Implications of a misconduct warning? Forum

[MC Southstar]

How the hell do you get caught doing that?

The fact pattern is you were awfully imperceptive and careless if you got caught doing something that you knew was against the rules and was also so easily manageable. I can't really tell you the rules behind it though, I think it would helpful to find someone who had the same warning before and see what happened to them.

+1. I know this has happened before. After EVERY test one or two kids post something similar.

At least OP is being up front, but there is simply no excuse or justification - the LSAT tests your ability to answer the questions within the time period, OP cheated and if the answer filled in is correct will get one more point than a person who was ethical. Stuff like this bothers be.

Uhh.. I don't care about the ethics or fairness of the action, I just mean it was dumb to get caught doing something that a lot of people do easily.

[laidoffjournalist]

For what's it's worth, I'm guilty, yes, but it was one of those situations where I had the answer in my head but couldn't bubble it in time, and instead of being overly defiant towards the proctor and bubbling it in while she was telling us to put our pencils down for the third time, I decided to do my bubbling during the second section... fail.

How many questions did you cross bubble? Did you do this immediately? Wait a while? How did she catch you? I'm so curious. It's such a tempting act that seriously fucks you over. Pretty sure you don't get a score.

[bilbobaggins]

The law is also about being able to dispassionately analyze a fact pattern and give advice, despite your personal moral disapproval of whatever conduct is at hand.

My expression that OP made a dumb mistake is entirely rational in origin. It's a mistake that a reasonable person would not have made under those circumstances, especially given the high potential costs of getting caught in that particular situation and the high proctor-to-student ratio. OP's behavior was at least negligent, if not reckless. If phrasing it in "more dispassionate" language makes you feel better about it, I can do that. My point is still the same, either way.

Misconduct during a test is going to look the same as any other kind of ethical violation, which is to say it will give adcomms pause. Given that OP does not have a reasonable explanation that he can give in an addendum to explain it without lying (and that I will not advocate lying to adcomms, one ethical mistake is bad enough already) that's going to create a hole in his application that's going to make top schools question if they want him.

Lower-ranked schools will probably not care quite as much, just based on the inherent fact that there's less competition to get into them and (if OP actually does well on the LSAT) it will be hard for them to attract students of similar achievement that don't have noticeable blemishes on their application. In that case they may take a chance on someone in OP's situation in order to get the boost to their LSAT median, since the numbers game is still a numbers game.

However, for those top-ranked schools that have a strong supply of applicants that have high scores and unblemished records, it's very likely he will not do well at all under these circumstances. They'll simply fill their seats using the thousands of applicants that don't have blatant and unexplainable ethical violations on their record, and either WL or reject him.

OP does have a right of appeal, which might be his only useful recourse at this point. However, I'm not sure what he could say there, especially given that he's already admitted (anonymously) on an internet forum that he actually committed the misconduct. Perhaps he could play the "traffic ticket" game and hope they just don't have the proper evidence to uphold the finding, and be forced to dismiss it.

Otherwise, it says clearly on the main page for LSAT irregularities that there is no intent requirement for misconduct or irregularities, and claiming it was an "honest mistake" is not a defense. Strict liability means that as long as they accept the evidence that he did it, he can do nothing about it, it sticks. I don't think he has any real options here, he's already made the choice that would've affected the outcome in any meaningful way.

Is that dispassionate enough for you?

Who is he negligent towards? Himself? So he'd pay damages to himself?

[vanwinkle]

Who is he negligent towards? Himself? So he'd pay damages to himself?

Negligence is a criminal law standard as well as a tort law standard. I meant to imply that he was morally culpable for his actions and this was why I referred to what he did as a "dumb mistake". Later I clarified that under the actual LSAT rules they apply strict liability to intent for misconduct violations, so it doesn't actually matter either way.

[misformafia]

How the hell do you get caught doing that?

The fact pattern is you were awfully imperceptive and careless if you got caught doing something that you knew was against the rules and was also so easily manageable. I can't really tell you the rules behind it though, I think it would helpful to find someone who had the same warning before and see what happened to them.

+1. I know this has happened before. After EVERY test one or two kids post something similar.

