Is Cornell Law's question 23 in violation of NY HRL 296.16? Forum

[justonequestion]

...

[kalvano]

Yes, you have to tell them.

/thread.

[Matthies]

What the hell did you do, cuase its likley not bad enough to keep you out of law school. And get a alwyer if you want to really challange this. Your not likley the first.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The short answer is: no.

The long answer is: yes.

[MJMD]

Or don't tell them. If by some bizarre circumstance they find out about it during your three years there (highly unlikely), challenge them in court on the very points you've just mentioned. Sure-fire way to demonstrate that you deserve to be there. If you make it through your three years without them finding out (quite probable), they can't rescind your degree.

[Geist13]

"in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual"

Cornell is not using that question to decide your eligibility for licensing, employment, credit or insurance. They give you a degree, which is not a license. They can ask whatever the hell they want, you can choose to tell the truth or to lie.

Even if the New York Bar Association was in violation (which I assure you, they are not), it could easily be argued that they need that information to verify whether or not you lied on your application for admission to law school and that, if discovered, such a lie is sufficient to deem your character unfit to practice law in the state of new york. You're not found unfit to practice because you are a criminal, you are unfit to practice because you are a liar.

[MJMD]

"in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual"

Cornell is not using that question to decide your eligibility for licensing, employment, credit or insurance. They give you a degree, which is not a license. They can ask whatever the hell they want, you can choose to tell the truth or to lie.

Even if the New York Bar Association was in violation (which I assure you, they are not), it could easily be argued that they need that information to verify whether or not you lied on your application for admission to law school and that, if discovered, such a lie is sufficient to deem your character unfit to practice law in the state of new york. You're not found unfit to practice because you are a criminal, you are unfit to practice because you are a liar.

That only applies to the NY Human Rights Law, though; and maybe it's just me, but I can't tell from reading that statute whether it addresses questions related to licensing, employment or provision of credit, or offences related to licensing, employment or provision of credit.

But the NY Criminal Procedure Law seems much more clear and direct, and seems to support an affirmative answer to the OP's hypothetical.

[Geist13]

"in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual"

Cornell is not using that question to decide your eligibility for licensing, employment, credit or insurance. They give you a degree, which is not a license. They can ask whatever the hell they want, you can choose to tell the truth or to lie.

Even if the New York Bar Association was in violation (which I assure you, they are not), it could easily be argued that they need that information to verify whether or not you lied on your application for admission to law school and that, if discovered, such a lie is sufficient to deem your character unfit to practice law in the state of new york. You're not found unfit to practice because you are a criminal, you are unfit to practice because you are a liar.

That only applies to the NY Human Rights Law, though; and maybe it's just me, but I can't tell from reading that statute whether it addresses questions related to licensing, employment or provision of credit, or offences related to licensing, employment or provision of credit.

But the NY Criminal Procedure Law seems much more clear and direct, and seems to support an affirmative answer to the OP's hypothetical.

it states : "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about [...]"

No idea about human rights part. I'm making this up as I go along, really. Mostly to fit my view that OP should suck it up and tell them what he did. I did, didn't hurt me one bit,

[Matthies]

"in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual"

Cornell is not using that question to decide your eligibility for licensing, employment, credit or insurance. They give you a degree, which is not a license. They can ask whatever the hell they want, you can choose to tell the truth or to lie.

Even if the New York Bar Association was in violation (which I assure you, they are not), it could easily be argued that they need that information to verify whether or not you lied on your application for admission to law school and that, if discovered, such a lie is sufficient to deem your character unfit to practice law in the state of new york. You're not found unfit to practice because you are a criminal, you are unfit to practice because you are a liar.

That only applies to the NY Human Rights Law, though; and maybe it's just me, but I can't tell from reading that statute whether it addresses questions related to licensing, employment or provision of credit, or offences related to licensing, employment or provision of credit.

But the NY Criminal Procedure Law seems much more clear and direct, and seems to support an affirmative answer to the OP's hypothetical.

it states : "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about [...]"

No idea about human rights part. I'm making this up as I go along, really. Mostly to fit my view that OP should suck it up and tell them what he did. I did, didn't hurt me one bit,

You are going to be a good lawyer

[kalvano]

ITT - 0L's debate whether or not something is illegal, when the law regarding it was probably written by the very people who will be teaching them how to be a lawyer.

