Oh... holy sh*t... Liberty Law School actually does this? Forum

[flcath]

I was going to post about how I'm surprised they can pull this and still be ABA accredited, but then I remembered InfiLaw. (Side note: if you don't get Biglaw, forget the idea of rounding up some bros and starting your own firm; round up some bros and start your own ABA-approved law school.)

Liberty, apparently, teaches its students to advise clients to violate court orders (LinkRemoved) (euphemistically termed "civil disobedience") enforcing laws that contradict traditional Christian views of marriage. Here's the fact pattern; (LinkRemoved) let me know if I'm missing anything here. Now I'm no flaming lib, but really?

So--honest question here, I swear to God--what does it take to be refused ABA accreditation? Any fellow TLSers interested in joining the faculty of the new Oliver Wendell Holmes Law School (est. 2013) under Dean Flcath?

[Aqualibrium]

Titus 3:1 - Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work...

1 Peter 2:13-17 - Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Mathew 22:21 - Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Romans 13:1-7 - 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Seems like Liberty's actions are a direct contradiction to the faith they claim to follow...

[flcath]

Titus 3:1 - Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work...

1 Peter 2:13-17 - Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Mathew 22:21 - Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Romans 13:1-7 - 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Seems like Liberty's actions are a direct contradiction to the faith they claim to follow...

And you're just using quotes from the Bible.

I bet we could put together a similar list of statements from the American Bar Ass'n.

[traehekat]

Speaking of ridiculous things TTTTs do, I have a friend who told me that students at Cooley can go online and view a list of everyone (by name) who is not only on honor roll and has had some sort of academic achievement, but also students who are on academic probation.

[YankeesFan]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation. They also managed to make gay a choice. WOW.

[The Kid]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation.

They didn´t. They simply transcribed testimony taken from the real case:

"Clinical Therapist Sylvia Haydash, who had two clinical sessions with Isabella and observed her for an hour on another occasion, concluded that the visits were doing serious harm to the child, causing anxiety, renewed bed-wetting, and general psychological regression."

--LinkRemoved--

[xcountryjunkie]

Unlike OP, this doesn't remotely surprise me. I would have suspected nothing less out of Liberty (or similar schools).

[BruceWayne]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation. They also managed to make gay a choice. WOW.

GASP! I mean it's not like people disagree on this! They're a private Christian school and it's within their rights. I'm not sure why people flip out every time Christians express their rights but don't mind when other groups do so. Freedom of speech/religion applies to everyone---not just the groups most popular with fans of Real Time with Bill Mahr.

[zanda]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation. They also managed to make gay a choice. WOW.

GASP! I mean it's not like people disagree on this! They're a private Christian school and it's within their rights. I'm not sure why people flip out every time Christians express their rights but don't mind when other groups do so. Freedom of speech/religion applies to everyone---not just the groups most popular with fans of Real Time with Bill Mahr.

Freedom of speech includes our right to criticize the content of their speech. The content of their speech? Laughable.

[Gideon Strumpet]

Still, some knew what they needed to "regurgitate," in order to get a good grade. "It was obvious by the substance of the class during the semester the answer that they wanted," said one of the students. "The majority of people that I am acquainted with who did get As wrote that because it was expected of them."

Know your judge.

[TheFutureLawyer]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation. They also managed to make gay a choice. WOW.

GASP! I mean it's not like people disagree on this! They're a private Christian school and it's within their rights. I'm not sure why people flip out every time Christians express their rights but don't mind when other groups do so. Freedom of speech/religion applies to everyone---not just the groups most popular with fans of Real Time with Bill Mahr.

Freedom of speech includes our right to criticize the content of their speech. The content of their speech? Laughable.

lol, exactly.

[The Kid]

If it weren´t for Rosa Parks, the blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

[flcath]

The fact pattern says that "Janet engaged in other inappropriate behaviors with Isabella. Isabella began to wet the bed, had nightmares and even tried to harm herself". Those are classic symptoms displayed by children who are victims of sexual abuse. Liberty managed to slip into their law school exam the belief that gay parents will sexually abuse children that are the same orientation. They also managed to make gay a choice. WOW.

