Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Monday, March 31, 2008

Student Who Drops Out Does Not Have Any Remedy Under The IDEA

10thcir_2  Garcia v. Board of Education, ___F.3d___ (10th Cir. March 25, 2008), is an important special education decision. The 10th Circuit held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying a student a remedy under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) based on the equitable considerations that she had dropped out of school, had demonstrated an unwillingness to return to school, and could receive the services she sought simply by re-enrolling in school. The denial of a remedy did not hinder the student's access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), and thus accorded with the IDEA's purpose of providing a FAPE to all disabled children. Furthermore, because an award of relief just in case the student would change her mind would be wasteful. Additionally, the denial of a remedy accorded with the IDEA's purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.

This decision is lengthly and well worth a read.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 31, 2008 in Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Importance of State Disability Law in Employment Discrimination

Gaffney v. Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2008) (registration required) is an important decision because it highlights how narrow the definition of a disablity is under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also highlights the importance of state law and how state law, in this case New York, can cover a disability that the ADA does not.

A New York District Court held that an employee's diabetes did not constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), even though he said it caused fatigue and that he might fall asleep without warning for five or ten minutes. He testified that his diabetic condition did not affect any major life activities, including his ability to work, and that only his eating habits were affected. However, his diabetes was a disability under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHR), in that it was a medical impairment resulting from a physiological condition that had been diagnosed and medically accepted.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 31, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

2d Holds That Pro Se Waived Right To Object To Magistrate's Order

2dcircseal Caidor v. Onondaga Co., ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2008), is an important decision which lawyers and researchers should be aware of. The Second Circuit held that a terminated employee alleging race discrimination waived his right to appeal a magistrate judge's order denying a motion to compel discovery and entering a protective order on behalf of the employer. This was because plaintiff failed to object within 10 days as required by FRCP.

What is extremely significant about this decision is that plaintiff was appearing pro se and court's normally go out of their way to accommodate them. However, with respect to non-dispositive motions pro se litigants are required to comply with procedural rules-at least where the rule is readily apparent such as when it is the FRCP. As the court stated:

This Circuit makes certain
allowances for pro se litigants. We recognize that the
right to appear pro se “should not be impaired by harsh
application of technical rules,” and therefore we “make
reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from
inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their
lack of legal training.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95
(2d Cir. 1983). Nonetheless, “pro se litigants generally
are required to inform themselves regarding procedural rules
and to comply with them.” Edwards v. INS, 59 F.3d 5, 8 (2d
Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); see also Lucas v. Miles, 84
F.3d 532, 538 (2d Cir. 1996) (Jacobs, J., dissenting) (“The
concept of ‘sixty days’ can be understood and appreciated
without a legal education. (One would have to be a lawyer
to believe that ‘sixty days’ is an elusive concept.)”).
“[T]his is not a case where a pro se litigant has
stumbled into a snare found only in our case law.” LoSacco
v. Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995). If Caidor had
consulted the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applicable to
Magistrate Judge Peebles’s order, it “would have informed
[him] of the potential waiver of appellate review.” Small,
In the Southern District of New York, pro se
litigants are given a manual that advises, “If you do not
object to the Magistrate Judge’s order within that ten (10)
day period, you may not later object to the order.” Manual
for Pro Se Litigants Appearing Before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
available at
show.php?db=forms&id=71. The Northern District of New York
might consider supplementing its pro se manual with a
similar express warning about the risk of appellate waiver.
892 F.2d at 16.1 Where, as here, reading the applicable
rule will warn a pro se litigant of the consequences of
filing an untimely objection, we see no need to require that
the magistrate judge inform the litigant of an appeal waiver
provision. Accordingly, we hold that a pro se litigant who
fails to object timely to a magistrate’s order on a non-
dispositive matter waives the right to appellate review of
that order, even absent express notice from the magistrate
judge that failure to object within ten days will preclude
appellate review.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 31, 2008 in Discrimination Law, Legal Research, Misc., Legal | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Passwords and the Fifth Amendment

Passwords and the Fifth Amendment is a very interesting March 11, 2008 New York Law Journal article By Ken Strutin (registration required). He discusses the leading cases concerning wall safes and alike and cites to some recent cases involving passwords. Query whether passwords will be treated differently than other matters. The article states:

We are cautioned to create undecipherable passwords and pin numbers to protect our privacy, identity and property. On the flip side, these protections may be put to the test in a criminal investigation.

