by

law school grade inflationThe New York Times has an interesting piece about grade inflation. Apparently, some schools are going back and increasing the GPA of all of its students in an effort to make them more competitive.

As an anonymous commenter alludes to on Overlawyered, this is not an awful idea at top tier schools. But at law schools that are not in the top tier, students need to separate themselves by doing particularly well or potential employers have no reason to take a chance on students who cannot be distinguished by GPA.

Grade inflation in and of itself is of no consequence. These days, half of the graduating class of a high school has a GPA better than 4.0. The key is class rank. As long as lines are cut well enough to allow law firms to figure out who the top tier students are at average law schools, grade inflation is not really a big deal.

by

According to Washingtonian, the average medical malpractice award in Maryland is $319,977, which is approximately $35,000 more than the national average. The average medical liability premium for specialists is $100,625, compared with the national average of $65,489. Not noted: just how much the average specialist makes in a year. (Hint: it is a lot.)

medical malpractice verdicts

The article does not define what type of award it is. I assume it means the settlement or verdict.

by

The U.S. News and World Report law school rankings may be flawed. Wait, we knew that already. But they may be more flawed than we thought.

In the much anticipated 2011 U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, 74 schools did not report their employment numbers at the time of graduation. You don’t have to be Oliver Stone to conclude that the vast majority of these law schools were covering up their employment numbers because, believe me, everyone gets the importance of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. But the schools who blew off reporting their employment numbers were just automatically assigned a number that is approximately 30% lower than the number of graduates employed nine months later.

So law schools that played by the rules got burned. Somewhere, some kid with a magazine is making a wrong decision on which law school to attend based on a ridiculous use of statistics. My only solace is that kid should not have been using a magazine to pick his school in the first place.

Continue reading

by

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously rejected in American Needle v. NFL, the NFL’s request for broad antitrust law protection as a joint venture, ruling that the NFL should be viewed as 32 separate corporations when selling branded merchandise and apparel. The court’s ruling in American Needle flipped a 7th Circuit opinion that reached the opposite finding.

The NFL really wanted this appeal, hoping to knock the ball out of the park and grab a baseball like antitrust exemption. This means that someone handicapped the Supreme Court and saw a victory. But the league’s lawyers read it wrong, and it was not even close. If the NFL had won, they would have parlayed that new leverage into even more anticompetitive behavior that would have been great for team owners but not for fans or players. If the American Needle ruling gave the NFL a broad exemption, it could have destroyed the years and years of leverage building NFL players have earned in the collective bargaining process. I think this ruling makes it less likely the owners are going to lock out the players in 2011. In fact, if the NFL owners (actually, their lawyers) had read the situation correctly, the league would have tried to get a deal done with American Needle hanging over the players’ heads.

by

Governor O’Malley signed into Maryland law a version of the “Castle Doctrine” that provides civil immunity when defending your house or workplace.

This bill has no practical impact in the real world. Criminals are really not bringing successful claims against homeowners. But, as I explained on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, immunities are all a part of what James Sawyer called the “Long Con.” Clearly, the commenters to this post disagree.

by

The United States Supreme Court ruled today that the government can keep some sex offenders in prison after they serve their sentences, affirming the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act that authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal prisoners.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling, issued just minutes ago, states that the government may indefinitely imprison convicts that are found “sexually dangerous” even after their prison sentences have been completed. In the case before the court, four men who served prison terms for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor were not released at the end of their sentences.

Justice Breyer wrote for the majority in a 7-2 opinion:

Continue reading

by

The University of Baltimore School of Law continues its path north as reflected in the 2010 U.S. News & World Report law school rankings. UB is back to the third tier of law schools.

I really think these ratings are silly. A large law school like the University of Baltimore will get skewed because larger schools, all things being equal, will be easier to get into which affects the rankings. But the game is the game and the U.S. News and World Report rankings matter, for better or worse. So it is good to see UB continuing to compete well.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Court of Appeals underscored the scope of the “trial within a trial” doctrine in legal malpractice cases in Suder v. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston.

This is a trusts and estates case where the lawyer failed to timely file a request for an extension of time for his client to renounce her husband’s will (geez, that sounds bad) and elect her statutory share of her late husband’s estate which resulted in a financial loss for her. The law firm admitted legal malpractice but denied the malpractice caused the Plaintiff any injury. Plaintiff’s claim was eventually resolved in the underlying case.

Plaintiff’s legal malpractice lawyer made an interesting comment in Talbot County Circuit Court to the argument that legal malpractice did not cause the injury. First, the lawyer argued that the “case within a case” doctrine – the requirement of proving the underlying claim in a legal malpractice case – applies only when there was no resolution of the case that gave rise to the malpractice claim. Second, the Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that the firm is limited to the defenses that had been raised by their client’s late husband’s son.

Continue reading