GASP! I mean it's not like people disagree on this! They're a private Christian school and it's within their rights. I'm not sure why people flip out every time Christians express their rights but don't mind when other groups do so. Freedom of speech/religion applies to everyone---not just the groups most popular with fans of Real Time with Bill Mahr.

Yeah, well obviously. In fact, most of their opinions about gay marriage actually predominate in America today (i.e., most states don't have it).

Where they're not within their rights is in advising a client to break the law.

[cpajd]

This fact pattern is not really anything to get worked up about for me. If you've had philosophy or even civil rights classes, you may have discussed the tensions between morality and the law that exist at times in history. Whether its framed in scenarios like being a citizen in Nazi Germany or a southern black before civil rights laws were in place, or even a situation where one believes abortion is murder, the questions are basically the same. What do you do when the laws are in conflict with the very core of your morality? What's a lawyer to do? Many people believe that we would draw the line of following the law at some point (think Nazi Germany). Its just about where the appropriate line is. People often have very strong opinions about where their moral limits are, and a question like this is not disconcerting to me at all.

[Gideon Strumpet]

Liberty, apparently, teaches its students to advise clients to violate court orders (LinkRemoved) (euphemistically termed "civil disobedience") enforcing laws that contradict traditional Christian views of marriage. Here's the fact pattern; (LinkRemoved) let me know if I'm missing anything here. Now I'm no flaming lib, but really?

Well, the question reads, "Lisa Miller has asked you for advice, as a friend who is a Christian lawyer"; and "Lisa needs your counsel on how to think through her legal situation and how to respond as a Christian to this difficult legal problem." That's bizarre wording for a law school exam. It does seem to acknowledge on some level that you have a problem, as a matter of professional conduct, if acting as Lisa's lawyer you tell Lisa to violate a court order. And there is a difference between, "I would advise Lisa as my client to defy the court order," and, "I think Lisa should defy the court order, even though she will suffer the penalty."

As a lawyer, assuming Lisa is your client, and she tells you that she is going to violate a court order, you have a duty to inform her of the legal penalties she will face. You cannot help her do it or cover it up, and you cannot tell her how to get away with it. You also cannot tell anyone she told you she is going to do it; unless you are reasonably certain she is going to kill or seriously injure someone in the process (and even then, you don't have a duty to tell anyone; you just can't be disciplined if you decide that you do have to tell).

You can refer to moral as well as legal factors in advising a client. You can help the client make a good faith challenge to a law that the client believes is invalid. And you can argue for overturning an existing law, as long as you have some good faith, nonfrivolous basis for that argument. The rhetoric about "relentless appeals" in the article is a bit silly. They call it an appeal by right for a reason; you have a right to appeal. Clients "relentlessly" appeal decisions every day; it's called exhausting your legal remedies. The appellate courts didn't buy the arguments, but I also don't see anything in there about any court hitting Liberty Counsel with a sanction for frivolous filings.

As a friend . . . well, that part is weird. But there is no rule that says everything taught in law school has to be all about the law. It seems like they're asking whether you think that becoming a lawyer means you stop being a person (insert stupid lawyer joke here). Can you tell Lisa: "That's my legal advice. Now, speaking only as your friend, after prayer and reflection, I believe that as a Christian you have a moral duty to defy this immoral law"? Is a reasonable client in Lisa's position going to understand where you stop being her lawyer and start being her "friend?" Is an ethics committee going to draw that line? I don't know. I do hope you didn't bill her for your time spent praying, and you weren't on the clock (or in your office) when you gave this "friendly" advice.

[gwuorbust]

To Sum Up: Liberty has the right to teach whatever they like. And the ABA has the right to step in and bitchslap them. Too bad the ABA accreditation board is asleep at the wheel.

[vanwinkle]

To Sum Up: Liberty has the right to teach whatever they like. And the ABA has the right to step in and bitchslap them. Too bad the ABA accreditation board is asleep at the wheel.

This.

How the fuck does a law school that teaches disobeying the law stay accredited?

[Gideon Strumpet]

To Sum Up: Liberty has the right to teach whatever they like. And the ABA has the right to step in and bitchslap them. Too bad the ABA accreditation board is asleep at the wheel.

