Thursday, May 21, 2009
Dan Filler at The Faculty Lounge picked up this story by Henry Gottlieb, New Jersey Law Journal, about Rutgers-Newark Law forcing adjunct professor Sheryl Mintz Goski to choose between working as an adjunct at the school or representing a client in a dispute with Rutgers Business School. Ms. Goski chose the client and will give up here teaching gig at the law school.
From the story:
A couple of other adjuncts at state law schools say the rule is clear, though Goski may have a point about the distance between adjunct professors and schools.
I hesitate to use the word 'attenuated,' which is maybe what she says it is, but it almost seems to fit," Andrew Kushner of Asbell, Kushner & Eutsler in Cherry Hill, N.J.
Kushner, an adjunct professor of professional responsibility at Rutgers Law School-Camden, adds, however: "Practically speaking, the university has an interest in preserving the perception that there is no funny business going on between one of their staff -- albeit a part-time staff member who teaches in another school in the university -- and a case involving a private client."
"One can understand the reason for the rule, one can understand the purpose of it and from that perspective I don't have a problem with it," he adds. He says Goski made the right choice: the client.
"Sometimes you have to shrug your shoulders and move on," he says.
Jeffrey Mandel of PinilisHalpern in Morristown, N.J.,an adjunct professor of appellate practice at Rutgers-Newark, jokes that if he were told about the one-rule-fits-all-faculty policy, he would respond, "Are you going to pay me the same?
I wonder if Professor Mandel is really joking.