Clear Admit Law Admissions Portal

LSAT Practice Problem: Flaw Question

Clear Admit — Wed, 23 May 2012 13:51:02 +0000

This week’s simulated LSAT question comes from Blueprint LSAT Preparation. Head on over to Blueprint’s free help area to take the June 2007 LSAT and watch animated video explanations for every answer choice.

Flaw questions are one of the most numerous logical reasoning question types on the LSAT. As with all LSAT questions, it’s of the utmost importance that you spend time anticipating the flaw up front or you’re likely to be buried in the answers. Look at the conclusion with a critical eye and try and identify a jump between premises and conclusion before you get to the answer choices. Good luck.

Linguist: Technology is dumbing down the English language! With the rise of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the increasing popularity of instant messaging services, both online and over the phone, people have been communicating with shorter and shorter forms of language. This trend towards truncated text is illustrated best by the rise of acronyms, which are replacing words and even emotions (LOL, omg, rofl, etc.). In this new world of 140-character messages, proper grammar never has been list: fragmented sentences are commonplace, punctuation is ignored, and the distinction between who and whom is lost to all but academics. This is an abominable degradation, and if this progression continues the English language will certainly cease to exist in the near future. To save the English language, we must act now and boycott these sites and services.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the linguist’s argument?

The argument improperly assumes that conditions that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide in the future.
The argument erroneously assumes that all technology has negative effects from premises that only establish that most technology has negative effects.
The argument confuses a condition sufficient to establish the argument’s conclusion with a condition necessary for the argument’s conclusion.
The argument assumes a narrow definition of an issue without providing any justification of such a definition.
The argument confuses the causes of a problem with the appropriate solutions to that problem.

Answers:

This might be a tempting answer for those who didn’t realize that the argument’s conclusion was qualified. However, because the conclusion is restricted to “if this progression continues” the argument is not committing the temporal flaw this answer choice describes.
There’s a lot more to technology than Twitter and texting, so the linguist attack on social media does not establish that he is opposed to all technology. The conclusion never goes beyond social media, so it’s entirely possible that he believes cars, computers and other technology are all positive things.
This is a very common answer choice for flaw questions, but don’t pick this answer just because it’s recognizable. Since there are no conditional statements within this argument, answers that describe flaws regarding sufficiency and necessity can be eliminated easily.
This is the correct answer. The premises establish that social media usage is changing the English language, but the conclusion jumps to a much stronger claim that these changes will lead to the death of the English language. This overly dramatic conclusion assumes that the English language is only what’s considered proper English (likely as defined by you know who), and thus a change from proper English will result in the end of the English language. The problem is that the limits of the English language are never defined, so we can’t make assumptions about where those limits are, and whether these changes will be outside them or not.
So close, but so wrong. The author identifies the cause of the problem as using social media and the author’s well thought out solution to the problem is to not use those social media. Hence the problem and suggested solution are actually the opposite of each other, not the same.

Trivia Tuesday: Pro Bono at Virginia Law

Clear Admit — Tue, 22 May 2012 13:29:52 +0000

It’s time once again for Trivia Tuesday, our regular exploration of the special programs and opportunities available at leading law schools. This week we take a peek into Virginia Law’s robust pro bono program.

Managed by the Mortimer Caplin Public Service Center, Virginia Law’s Pro Bono Program offers its students the opportunity to gain professional skills and serve their communities through pro bono work. The Public Service Center administers a variety of pro bono projects, most of which require three to five hours of service per week over the course of a semester or academic year. Admission to these projects tends to be very competitive, and students must therefore apply to be selected. Participants are frequently asked to interview and screen clients, conduct research and write legal briefs as part of their pro bono work. As with the Virginia clinical program, certified third-year students may also participate in courtroom advocacy and trial work.

The center also works to connect students with outside pro bono opportunities, most of which are short-term commitments offered on a first-come, first-served basis by faculty members and outside attorneys. Among these are the Winter Break Pro Bono Projects, which typically entail 20 hours of work at a non-profit organization or law firm’s pro bono practice, and the Spring Break Pro Bono Projects, week-long trips to underserved communities organized in conjunction with the Public Interest Law Association. In 2010, 34 students donated their time to Spring Break Pro Bono Projects with the Orleans Public Defenders in New Orleans, the Fair Child Initiative in North Carolina, and the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund of Kentucky, Inc., as well as legal aid organizations in the Charlottesville area.

Students are also welcome to create their own pro-bono projects by establishing contact with a public interest law organization and finding a Virginia Law professor to sponsor the project. Recently, student-initiated pro bono projects have had great success in attracting interest among other students and have started to impact their partner organizations. For example, a project associated with the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) that was developed in 2008 by a group of students and Virginia professor Chris Sprigman has won the admiration of the NVLSP lawyers who trained and supervise the students, and has had some modest success in helping veterans begin to navigate the Department of Veteran’s Affairs disability claims process.

To continue reading about Virginia Law’s pro bono program, and to find out about the school’s Pro Bono Challenge as well as other UVA Law-specific experiential learning opportunities, such as Virginia Law’s Clinical and External Studies Programs, be sure to check out the Clear Admit Guide to University of Virginia School of Law!

