Comments on: Friggin’ Lawyers?

By: The Blogosphere on the Bar Exam « Not Very Bright

The Blogosphere on the Bar Exam « Not Very Bright — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:35:34 +0000

[...] FITSNews. [...]

By: JD

JD — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:16:41 +0000

No story in the State in two days.. the last one said that the SC Bar had put this issue to rest. I don’t think it has been put to rest, but I wonder if we will see any more articles or coverage.

By: SC Attorney

SC Attorney — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:29:42 +0000

Sorry, I meant to say…

Is it just me or does anyone else think that this scoring error, scriveners error, whatever you want to call it is proof that the new â€œno-appealâ€ system is NOT” more than adequate to safeguard against any grading errorsâ€ as they say in Marchâ€™s order?

By: SC Attorney

SC Attorney — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:27:24 +0000

This is a crying shame. The Supreme Court’s explanation confused the matter even more (how do 21 wrongs make 1 wrong right)? Also, if the Supreme Court was going to throw Wills, Trusts out because “it would only be fair to those others who failed that section, then why not give every test taker who failed an essay a free pass on any essay – that would be more fair. The fact is that the “scoring error” had nothing to do with the actual material or grading manner of wills, trusts, but rather it was a clerical error. Clerical errors could have occurred on any of those essay sections – not just wills, trusts.

Sadly, the reason is that a few privileged kids just happened to fail that particular essay and they were given a free pass, while those who failed only, say the UCC section, will have to retake in February.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that this scoring error, scriveners error, whatever you want to call it is proof that the new “no-appeal” system is “more than adequate to safeguard against any grading errors” as they say in March’s order? That is, if the decision to change the grade truly was due to a scriveners error and not due to favoritism. Either way, the Supreme Court has screwed up. If the change wasn’t for reasons of favoritism, then it was due to a flaw in the grading system that now allows no appeals to grades. How can the Supreme Court tell people with a straight face that appeals are not needed because errors are safeguarded against?

Am I the only one who sees a problem here with there being no appeals process in place for the july test takers who failed and for those who will take the exam in the future?

By: JS

JS — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:19:19 +0000

The system is without honor because the poeple in it do not require honoralbe actions.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. Is SC…it is about each and every lawyers right to be profitable.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:07:25 +0000

Anybody know who “the one” was that supposedly passed when he really failed?

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:04:37 +0000

I thought it was bad enough that the Court was bringing itself down, but now the SC Bar!?!? Argh. Its about-face is shameful. The SC Bar does not speak for me.

By: Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:51:41 +0000

I for one don’t claim to be an attorney, and find the accustion appaling that I have to be an attorney to makejibberish or asinine comments (I can do that with no law school needed) as for this comment though

“I just read one of the other bar stories on here that had about 100 comments following it, most of which were posted during daytime hours”

The one you read had the times the posts were made and not just the calendar date…which post was it?

By: concerned member of the Bar

concerned member of the Bar — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:42:37 +0000

While I like to think that I have a good sense of humor and enjoy a good laugh, I wish this was a laughing matter. It’s sad, and it and the players involved in it are nothing to laugh about. I’ve been lucky enough to be an attorney for more than 30 years, and, like other members of the Bar who can identify with me, I believe the joke is on us. I just don’t feel like laughing.

When I went to law school, the country had just survived Watergate, and lawyers were held in contempt. Polls were taken, and the public ranked attorneys lower than used car salesmen. With the passage of time, I was naive enough to think that attitudes would change. I have always been proud to be an attorney and believed we deserved respect. After all, we’re supposed to be members of an honorable profession. But, some things never seem to change. While we should be working hard to earn and keep public respect, let alone preserve our own self-respect, we abandon our principls and act like amateurs.

Rodney Dangerfield was funny when he said, ” I get no respect.” He laughed at himself, and we all laughed with him. When the SC Bar gets no respect, I don’t think that’s funny, because it’s a bad joke, but the laugh is on us, and we deserve it.

By: Legally Blonde?

Legally Blonde? — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:13:16 +0000

To #32 – Despite the screennames, no these are not attorneys. At least I hope not. No, these are just law students, which I guess really isn’t all that assuring b/c they will be attorneys sometime soon. Although on the bright side – after reading these blog comments, I think my 13 year old is ready for law school.