Until recently, the Fifth Amendment provided guidance in responding to demands for keys to lock boxes and combinations for safes. Now suspects are being asked to disclose information that will access computer hard drives and open encrypted files. How far will the Constitution protect the right against self-incrimination in light of increasingly sophisticated means of securing computer contents?

Secret writing is as old as writing itself, underscoring the longstanding interest in the privacy of communications and records. Even those early Americans who conceived and ratified the constitutional protection against self-incrimination lived through an era of ciphers and codes spawned by the Revolutionary War.

Now, the steady evolution of electronic privacy measures is leading us into new territory and new interpretations of that constitutional protection.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 31, 2008 in Law Review Ideas, Misc., Legal | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Employee Permitted To Maintain Breach of Contract (The CBA) Action Subject To State Contract Statute of Limitations

Dccir Cephas v. MVM, Inc., ___F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. March 28, 2008), is an important labor law case arising under Section 301, 29 U.S.C. 1985. The case demonstrates an often overlooked aspect of labor law. Specifically, individuals can bring breach of contract actions in federal court where they allege that the collective bargaining agreement has been breached.

However, if the CBA contains an arbitration clause, they must arbitrate their claim and cannot proceed directly in court. More accurately, the union, as a party to the contract, is generally who must invoke arbitration unless the union breached its duty of fair representation.

Unfortunately, the court did not review fully these principles of law. It narrowed the issue before it as to what was the appropriate statute of limitations. The court corrrectly held that since this was not a hybrid case alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation (which carrys with it a 6 month statute of limitations), the longer state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions applies.

For those interested, I discussed these issues in much greater detail in my law review article entitled  Assignment of labor Arbitration, 81 St. John's L. Rev. 41 (2007).   

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hat Tip: Workplace Prof Blog

March 30, 2008 in Labor Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Virtual Property And The Law

Where the Law Stands on Virtual Property is a very interesting March 28, 2008 New York Law Journal article by Shari Lewis. The article points out that on-line virtual worlds are increasing popular, particularly with gamers. The article also points out that there have been a number of court cases involving the business aspects of virtual property. However, none of the cases directly deal with legal issues concerning something that occurred in the virtual world. This may, however, not be too far off. As the article concludes:

Future litigation over virtual world property is likely to be as diverse as litigation in real-life courts is today. For instance, one can imagine that well-known avatars, such as Anshe Chung, who claims to be the first online personality to achieve a net worth exceeding $1 million in a virtual world, might assert property rights in their avatars including the right of publicity and perhaps the right of privacy that would limit the ability of others to use those avatars in virtual worlds (and even in real life).

Additionally, real-life corporations may have to take steps to protect their property rights in virtual worlds to ensure that they are not misused -- to the possible detriment of their real-life assets.

Not too long ago, the Internet was not something considered in corporate strategic plans and concerns over legal issues involving the Web were easily dismissed. It certainly seems likely that virtual world property, and legal issues that it will engender, may become just as significant to businesses in the near future as the Web is today.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


March 30, 2008 in Misc., Legal | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

5 Myths About No Child Left Behind

5 Myths About No Child Left Behind is an interesting March 30, 2008 Washington Post article. The article discusses the following "myths:"

1. No Child Left Behind is an unprecedented extension of federal control over schools.

2. No Child Left Behind is egregiously underfunded.

3. Setting academic standards will fix U.S. schools.

4. The standardized testing required by No Child Left Behind gets in the way of real learning.

5. Certified teachers are better than non-certified teachers.

The No Child Left Behind statute is up for reauthorization this year so we are likely to hear more about it in coming months.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 30, 2008 in Education Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New York's Passenger Bill of Rights Preempted

