, particularly since, to that point, marriage was understood to be an interracial enterprise in the States.

7:24, while I am impressed by your use of "hemlocked" I have no idea what you are trying to say. I am aware, for the record, that it is not a mainstream argument to say that homosexual marriage is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. That said, I do believe that none of the premises that leads to this conclusion is particularly "radical".

7:53, marriage has never been understood as "a union that can only be entered into between a man and a woman of the same race." Yes, some states prohibited interracial marriages, and yes, many people disapproved of such marriages, but they never claimed that interracial unions were not marriages. Do you see the distinction?

Howrey’s First-Year Texas Associates Earn $160,000
By Anne K. McMillan

Texas Lawyer

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Washington, D.C.-based Howrey has bumped its starting salaries for first-year associates up to $160,000, effective July 1, Houston managing partner Steve Cagle says. The 635-lawyer firm also is ramping up work on a new merit-based compensation plan that will replace the old lockstep system of providing raises.

“I really love the fact that people are going to be able to make the choice of their own career path,” Cagle says. He notes that the merit-based plan will provide associates with choices they’ve indicated they want — accommodating those who want to bill 2,400 hours per year and make partner as quickly as possible as well as those who want to bill 1,900 hours per year and have a life outside the firm.

In addition, Cagle says, the merit-based system will “place a lot of pressure on the partners in the firm. . . . [It] represents a significant commitment on the part of partnership to get more involved in associate development.”

Focus groups, including several to be held in the 60-lawyer Houston office, outside consultants and the firm’s powers that be are working out factors for the merit-based system, which likely will include criteria such as productivity, quality and entrepreneurship.

Cagle expects the system to be in place by the first of the year.

Fed Soc, my point was that you were being sophistic. The allusion to Socrates was sarcastic, i.e., your logic does not illustrate great depth of thinking.

Sorry to have to put it so bluntly. But "everyone knows what marriage means" does not an argument make, anymore than "everyone knows the earth is flat" proves it to be so.

can we get back to the more important question, and confirm where this winner went to law school!?

7:01 back again. Fed Soc, so we are to base future public policies on what those in previous generations "understood" marriage to mean? Those generations also "understood" that the woman in a straight marriage was subordinate to the man; that married women could not legally own property or sue/be sued in their own names; that a husband could not rape his wife even if she did not consent to sex (for instance). Previous generations understood these three elements to be part and parcel of marriage, and the latter two were legally codified. Does that mean that the only marriages we have a constitutional right to enter into involve these features?

After all, one could state: "marriage was never understood (in Western culture) as a partnership of man and woman with equal legal rights and standing" and it would be a true statement.

7:11: I am personally opposed to gay marriage for the same reasons that (I assume) you opposed to letting two siblings or a man and three women marry: morals. Some things are just wrong and society shouldn't sanction them. Obviously, that leads to the question of who gets to decide what is right and wrong, but that is a different discussion. But if you change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, what prevents marriage from decaying into a completely meaningless institution?

"But if you change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, what prevents marriage from decaying into a completely meaningless institution?"

What prevents marriage from decaying into a completely meaningless institution *anyway*, whether it's between *any* two people, regardless of sex? With today's throwaway marriages and apalling divorce rates (counting *only* heterosexual couples, mind you, since those durn gays ain't allowed to murry anywhur but massachusetts n' all...), it seems to me that the heterosexual community has done just as much to "degrade" the institution of marriage as any other subset of the population.

And honestly, I'm all for arguing your grade with a professor and whatnot, but at least find a valid basis for why you screwed up. And "this test offended me" is a nice way to have your argument tossed onto the fire. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I used to knock homosexuality till I tried it.

The plaintiff's complaint looks more like a brief than a pleading. For example, he argues on the defensive that various doctrines which would preclude his claim do not apply. See paragraphs 82, 87.

His disregard for the notice pleading standard saved the defendants a lot of time on researching their defenses.

Of course the whole thing is an exercise of frivolity, but the equal protection claim seems especially silly. If I were trying to pass the laugh test (and thought that this lawsuit could), I would have clung to the first amendment claim.

