It Is Not About Who You Know, It Is About Whom You Know

Thank you to my father-in-law for that great quote, and thank you to Above The Law for this great story.

The story, for those of you too busy (or lazy) to click the link above, goes like this.  The University of Illinois Law School, the 23rd top ranked law school in the country, was caught with documented evidence that it provided law school spots to unqualified, but politically connected applicants in exchange for jobs.  The story mostly focuses on a relative of a major donor who made donation to disgraced governor Blago in exchange for a promise of 5 jobs for graduating students.

It is amazing to me that law school officials, repeat people who RUN A LAW SCHOOL, would put such incriminating things in writing.  How can people who train students to give legal advice  ignore what has become the most sacrosanct rule.  DO NOT PUT ANYTHING IN AN EMAIL  Have these people not heard of the old adage, "Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink."  Al they had to do was have these conversations in person, with no paper trail, and all this story would be is rumor and innuendo. 

As someone who consults with business clients about best practices, and handles both employment and business disputes in court, I can not emphasize enough how important it is to be careful about what is put in writing.  Do not put anything in writing that relies on tone or is meant to be sarcastic.  I always remind client, and friends, of what I call the "My Cousin Vinny."  "I shot the clerk" is said with shock in his voice when it is first said, but read as if it was a confession on the stand an hour later in the movie.  Just remember, your email may be read three years later in a context that you did not mean it.

On the other hand, it is often important to memorialize certain conversation so that any future dispute does not rely solely on memory.  I am working on a case right now where the opposing party is claiming that my client terminated the relationship, but I have documentary evidence, written to memorialize an oral agreement, showing that the opposite is true.  As a lawyer, I routinely make oral agreements with opposing counsel but I always follow it up with a quick email memorializing our conversation.

Comments

[SNickel]

I came to say that I like long posts.  But then you said this one would be brief.  This is brief?  Okay, I guess I like briefer ones.  This was about right to be able to read (and process, rather than skim) during a laptop drive-by and before the toddler could find trouble. 
:)

[AngryYoungDem]

I guess it is still long compared to FAU

[FAU]

[this is good] I want 350 words or LESS on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts by Sunday morning!!!

Your getting close AYD, this was only 525. But don't beat yourself up, even I need long prose sometimes. For true brevity you want A Mistake.  

[AngryYoungDem]

I'm gonna pass on that one.  Too technical to be interesting I think.

[FAU]

BUt what about the "real world" implications and the fact that it is one more way the SCOTUS shows that is collectively does not understand the criminal justice system (a point Kennedy made in the decent). AND there is the angle that this ruling will give people in your area of focus another negotiation tool with the DA.

Come on, I am practically writing this for you.

[AngryYoungDem]

Yeah, but I am not sure how I feel about it.  Plus, the parties can always consent.  THis is pretty much the rule with a low of techical experts.  If there is area for disagreement, they testify, if not, the evidence goes in uncontested and no need to testify.