2dcirseal Air Transportation Association v. Cuomo, __F3d. ___(2d Cir. March 25, 2008) is an important preemption case. New York enacted a Passenger Bill of Rights because of long delays in airports. The statute provided:

Whenever airline passengers have boarded an
aircraft and are delayed more than three hours on the
aircraft prior to takeoff, the carrier shall ensure that
passengers are provided as needed with:
(a) electric generation service to provide temporary
power for fresh air and lights;
(b) waste removal service in order to service the
holding tanks for on-board restrooms; and
c) adequate food and drinking water and other
refreshments. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 251-g(1). The law also requires all carriers to display
consumer complaint contact information and an explanation of these rights. Id.
§ 251-g(2).

In a well reasoned opinion, the court held:

We hold that requiring airlines to provide food, water, electricity, and
restrooms to passengers during lengthy ground delays does relate to the service
of an air carrier and therefore falls within the express terms of the ADA’s
preemption provision. As a result, the substantive provisions of the PBR,
codified at section 251-g(1) of the New York General Business Law, are

What I finding interesting about this case is not the legal analysis. Indeed, it is hard to argue with the court's rationale that part of the purpose in enacting airline degregulation legislation was to, well deregulate airlines. However, how can airlines fight the idea that one of their customers who is faced with a long delay is entitled to food and a clean rest room. What kind of business decision is that? Notice how none of the airlines are named plaintiffs. Rather, their trade association gets to play "bad cop."

Congratulations airline industry. Maybe its time to bring back the regulations.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 30, 2008 in New York Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

interesting perspective on newspapers versus the web

Steve Bailey, one of the Boston Globe's business columnists wrote a very interesting piece last week.  It is a heartfelt piece in which he thanks his readers (I think he is either taking a buyout or retiring).  To me the column poses issues of the print media versus the web.  These issues range from serious economic ones to roles in investigative journalism, etc.  I think there is a place for both.   I love reading the newspaper (I try to at least skim through several each day) and find it absolutely essential in my job.  But the web has provides incredible opportunities for enriching the classroom, expanding legal research potential and building community (like this blog!).  I do think that it is important as we work with students to help them be critical in their thinking (junk appears both in print and on-line).


March 30, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times Supreme Court Reporter Linda Greenhouse Returns To Yale Law School

Linda Greenhouse, the well known U.S. Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times has joined the faculty (well sort of) of Yale Law School. A Press Release provides:

Pulitzer Prize-winning legal writer Linda Greenhouse will return to Yale Law School in January 2009 as the Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow.

In that capacity, she will advise on the framing and development of the new Yale Law School Law and Media Program ( LAMP ), teach and participate in various Law School activities, including Yale Law School’s Supreme Court Clinic. She will also work on her own research about the Supreme Court and constitutional law.

Greenhouse has covered the U.S. Supreme court for The New York Times for the past 30 years, and has received many prizes in journalism, including the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Her biography of Justice Harry Blackmun, “Becoming Justice Blackmun,” was published in 2005 and named a New York Times Book Review notable book.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 29, 2008 in Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney to Speak at Univ. of Baltimore School of Law April 8

AFL-CIO President Sweeney is scheduled to speak at the Univeristy of Baltimore School of Law on April 8 2007 at 4 pm. The event is free and open to the public. This is the first time I have heard of President Sweeney speaking at at law school. This is welcomed news.  The School's Press Release describes the event as follows:

Sweeney will discuss the current state of organized labor, and consider the prospects of some industries that appearing to be gaining new momentum in a changing global economy, such as steel and energy. Russian steelmaker OAO Sverstal's plan to buy Baltimore's Sparrows Point steel mill and increase its output to maximum volume is an example of a labor issue that some might not have predicted just a few short years ago. Demands for new sources of energy are leading to similar questions about organized labor's role in matters that touch on geopolitics and environmentalism. Clearly, these issues reflect new frontiers for organizations like the AFL-CIO.