[paratactical]

.

[Matthies]

ITT - 0L's debate whether or not something is illegal, when the law regarding it was probably written by the very people who will be teaching them how to be a lawyer.

nah, law was wirten by legislators, lawyers don't write the laws.

[Geist13]

You are going to be a good lawyer

Well if making things up as I go along is sufficient, it may be that all those years I spent studying philosophy were not a waste.

[Matthies]

So the thought that a highly ranked law school with a long history of dealing with applications might know what they can and can't ask is too much to just accept at face value?

That would take all the fun out of a OL thinking they know more about the law then NY BOLE, the legislators, and the law schools. And we know the only people who think they know the law better than OL's are newly minted 2Ls.

[Matthies]

You are going to be a good lawyer

Well if making things up as I go along is sufficient, it may be that all those years I spent studying philosophy were not a waste.

Tis, and it wasn't

[paratactical]

.

[Matthies]

So the thought that a highly ranked law school with a long history of dealing with applications might know what they can and can't ask is too much to just accept at face value?

That would take all the fun out of a OL thinking they know more about the law then NY BOLE, the legislators, and the law schools. And we know the only people who think they know the law better than OL's are newly minted 2Ls.

Che Guerilla.

[paratactical]

.

[kalvano]

ITT - 0L's debate whether or not something is illegal, when the law regarding it was probably written by the very people who will be teaching them how to be a lawyer.

nah, law was wirten by legislators, lawyers don't write the laws.

Advised then.

[justonequestion]

...

[ArchRoark]

Below is taken from Texas' Expunction Statute... I have personally decided just to go ahead and fully disclose the situation on any apps that ask for it (i.e. those that ask for any charges-->dismissals--->expunctions vs those that only ask for convictions).

Art. 55.03. EFFECT OF EXPUNCTION. When the order of expunction is final:

(1) the release, maintenance, dissemination, or use of the expunged records and files for any purpose is prohibited;

(2) except as provided in Subdivision (3) of this article, the person arrested may deny the occurrence of the arrest and the existence of the expunction order; and

(3) the person arrested or any other person, when questioned under oath in a criminal proceeding about an arrest for which the records have been expunged, may state only that the matter in question has been expunged.

[let/them/eat/cake]

Yes, that thought is too much to accept at face value. If you think about it, the vast majority of cases that reach appellate courts were instigated by individuals who were less knowledgeable about the law than the legislators who wrote them or enforcers.
Just because laws and rules were written by persons more knowledgeable doesn't mean that they are just.

don't get preachy, it doesn't make people want to play with you.

Cornell is not using that question to decide your eligibility for licensing, employment, credit or insurance. They give you a degree, which is not a license.

Really? The way I interpreted "It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless specifically required or permitted by statute, for any person, agency, bureau, corporation or association, including the state and any political subdivision thereof, to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation of such individual... in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual," inquiries into unsustained arrests or criminal accusations constitute unlawful discriminatory practice in every way possible, but acting adversely is only prohibited in cases involving licensing, employment, credit, or insurance. That's usually how 'or' is used as a coordinating conjunction.

i think you are wrong. the poster you quoted was on point: making of inquiries [in any fashion] and acting adversely [in any fashion] constitute unlawful discriminatory practices when done "in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual."

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice . . . to make any inquiry about, whether in any form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation of such individual not then pending against that individual which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such individual . . . in connection with the licensing, employment or providing of credit or insurance to such individual; provided, however, that the provisions hereof shall not apply to the licensing activities of governmental bodies in relation to the regulation of guns, firearms and other deadly weapons or in relation to an application for employment as a police officer or peace officer as those terms are defined in subdivisions thirty-three and thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law.

that being said, the other statutory language seems much more directly on point. haven't done a close read of that one yet though.

[let/them/eat/cake]

also, as ridiculous as it is to dig something like this up, i'm surprised TLS folks--who are prone to pontificating/speculating about pretty much any subject under the sun--wouldn't be at least a little intrigued in something like this. statutory interpretation is fun for the whole family.

[bilbobaggins]

This question comes up at least once a cycle.

The answer is disclose. Even if you're right, do you want to litigate your way into law school?

[paratactical]

.