At least OP is being up front, but there is simply no excuse or justification - the LSAT tests your ability to answer the questions within the time period, OP cheated and if the answer filled in is correct will get one more point than a person who was ethical. Stuff like this bothers be.

Uhh.. I don't care about the ethics or fairness of the action, I just mean it was dumb to get caught doing something that a lot of people do easily.

Okay, but I guess what I was trying to say, besides expressing my personal anger lol, is that it's going to be hard for OP to justify his/her actions to a school. There are tons of threads about "oh, I was just tapping my pencil on the bubble sheet and the proctor thought I was writing" or "I accidentally turned to the wrong section" etc. This is just blatant cheating.

[bilbobaggins]

Who is he negligent towards? Himself? So he'd pay damages to himself?

Negligence is a criminal law standard as well as a tort law standard. I meant to imply that he was morally culpable for his actions and this was why I referred to what he did as a "dumb mistake". Later I clarified that under the actual LSAT rules they apply strict liability to intent for misconduct violations, so it doesn't actually matter either way.

Yes, and there was no crime committed.

[vanwinkle]

so you feel that an enfraction of this sort is not as forgivable as an applicant with a view substance violations (dui's, pot, whatever)?

general consensus is these things are forgivable, no? but filling in a bubble on I when testing in II means auto-WL/Reject?

Trying to remain in "dispassionate lawyer" speak... It doesn't really matter what I believe, I'm merely trying to express what I believe the actual outcome will be. I do believe that (especially since strict liability is applied to these violations) there is an obviously strong desire for deterrence against cheating by both LSAC and the law schools that rely on the test results, and that desire for deterrence means a strong and blunt response to people who are perceived to violate that standard.

The other difference between what OP did and situations like DUIs or pot possessions is those are usually forgivable because they're usually portrayed as things you did before you decided to try to become a lawyer, and you've grown and matured since that offense. The more time and maturity between your prior criminal offense and your application to law school, the more they're going to be willing to overlook it. Taking the LSAT is always going to be something you do after you've made a decision to go to law school.

What schools are looking for is not necessarily a clean criminal/ethical history but evidence that you are currently mature and prepared to take on the responsibilities of the legal profession. Misconduct after you've decided to pursue a legal obligation and accept its moral and ethical obligations is probably about the worst thing you can do given that.

[vanwinkle]

Who is he negligent towards? Himself? So he'd pay damages to himself?

Negligence is a criminal law standard as well as a tort law standard. I meant to imply that he was morally culpable for his actions and this was why I referred to what he did as a "dumb mistake". Later I clarified that under the actual LSAT rules they apply strict liability to intent for misconduct violations, so it doesn't actually matter either way.

Yes, and there was no crime committed.

I was analogizing in order to explain why I felt objectively justified in calling what he did a ... oh, nevermind. It's not worth it, I should be asleep now.

[bilbobaggins]

Who is he negligent towards? Himself? So he'd pay damages to himself?

Negligence is a criminal law standard as well as a tort law standard. I meant to imply that he was morally culpable for his actions and this was why I referred to what he did as a "dumb mistake". Later I clarified that under the actual LSAT rules they apply strict liability to intent for misconduct violations, so it doesn't actually matter either way.

Yes, and there was no crime committed.

I was analogizing in order to explain why I felt objectively justified in calling what he did a ... oh, nevermind. It's not worth it, I should be asleep now.

BERKELEY WINS.

[dextermorgan]

Cudos for manning up, but you deserve the consequences you get.

[superserial]

Cudos for manning up, but you deserve the consequences you get.

admitting that you cheated on the LSAT via anonymous internet message board = manning up?

[MC Southstar]

Cudos for manning up, but you deserve the consequences you get.

admitting that you cheated on the LSAT via anonymous internet message board = manning up?

Yes. TLS is just that important.

[monkeyboy]

"OP is not a morally bad person because he bubbled in an answer in sec. I while testing for sec. II, that would be absurd."

I know, right? you gotta love the soapbox preachers on this one though. Come on, the guy made a mistake. Maybe it will hurt him, maybe not.

[superserial]

OP is not a morally bad person because he bubbled in an answer in sec. I while testing for sec. II, that would be absurd.

too bad law schools don't care.