Hello

Massachusetts, which allows gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

I guess all those gay people gettin' married must not be doing a very good job of destroying "traditional" marriage - they must be busy with all the other stuff on the homosexual agenda. (Does anyone have an extra copy? I can't seem to find mine.)

you people are strange.

Divorce rate is completely unrelated to the argument. The divorce rate could be 99% and marriage would still be every bit as important to the few that take their marriage vows seriously because nothing would be changing the principles that underlie what it means to be married.

But if the institution of marriage itself is changed from one man and one woman to just two consenting adults (or why not two consenting mammals, or two consenting animated objects; we don't want to leave anyone out as long as what they do doesn't harm us, right?), then you have severely eroded its meaning. If that is what society as a whole wants, then I guess my opinion should give way to that of the majority. But I have a real problem with decisions of such gravity being made by nonelected judges.

But as for the lawsuit, the kid is obviously a loser and the profession is better off with him on the outside. There was more than one fact pattern on the bar exam I found morally objectionable, but that doesn't mean I can't answer a freakin' question.

I think you guys are all missing the point. Believe it or not, the point that he actually has bears no resemblance to the point most of you seem to think he has.

He most likely responded to this question with an argument that the Massachusetts laws allowing homosexual marriage violates the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution.

If he made that argument, defended it reasonably, and correctly explained the consequences of that argument, then his answer is as good as "correct" answer. (Assuming the argument is reasonable and hasn't been rejected by any court yet and he properly explained the consequences of this argument to the facts of the question.)

Essentially, he is arguing that he lost points because he believed that the law was unconstitutional under a reasonable legal theory.

If he in fact presented a well-argued response on a plausible legal theory, his answer is, arguably, correct. He is being penalized for having this view.

The problem is not in the question but in the answers they accept and the scores they give them.

Their decision of the right and wrong answers on the exam reflect their positions on various legal theories. Better legal theories get more points.

7:01/9:53 -- Thanks for finally making a substantive point.

I find your argument far more convincing than the false analogy to interracial marriage. Proponents of the view that recognition of homosexual marriage violates the federal constitutional right to marriage (as opposed to people who, like me, find the argument interesting without being willing to endorse it) would probably distinguish the characteristics of marriage that you mention from the view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman by noting that the later is far more fundamental to the institution of marriage, etc. I don't find this objection all that convincing, seems to me that you have the better argument (see, unlike the liberals, I can admit when I see a better argument for the other side).

At any rate, the argument that recognition of homosexual marriage violates the right to marriage may well be wrong, but I don't think that it is as "extreme" or "radical" as the kind of arguments that left-wingers make every single day in favor of completely made up right.

According to this link, a certain Stephen Dunn attended New England law school

http://www.massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/lawyers-journal/2004/februray/students-revel-in-programs-networking

David, please keep us updated on this goober! Someone said early on that he's going to Wilmer, which seems impossible given how stupid he sounds in the complaint. I hope he realizes he's just seriously compromised his legal career.

There is a special place in hell for anyone who fights against letting a loving, consenting adult couple marry.

7:01, excellent argumentation throughout. Fed Soc., the argument you mention misses the forest for the trees. 7:01 dismantled it by its own methods, but ultimately marriage is about recognizing and affirming the love of two consenting adults, and gay marriage unquestionably furthers that goal. If anything, heterosexual marriage is cheapened for heterosexual couples by the Right's use of it as a political football. Celebrate consensual love instead of fighting it.

As I'm reading this guy's complaint (and thinking, "What an idiot!"), I'm wondering how the debate might change if the facts were different. Consider a rape victim sitting for the bar exam. If she or he had to write an answer in response to a detailed question about a rape (and the defenses available to the rapist), she or he would likely be unable to do it. Would the rape victim have a fair suit against the bar examiners? Probably not. But would I support his or her request to re-take the exam at no cost? Most certainly yes.

This is not to suggest that gay marriage is in any way related to rape. Rather, I wonder about my own bigotry in showing sympathy for the rape victim, whose personal experience may prevent him or her from answering a particular question, as opposed to the anti-gay marriage guy, whose personal beliefs prevent him from responding to the question.