Sweeney's talk will launch the School of Law's newest lecture series, "Leaders in Labor." This annual event will bring a speaker to the School of Law each spring to discuss issues relevant to the American labor market. "Leaders in Labor" will be free and open to the public.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 29, 2008 in Law Schools, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, March 28, 2008

Are Some Law Schools Starting To Panic Over U.S. News Law School Rankings??

Above The Law has an interesting story about how a number of law school deans have already sent out letters to students telling them not to be concerned with their ranking. It reports that some schools are "flipping out." The Dean letters and accompanying student comments make an interesting read. They also further my point.

Whether you like them or not, the U.S. News and World Report rankings are hear to stay and they do and will have an influence on which students choose a particular school. They will also influence faculty employment and law review placement decisions.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein


March 28, 2008 in Law Schools, Rankings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

White News Anchor Looses Reverse Discrimination Case

A March 17, 2008 Findlaw publication ran an interesting story entitled White News Anchor Let Go for Performance, Not Color which is about a discrimination case brought by a white news anchor after he was replaced by a black newscaster. Although the news station admitted that it used subjective criteria in deciding to terminate the plaintiff, the plaintiff was unable to show that criteria was a pretext for racial discrimination.

The case is Hicks v. KNTV Television, __Cal. App. 4th __ (6th App. Dist. March 5, 2008).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 28, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Free Legal Research and Updated Links

Adjunct Prof Blog updated our legal research as well as our blog role. Just check out the left side of this blog. My goal is to develop a free legal research type of portal that lawyers, profs and others can use. If you any recommended additions, please post a comment. Remember comments will not appear immediately as I must first approve them.
Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 28, 2008 in Legal Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 27, 2008

U.S. News 2009 Law School Rankings Are Out!

The U.S. News and World Reports 2009 Law School Rankings are available here. This years free version provides a bit more detail than previous versions. Specifically, the number of students and the law school tutition is listed which enable limited comparisions. There is also a search function.

Flawed as they are, reality is that everyone goes buy them. So, if your deciding on which law school to attend, you should look at them. They are not everything. There is also not much difference from a school ranked 56th or 58th, but there may be a difference between a school ranked 58 and school ranked 12th.

Students should also look at the other ratings that are out there. However, as I have said many times, the most important thing a student should do is to carefully go over the school catalog. Does the school offer the classes the student is interested in? How is the location? What about scholarships and job placement rates? Does one school have a higher bar passage rate every year? The student also should visit the school, kick the tires and try to get a "feel" where he or she will feel most comfortable. 

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 27, 2008 in Law Schools, Rankings | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Fingerprinter Scanners Are Starting To Replace Time-Clocks

There is a very interesting March 27, 2008 AP article entitled Fingerprint Scans Replace Clocking In which documents the increasing use of fingerprint scanners instead of time clocks. As the article states:

  It's happening at Dunkin' Donuts, at Hilton hotels, even at Marine Corps bases: Employees are starting and ending their days by pressing a hand or finger to a scanner that logs the precise time of their arrival and departure, and the information is automatically reflected in payroll records.

Manufacturers say these biometric devices improve efficiency and streamline payroll operations. Employers big and small buy them with the dual goals of keeping workers honest and automating outdated record-keeping systems that rely on paper time sheets.

The problem with time clocks is, of course, there is no way to prove who actually pushed the clock. Time clock entries are also often difficult to read. However, are there any legal issues with this? Would it be an invasion of privacy for an employer to have the employee's fingerprint? I think not, but do others have any comments?

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 27, 2008 in Employment Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

'Outing' of Lesbian Co-Worker Violated Office Harassment Policy

Here is a new twist to employment discrimination and sexual harassment.  A California Court holds that an employee could be fired for outing a lesbian in violation of company policy. That article, which appeared in a March 17, 2008 Findlaw publication describes the case as follows:

An employee who violated company policy against sexual harassment by "outing" a lesbian co-worker was properly fired for this and other transgressions of company rules, a California appeals court has decided.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff Shelley Bell's argument that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about legitimate problems in the office.