[superserial]

OP is not a morally bad person because he bubbled in an answer in sec. I while testing for sec. II, that would be absurd.

too bad law schools don't care.

i dont follow. law schools dont care about the morality of candidates?

no. they don't care that relatively minor violations of academic integrity (bubbling after time was called) might have less bearing on a person's morality than something like DUIs.

[bartleby]

It is bad I guess but I can't figure out how you got caught. I know somebody who knew somebody who cross-erased because he was feeling paranoid that his erasures weren't complete enough and didn't get caught. I heard that person did not bubble though.

Ultimately though, I think it is a really stupid risk. If you're just bubbling in random answers first: you might not get any right. second, you're wasting time on your next section. third, you're worried as hell cause you know what you are doing is wrong. this could impact you on your first 5 questions of the section you should be working on. fourth, you might get caught.

what's done is done. take the LSAT again, explain very plainly and own up to it. it isn't like OP tried to slip an LSAC official $5000 for answers. he freaked out. people get over things like this.

[L-AWS]

i hate to sound self righteous, but just to play a devil's advocate of sorts.....duis don't really bring one's integrity into question. therefore, it is a pretty weak analogy.

Did anyone not laugh at this?

Integrity, plain and simple, is "the quality of being honest and having strong moral/ethical principles; moral/ethical uprightness".

Having an understanding of ethics, and then use those ethics in practice, would lead someone to follow the principle that one must not engage in activity that has the potential to be detrimental to others.

I see no difference, as far as ethics go, between cross-bubbling and DUI's. Both are a clear diversion from those principles. While you shouldn't spend a night in jail for it, it is nonetheless still a black and white matter.

As far as your future, as others have posted, I wouldn't worry about admission to a reputable school and eventually bar passage. Write a good addendum and get in touch with the Dean (Admissions Director) at the school you're applying and lay it all out briefly and you'll set yourself up for the best opportunity for admittance.

I wish you the best.

[theBUMP]

I have a similar question which I should preface with the fact that I have not intention of going to any of the top 30-40 schools. I was auto dismissed by my proctor before the test was even administered because I had mechanical pencils and I forgot to leave my cell phone outside of the room even though I had it turned off. I am not here to discuss fault or blame because clearly this was all a result of my own negligence in not thoroughly reviewing the rules on prohibited items. But when she started saying that we couldn't have those items period I handed them over well in advance of the test being administered but was still dismissed.

Should I even bother trying to retake in this case? I can't really find any information on LSAC or any of the main pages for the schools I am interested in. The funny thing is I got an e-mail from a guy I had studied with after the exam who told me I wasn't the only one with my cell phone, that I was just the only one who tried to do the right thing and be honest about it.

In this case I feel trying to be a person of integrity may have screwed me over.

[Duralex]

Is that dispassionate enough for you?

Yep, that was good. Not only was it dispassionate but it covered the 'advice' part, which was probably the stronger complaint of the two--not much advice in the firing squad picture, etc. (I wasn't just talking to you.)

The facts don't look good , and I'm not nearly as familiar with the workings of LSAC and adcomms as most people around here but I really wouldn't worry about the bar so far as something like this goes. It will be at least three plus years behind you when you need to get a license. People who have their licenses pulled for misconduct as lawyers get them back faster than that. For those that think a DUI conviction doesn't raise serious ethical questions--at least as serious as a test infraction--then you've been analyzing LR questions too long. They don't have to be perfectly parallel.

[Duralex]

The other difference between what OP did and situations like DUIs or pot possessions is those are usually forgivable because they're usually portrayed as things you did before you decided to try to become a lawyer, and you've grown and matured since that offense. The more time and maturity between your prior criminal offense and your application to law school, the more they're going to be willing to overlook it. Taking the LSAT is always going to be something you do after you've made a decision to go to law school.

What schools are looking for is not necessarily a clean criminal/ethical history but evidence that you are currently mature and prepared to take on the responsibilities of the legal profession. Misconduct after you've decided to pursue a legal obligation and accept its moral and ethical obligations is probably about the worst thing you can do given that.

This is conjecture, and it happens to be incorrect, at least as life beyond admissions is concerned. I am personally friends with people who went to T20 schools, got DUIs while in law school, and had to go hat in had before the bar when it came time to be licensed. Not only did they get licensed, they were hired at top (and I mean TOP) Biglaw firms and later went on to prominent clerkships.