--LinkRemoved--

I don't see anything in there that says a law school cannot be accredited if a professor discusses in class whether civil disobedience is a proper response to an immoral law. It does say you have to teach the rules of professional conduct, at some point, along with a bunch of other stuff like "the law" and "legal writing." It doesn't say that you lose your accreditation if, having done all that, you also add in coverage of purely moral, religious, or political subjects.

[Zapatero]

If this is part of an ethics course, there is a basis in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to counsel a client to violate a law or court order. See Rule 1.2, comment 12.

[gwuorbust]

If this is part of an ethics course, there is a basis in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to counsel a client to violate a law or court order. See Rule 1.2, comment 12.

while I am sure there are times when you can ethically counsel your client to violate the law, I'm gunna take a wild guess that "cause Jesus would have" isn't going to be one of the reasons.

[vanwinkle]

To Sum Up: Liberty has the right to teach whatever they like. And the ABA has the right to step in and bitchslap them. Too bad the ABA accreditation board is asleep at the wheel.

--LinkRemoved--

I don't see anything in there that says a law school cannot be accredited if a professor discusses in class whether civil disobedience is a proper response to an immoral law. It does say you have to teach the rules of professional conduct, at some point, along with a bunch of other stuff like "the law" and "legal writing." It doesn't say that you lose your accreditation if, having done all that, you also add in coverage of purely moral, religious, or political subjects.

This has to be a joke, right? Obeying and upholding the law is not a "purely moral, religious, or political subject". If you are actively teaching people to break the law, you are not properly teaching "the law", and you are not teaching proper "professional responsibility" which includes respecting the rule of law and working within the legal system to reform parts you disagree with instead of acting like you are above it. This doesn't sound like some abstract theoretical to illustrate the rule of law, they appear to be actively teaching students to violate the law, and they should lose their accreditation for that.

[flcath]

To Sum Up: Liberty has the right to teach whatever they like. And the ABA has the right to step in and bitchslap them. Too bad the ABA accreditation board is asleep at the wheel.

This.

How the fuck does a law school that teaches disobeying the law stay accredited?

This was the essence of my disbelief (obviously I'm not surprised the Liberty is anti-SSM).

This isn't some crazy hypo about a Nazi takeover, this is them telling students that court-ordered custody arrangements should be disobeyed if the other parent is a non-Christian and/or homosexual.

They probably also think American taxes are confiscatory. Can they advise clients on how not to get caught while evading them?

[Ipsa Dixit]

You'd think a law school would train students how to avoid malpractice and penalties from the bar.

You'd think.

[Gideon Strumpet]

This doesn't sound like some abstract theoretical to illustrate the rule of law, they appear to be actively teaching students to violate the law, and they should lose their accreditation for that.

Read the fact pattern, and what the students who got A's say they actually wrote. There's a difference between "I would advise my client to disobey a court order" and "I think Lisa should disobey the court order even though she will suffer the penalty of contempt." Discussing whether or not you think a person (who is not a lawyer) should refuse to comply with an immoral law =/= training students to counsel or aid a client to commit a crime.

Also, because someone asked above; this class is apparently called "Foundations of the Law"; it's not (as far as it appears) a class on ethics or PR. If you read what the exam asks, and what students say they wrote, it doesn't suggest that anyone is teaching them to breach the code of professional conduct. Talking about whether you think a person should refuse to obey an immoral law, as a normative question, is a whole other thing from teaching lawyers to counsel a client to commit a crime.

[vanwinkle]

Read the fact pattern, and what the students who got A's say they actually wrote. There's a difference between "I would advise my client to disobey a court order" and "I think Lisa should disobey the court order even though she will suffer the penalty of contempt." Discussing whether or not you think a person (who is not a lawyer) should refuse to comply with an immoral law =/= training students to counsel or aid a client to commit a crime.

Counseling a client to willfully violate a court order == counseling a client to commit a crime.

Beyond that, one of the students who got an A said that their answer was to counsel the woman to violate the court order and flee the country, and that they gave that answer because they knew it was what the professor wanted to hear. Very clearly, that is "training students to counsel or aid a client to commit a crime". Furthermore, it would likely make the lawyer an accomplice in the crime of aiding and abetting a kidnapping, much like the Tennessee pastor who was arrested for doing so.

Do you even read these things before you respond, or do you just say what you think is going on?