Instead, it found that Adelberg Associates Medical Group produced an abundance of evidence that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her.

Bell failed to show that AAMG's reasons for letting her go were "so implausible, inconsistent or weak that a reasonable trier of fact could find they were a pretext, used merely to veil an act of retaliation," the court said.

Only in California . . .

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 27, 2008 in Discrimination Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

40th Anniversary of Taylor Law Conference May 15th and 16th

Bill Herbert, Deputy Chair and Counsel of PERB writes to inform us of the following:

On May 15 and 16, 2008, there will be a conference held in Albany, New York commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Taylor Law - the statute governing labor relations between unions and government in New York State.  The conference will be held at the Desmond Hotel. It is being sponsored by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and co-sponsored by the New York City Office of Collective  Bargaining, Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR), the Government Law Center at Albany Law School, and the Labor and Employment Law Section of the New York State Bar Association. 

Jerome Lefkowitz, PERB’s Chairman, who participated in the original drafting of the law, will open the program with a commentary entitled: “The Taylor Law and Public Sector Collective Bargaining Through the Years; the History and Future Direction of PERB and the Law.”  Several scholars will then present papers on various aspects of public sector labor relations, which will be responded to by leading representatives of both labor and management.  Albany Law School Professor Vincent Bonventre, will make a presentation on the impact of New York Court of Appeals’ decisions on Taylor Law issues; MIT Professor Thomas A. Kochan, co-director of the Workplace Center and Institute for Work and Employment Research, will examine the impact of compulsory interest arbitration and other impasse procedures on the bargaining process, updating the original “Kochan Report” he co-authored over thirty years ago. Chicago labor attorney R. Theodore Clark, will examine alternative statutory systems used in other jurisdictions. New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse will be moderating an after dinner panel discussion with public sector officials and labor representatives. The program will conclude with a presentation by Cornell ILR Dean Harry C. Katz entitled “looking Ahead: Drawing On Lessons Learned, What Does the Future Hold for Public Sector Labor Relations in New York State.”

A copy of the full program is available here Download TL_40th_Program_-_3-26-08.pdf.

      This looks like a wonderful program. I know most of the speakers. The speakers are a combination of professors, union lawyers and management lawyers. If your looking for a public sector conference in New York, this is "the" conference to attend.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

March 27, 2008 in Conferences, CLE | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

A Play About Law School Rankings

St. John's Law School Professor Jeff Sovern has published a one-act play on SSRN entitled Rankings: A Dramatization of the Incentives Created by Ranking Law Schools. From the abstract:

Sellers in a competitive market shift resources from attributes buyers don't care about to attributes buyers do care about. In markets in which buyers rely on imperfect signals for quality, sellers move resources away from improving the quality of their product to enhancing the illusion of quality. For example, before freshness dating, when consumers tested the freshness of bread by squeezing it, bakers reportedly added chemicals to bread to preserve its softness longer, thereby creating the illusion of freshness. Similarly, law school rankings encourage schools to shift resources away from improving the quality of the education they provide in favor of investing in improving their standings in the rankings. Consequently, under the guise of serving the market, rankings which are based on the wrong criteria are likely to subvert the market because they both fail to measure accurately the quality of a school's education and reduce the quality of legal education.

This piece dramatizes some of the ideas discussed in the preceding paragraph. It takes the form of a fifteen minute-play with three characters: a law school dean, a junior law professor, and a law student. The play illustrates how the incentives created by a ranking system could affect law schools and their administrators, faculty, and students. The play format is intended to make the ideas expressed more vivid.