Maybe the real debate here is not whether this guy should have answered the question, but whether he's asking for too much in his complaint!

I took this exam. They also asked us about enemy combatants' rights to a fair trial, and I answered the question despite the fact that I disagree on moral grounds with the current law in this country. Funny thing... I passed.

It's my understanding that he wrote absolutely nothing as an answer. He probably could have written that the marriage between Mary and Jane wasn't "real", answered the question as if they had no marital rights, and still received a high enough score on the essay (1.5 or above, right?) to pass.

Fed Soc 8:01pm: Actually, no, interracial unions were not considered marriages for some time. You just don't understand this point because you live in a time where interracial marriages are legal and generally accepted. I expect this will be the case 100 years from now with gay marriage, as well. As a decendant from an interracial relationship 150 years in the past, I am well acquainted with the difficulties my ancestors faced when they wanted their "marriage" recognized by the state and people like you.

I graduated with this asshole. He deserves never to be admitted in MA, or in any state. This has nothing to do with con law (except for the 1/3 of a point he probably would have received for saying "MA recognizes gay marriage" for purposes of stating the antenuptual agreement is valid (Atleast in NY, a legal marriage must take place in order for a prenup to be valid...i assume the same holds true in MA) He probably could have written something like "Gay marriage is currently valid in MA, but subject to dispute". therefore, he was not required to "affirmatively accept" homosexuality. In any case, THIS WAS A DOM REL QUESTION!!!!
BTW, I failed MA when I took it. I failed to read the Barbri notes...my fault, not the bar examiners. I passed in two other states, when I did study. My classmate needs to get a grip. He could have studied again instead of reading the complaint; but he did fail PA three times.

sorry. I mean he could have studied again instead of DRAFTING the complaint. It was a nice pleasure read, though. Good thing I was drinking a beer at the time.

10:38:

No motherfucking way in hell having a bigoted point of view is REMOTELY comparable to having been raped. A point of view is just that, an OPINION. It's night and day different from a person who has been ROBBED of his or her dignity and personhood through the violence of another being (I won't say "human"). That you think it's simply "academic" to try and compare the two suggests to me you are a bigotry apologist. Rape ruins LIVES. Bigotry can also ruin lives, but usually not those of the bigots, but rather of others.

Next thing you know you'll be comparing the rape victim to a pedophile who thinks laws against pedophilia are wrong, and who therefore has trouble answering the question. What were you smoking that you thought this was a valid analogy to suggest???

David Schwartz -- this would only work if he acknowledged that his opinion has in fact been overruled by the Supreme Court of Massachussetts, which had and has the final word on this subject (i.e., the interpretation of the Massachussetts Constitution). If he wants to waste precious time and space making a pointless political argument, fine, it shouldn't win him any positive points, but I'll agree it shouldn't take away from his score either, assuming he eventually gets around to actually answering the question correctly. But if the ONLY thing he did with his exam was to make a policy argument, he's given an objectively incorrect answer. The bar exam is not law school. It's not an academic exercise, the point is to make sure you know what the law IS. That you can construct a passable argument to support institutionalized bigotry might impress the Family Research Council, but the Bar of Massachussetts doesn't give two shits if you're the next great law professor or solicitor general. All they care about is that you actually KNOW what the law of Massachussetts SAYS. Wasting your time deconstructing law school hypotheticals on the bar exam is your choice, but you can't pretend you didn't know you weren't following the rules when you did so.

Again, the problem for this little dude is that THE LAW IS THAT UNDER THE MASSACHUSSETTS CONSTITUTION, GAY MARRIAGE MUST BE ALLOWED. This is what the law IS. Period. You may disagree with how the law came to BE this way, but, again, NOT THE POINT OF THE BAR EXAM. Anyone who has taken and passed the bar exam will tell you that comparing the bar exam to law school is like comparing the GED to college. It's boiled down to such a level of simplicity that, if you ACTUALLY know the law, you kind of have to try to fail the thing.

If he had an ounce of cleverness to him, he surely could have come up with a way to answer the questions correctly but sarcastically, thus allowing him both to pass the exam and make a point for his "principles." But that's one big "if."

