Would you be in favor of a psychopath test for bar admissions? Forum

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Locked

Would you be in favor of a psychopath test for bar admissions?

Yes
1
33%
No
2
67%
Not sure
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 3

Anonymous User
Posts: 431118
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Would you be in favor of a psychopath test for bar admissions?

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:38 am

In another thread, someone wondered if they should avoid Boise in light of Weinstein (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... hical.html ) and Theranos (Theranos would have rolled out defective bloodtests to thousands of drug stores, seriously endangering lives, if a reporter didn't stop them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOi8-tM1gvQ Boise was Theranos's law firm.)

The responses were below. No one cared about rape or life-endangering fraud. They were more interested in office sizes. A $1,500 a month rent 150sq foot office was more important than rape and human lives. Am I alone in thinking these people should not be lawyers?

If this is the state of the profession then thank God for the press because they're the only ones protecting justice.
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!
I would be more concerned about the rumors of bullpens for associates in their new office. Not joking, I would literally be more concerned about that because the stuff you mentioned is nothing and bullpens is a huge deal.
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I received an offer from BSF a couple weeks ago and really like the people and the work they do (most of it...) but am concerned with the firm for obvious reasons. How much do people think the Weinstein stuff (and to a lesser extent the Theranos stuff) is reason to avoid the firm? Further, is there a likelihood that being associated with the firm at this point could negatively impact future positions measurably more so than other firms?

Thanks for your input!
I would be more concerned about the rumors of bullpens for associates in their new office. Not joking, I would literally be more concerned about that because the stuff you mentioned is nothing and bullpens is a huge deal.
I second this. I cannot imagine having to work in a bullpen. Having your own office is a life saver
Anonymous User wrote:I heard the new office is absolutely stunning with free breakfast/lunch and barrista on site. Its supposed to be flexible and hip like Google, not a bull pen. As to the Weinstein stuff, no firm is a saint. Weinstein was just a hot story this year and unfortunately bsf got wrapped up in it. It shows that bsf gets Hugh profile work. I don’t think anyone worth your time is going to judge you for going to bsf.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431118
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Would you be in favor of a psychopath test for bar admissions?

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:38 am

The Weinsteins and Asia Argentos of the world unfortunately happen from time to time. Bullpens are institutional decisions based purely on millionaires being greedy and should not be tolerated. I think the responses were quite appropriate and that office set up should really be dealt with harshly.

Anonymous User
Posts: 431118
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Would you be in favor of a psychopath test for bar admissions?

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:45 am

Anonymous User wrote:The Weinsteins and Asia Argentos of the world unfortunately happen from time to time. Bullpens are institutional decisions based purely on millionaires being greedy and should not be tolerated. I think the responses were quite appropriate and that office set up should really be dealt with harshly.
So it's OK if a "greedy" "millionaire" puts money in his pocket by:
• Helping Harvey Weinstein continue his rapes
• Helping Theranos put countless lives at risk

But if they put money in their pocket by putting Associates in a bullpen that "should not be tolerated" and "really be dealt with harshly." (Side note, helping a client commit crimes is against the rules of professional conduct. Lawyers are allowed to break even attorney-client privilege to stop their client from putting lives in danger and committing crimes. There's no professional conduct rule about your associates' office size.)

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think there are credible tests to spot psychopaths. My question is should these tests be a prerequisite for bar admissions.

Locked

Return to “Legal Employment”