Similarly, low-level academic dishonesty incidents in law school that do not result in expulsion are not going to result in denial of a license if you graduate and pass the bar--as the professor in my family has had happen with students that try and falsify attested turn-in times, etc.

The conduct of someone who isn't even a law student yet is going to be held to a lesser standard.

Again--this is just regarding the bar. It's possible that adcomms might hang you out to dry--aspirants are the only category they deal with and you've given them a good reason to discard you at a time that they need every reason they can find to winnow down their pools.

[Forcier]

I have a question that came up on a practice test and I don't know how you're supposed to handle it on the real test.

I was working on section three and had about two minutes left with one problem to go so I decided to wait on the last problem to bubble EVERYTHING in on that section and then come back to the question. Somehow I managed to bubble in section four instead of three and realized it as I was finishing up bubbling.

My questions are
a) Have I done anything wrong yet since I bubbled outside my section even though we haven't done that section yet?

b) what do I do from here?

Since I like to PT under game time conditions I rebubbled section three and finished that last problem but didn't have time to erase section four's bubbles. When section four started I started erasing like a madman. Seems like this would be legit.

[Duralex]

I think it's a little grey, but I would tend to agree. One possible concern would be that you were storing some kind of illicit information there earlier on (I can't imagine what, but I'm thinking schematically.) In terms of what you're allowed to mark when, marking a later section is obviously the most forgivable error--it can't be advantageous in terms of scoring--and erasing it after the section begins is obviously permitted by the letter of the test rules.

[hiero]

It can't be good and I know most of us are potential lawyers, but the idea of "OMG a lawyer is dishonest" seems kinda strange to me. I would think universities primarily wouldnt like it primarily because it shows if u couldn't cheat u would a got a lower score

[maebysurely]

I have a similar question which I should preface with the fact that I have not intention of going to any of the top 30-40 schools. I was auto dismissed by my proctor before the test was even administered because I had mechanical pencils and I forgot to leave my cell phone outside of the room even though I had it turned off. I am not here to discuss fault or blame because clearly this was all a result of my own negligence in not thoroughly reviewing the rules on prohibited items. But when she started saying that we couldn't have those items period I handed them over well in advance of the test being administered but was still dismissed.

Should I even bother trying to retake in this case? I can't really find any information on LSAC or any of the main pages for the schools I am interested in. The funny thing is I got an e-mail from a guy I had studied with after the exam who told me I wasn't the only one with my cell phone, that I was just the only one who tried to do the right thing and be honest about it.

In this case I feel trying to be a person of integrity may have screwed me over.

Explain to schools why you were dismissed. Retake in Feb, if you want to keep the study momentum going. If the schools you're applying to won't take the feb exam, I'd take it in June -it's an afternoon test, and it's disclosed, so in my opinion June > Feb.

This is so annoying. How anyone can cheat with a mechanical pencil is beyond me. That said, SEVERAL people had them when I took it. At least four from my front view point alone. Who know how many behind me and off to the side. Also, a cell phone went off during the test. Ugg-boots-Girlie was not dismissed. Meanwhile, I get yelled at for having a stray mark. (I circled numbers on the scantron, because I skipped them and wanted a reminder to go back.) AAAAND I left my coat in the car, because I had forgot that it had a hood when i left the house. And was FREEZING in the room, and everyone had ski caps and stupid hoodies on.

WHATEVER!

[DareLG]

Hey all,

During the test today, I received a misconduct warning for filling in answers in Section I during testing for Section II. I wasn't dismissed from the testing center or anything, and was only given the level 1 warning (out of 3 possible levels.) However, my proctor couldn't really tell me what this might mean for my score, and having subsequently consulted the LSAC website, I can't really tell either. Does anyone have any idea what might happen in this situation?

For what's it's worth, I'm guilty, yes, but it was one of those situations where I had the answer in my head but couldn't bubble it in time, and instead of being overly defiant towards the proctor and bubbling it in while she was telling us to put our pencils down for the third time, I decided to do my bubbling during the second section... fail.

If anyone knows anything, I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks

Are you a wuss?