With the U.S. News Rankings coming out, this may be a perfect time to watch this play.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 27, 2008 in Law Schools, Rankings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Breaking News-U.S. News and World Reports Rankings Leaked

At this point, I cannot be sure if the below are accurate, but here is what I know. A pdf copy of the top 46 law school purported rankings are available here. The Volokh Conspiracy also questions whether this information is accurate. A list of the top 100 Law Schools via a law school discussion board are as follows:

1) Yale
2) Harvard
2) Stanford
4) Columbia
5) NYU
6) Boalt
7) Penn
7) Chicago
9) Michigan
9) Northwestern
9) Univ.of Virgina
12) Duke
12) Cornell
14) Georgetown
15) Vanderbilt
16) UCLA
16) Univ. of Texas
18) USC
19) Washington Univ. in St. Louis
20) George Washington University
21) Boston University
22) Emory University
22) Univ. of Minn
22) Univ. of Notre Dame
25) Washington and Lee
26) Boston College
27) Fordham University
27) Univ. of Illnois-Urbana-Champaign
27) Univ. of Iowa
30) College of William and Mary
30) Univ. of Washington
32) Ohio State
32) Univ. of Alabama
32) Univ. of Colorado-Boulder
32) Univ. of Georgia
36) Indiana Univ-Bloomington
36) Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
38) George Mason Univ.
38) Univ. of Arizona
38) Univ. of California - Hastings
38) Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
42) Univ. of Maryland
43) Wake Forest Univ.
44) Tulane Univ.
44) Univ. of California - Davis
46) American Univ.
46) Brigham Young Univ.
46) Southern Methodist Univ.
46) Univ. of Connecticut
46) Univ. of Florida
51) Univ. of Utah
52) Arizona State Univ.
52) Univ. of Cincinnati
52) Univ. of Tennessee-Knoxville
55) Baylor Univ.
55) Florida State Univ.
55) Univ. of Houston
55) Yeshiva Univ. (Cardozo)
59) Pepperdine Univ.
59) Temple Univ.
59) Univ. of Kentucky
59) Univ. of Missouri
63) Brooklyn Law School
63) Case Western Reserve
63) Loyola Marymount Univ.
66) Illinois Institute of Tech
66) Seton Hall Univ.
68) Indiana Univ.
68) Univ. of New Mexico
68) Univ. of Oklahoma
68) Univ. of Richmond
68) Villanova Univ.
73) Lewis and Clark College
73) Univ. of Kansas
73) Univ. of Nebraska
73) Univ. of Pittsburg
77) George State Univ.
77) Pennsylvania State Univ.
77) Rutgers - Newark
77) Rutgers - Camden
77) Santa Clara Univ.
82) Loyola Univ. - Chicago
82) Seattle Univ.
82) Univ. of Hawaii
82) Univ. of Miami
82) Univ. of Oregon
82) Univ. of San Diego
86) Catholic Univ. of America
86) DePaul Univ.
86) Lousiana State Univ.
86) Northeastern Univ.
86) St. John's Univ.
86) Univ. of Denver
86) Univ. of Nevada
95) Marquette Univ.
95) St. Louis Univ.
95) Univ. of South Carolina
95) Univ. of the Pacific
98) Hofstra Univ.
100) Mercer Univ.
100) Stetson Univ.
100) Syracuse Univ.
100) Univ. of Buffalo
100) Univ. of Louisville

Dean Paul Caron, of TaxProf Blog, who frequently writes about ratings states:

The 2009 U.S. News law school rankings are due to be released March 28, but purported advance copies are already circulating on the Internet.  Here is a purported pdf copy of the Top 100 (104 with ties), along with the data from the various categories for the Top 58 schools.  The list is reproduced in more readable form here.  (Hat Tip:  Concurring Opinions & First Movers.)

Update #1:  Above the Law chides me for being too cautious in calling these the "purported" new rankings since the pdf in question was posted by The Shark, part of the American Lawyer Media empire.

Update #2:  Jim Lindgren points out a potential problem with the UC-Berkeley and Columbia  placement data.  (Both schools made dramatic moves this year, Columbia to #4 (ahead of NYU) this year from #5 last year, and UC-Berkeley to #6 (ahead of Chicago and Penn) from #8 last year.


I am not ready to put my faith in these "leaks." However, if they are true, I am a bit disappointed in St. John's drop to 86 and pleasantly surprised with Hofstra moving up to No. 98.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

March 26, 2008 in Law Schools, Rankings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)