Anonymous 7/5 1:25:

I agree with you, except for two things:

1) I don't think his particular argument has ever been addressed by any court.

2) We don't know what he actually answered to that question.

I was attempting to clarify what his position was and why his particular argument against the law was relevant to his complaint, not agreeing with him.

I will say one other thing, if he deliberately rigged it so this question caused him to fail the bar exam in order to generate an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to litigate a theory he otherwise could not litigate, he's at least a bit of a genius. (Assuming nobody has done that before. Is it possible to get the score that close intentionally?)

You can see a pic of the guy here:
http://www.nesl.edu/students/ELS/events.cfm

You can thank me later Lat

Anyone remember Larry Kramer's last conlaw exam at NYU? Rather than recycle old questions (oops - bad habit) he had one asking for a moral - not legal - argument in favor of gay marriage.

Stanford, you sure picked up a winner.

Obviously this guy is just a bit pissed that he failed the bar. The exam question does not challenge one's religous beliefs... just answer the question.

Essentially, his complaint is that this question forced him to make a legal argument that he had personal moral objections to. But that's exactly what lawyers are often required to do and it's totally reasonable for the bar exam to test this ability.

Dear 3:20 / 4:14 and so on:

So if an actual gay married couple came into this guy's office and told this story (assuming he ever actually passed the bar and became a lawyer) he should listen patiently and then say, "The story you just told could have been illustrated with a man and woman as husband and wife. Could you please change your story to accommodate my prejudices, which have nothing to do with law but just make me uncomfortable?"

The bar examiners are trying to find out whether a person knows how to listen to a client, apply the law to facts, and give proper legal counsel as to the rights and duties of the parties. A competent lawyer can do that even if he doesn't "like" the facts or the clients. Maybe the bar intentionally included this fact pattern to see how people would respond, and those who respond correctly (i.e., be a lawyer) passed, while those who responded incorrectly (i.e., be a moralizing ignorant bigot) did not.

How anyone could be so stupid as to jeopardize his entire career for something so ridiculous and insubstantial (not to mention just plain WRONG) is beyond me. But then, I can't comprehend how a person could hold the views that led to this idiot's failure of the easiest bar exam in the country. Personally, I hope he loses the suit, has to pay the other side's costs, and NEVER becomes a lawyer. He is unfit to practice law.

Also, not sure what dictionary you're using, but here's what dictionary.com says:

mar·ried /ˈmærid/
–adjective
1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.
2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial; conjugal: married happiness.
3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more authentic pieces.
4. interconnected or joined; united.
5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.

Nothing at all about men, women, etc. If you are united in wedlock (which is done under state law in this country), you are "married."

>>>I think you guys are all missing the point. Believe it or not, the point that he actually has bears no resemblance to the point most of you seem to think he has.

He most likely responded to this question with an argument that the Massachusetts laws allowing homosexual marriage violates the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution.

If he made that argument, defended it reasonably, and correctly explained the consequences of that argument, then his answer is as good as "correct" answer. (Assuming the argument is reasonable and hasn't been rejected by any court yet and he properly explained the consequences of this argument to the facts of the question.)<<<

Um, no it's not. Not even close. The deciding factor in whether an answer is correct is not how good it is---it's whether it answers the question that was asked. The question asked about Mary and Jane rights and duties. It did not ask for a policy or constitutional analysis of the issue. If it had, it would have said, "Is the Massachusetts law allowing gay marriage in the public interest? Why or why not?" or "Is the Massachusetts law allowing gay marriage constitutional? Discuss."

The bar exists for one reason and one reason only---to determine whether you can apply law to facts and reach a conclusion that you can explain and defend to a client. That's why they usually don't care if you're off on the law and will give the the vast majority of credit if you get the law wrong but apply it to the facts correctly. They know in real practice you'll look up the law. They don't know whether you can work with a client and apply the law to facts and be an advocate. That's what this question asked for. Dunne gave them a policy analysis, which is about as helpful to the typical client as a bigoted opinion against gay marriage---namely none at all. That's why they didn't credit his answer no matter how "quality" it was. He could have channeled John Marshall, Felix