Yale Law Clinic Students Aid Veterans

Clear Admit — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:00:57 +0000

Four members of the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School helped write a bill that will aid state veterans that have been accused of low-level crimes avoid imprisonment. Students Eric Parrie ’13, Sofia Nelson ’13, Jon Fougner ’14 and Kate Cahoy ’12 composed the document for the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center. The students began composing the bill in the fall, consulting with experts in the field along the way. The bill has been approved by the Connecticut House and Senate and it will help create “jail diversion” programs. These projects will provide veterans with substance abuse and mental health treatment instead.

Executive director of the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center and a clinical visiting lecturer in law at Yale, Margaret Middleton stated: “We know that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have extremely high rates of post traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, and that many cope with substance abuse. Those issues commonly contribute to impulsive and thrill-seeking behaviors that end up with low-level charges like disturbing the peace. This bill will help those veterans get into appropriate treatment with providers who are educated in the unique needs and experiences of combat veterans.”

For the full press release, go here.

Guest Post from Anna Ivey: Can the LSAT Make You Smarter?

Clear Admit — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:00:47 +0000

This week Anna Ivey is back on the Clear Admit Law blog sharing her thoughts on whether or not the LSAT is more than just a hoop to jump through as part of the law school admissions process.

Can the LSAT Make You Smarter?
by Anna Ivey

LSAT guru Steve Schwartz over at LSAT Blog drew my attention to some evidence that studying for the LSAT makes you smarter. Really!

Here’s the technical language from the study:

[W]e examined the effects on cognitive performance and brain structure and function of 3 months of intensive preparation for the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)…. Behavioral and brain imaging data were collected at two time points, spaced 3 months apart, for all participants (N=51). After training, the LSAT group performed more accurately on our transitive inference task…. In contrast, controls’ accuracy did not change across the two time points. Surprisingly…. three months of reasoning training was sufficient to alter resting-state functional connectivity between left IPL and RLPFC…. Our preliminary LSAT study findings… suggest that reasoning training leads to improved reasoning ability through repeated co-activation and subsequent strengthening of fronto-parietal connections.

- from “Relational reasoning: Neural mechanisms, development, & plasticity” (PDF p7, 9)

In plain English, as translated by Steve: “The evidence comes from a recent study in which a group of students who studied for the LSAT for 3 months improved their reasoning abilities far more than those in a control group.” Read Steve’s full write-up here (cool brain images included).

Now, I’m not a scientist, so I can’t attest to the study’s validity or methodological soundness. I have no idea if it’s been peer-reviewed, and I don’t have the requisite training to poke holes in the findings. But the findings don’t surprise me, because I’ve long believed that mastering LSAT skills requires you to train some big cognitive muscles (or be born with them), and I’m excited that there might be real and longer-term benefits to that training. (If, like me, its been eons since you took the LSAT, or you’ve never even seen one, try taking one — here’s a PDF of the June 2007 test — under timed conditions and see how you score. It’s a good reminder of what LSAT takers are facing.)

I’ve also become convinced over the years that the LSAT measures skills that colleges should be teaching you, but often aren’t. How many times have you been required to pull apart and analyze a difficult text, the words, the sentences, the meanings, the structure, the internal logic, the arguments, the correct or incorrect deductions, all at a fairly high level and with relative facility and speed? That’s the foundation of the “critical reasoning” that you hear referred to so often in the context of a liberal arts education, and ideally you don’t graduate from college without getting pretty good at it. But if your college hasn’t made you do that over and over and over again, and do it well, then studying for the LSAT — when done right — should move the needle on those foundational reasoning and analytical skills.

So good news: Studying for the LSAT is not a waste of time, and it’s not just some hoop to jump through to get into grad school, or to get from Point A to Point B on your career trajectory. (I used to think the LSAT was just a hoop; over time, I’ve come around to this other view.) I know practicing for the LSAT is a hassle. It’s time-consuming, it’s repetitive, and sometimes steam comes out of your ears from all the mental gymnastics, but the end result is that you’ve picked up some important skills, and your brain has gotten better and stronger (if this study is correct). How ’bout them apples?

Does everyone who studies for the LSAT end up with the cognitive equivalent of six-pack abs? Probably no more so than crunches give everyone six-pack abs. But if you do the crunches, your abs are almost certainly stronger than when you started. Maybe the same principle is at work here. So as much as it pains you, you can actually thank your evil genius overlords at LSAC for making you acquire these skills, and thank the good test prep programs for teaching them. (At much less expense than most colleges, to boot.) The LSAT as remedial training could and should be the subject of a book (to be written by someone smarter than I), so I’ll just leave you with those thoughts for today. In the meantime, let this study serve as additional motivation for your LSAT prep.

I’m curious to hear what you think. Please comment!

Former Dean of Admissions at the University of Chicago Law School and a recovering lawyer, Anna Ivey founded Ivey Consulting to help college, law school, and MBA applicants navigate the admissions process. Read more admissions tips in The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions, recently updated and available as an e-book. Follow Anna on Twitter (@annaivey), or come introduce yourself and join the conversation on Facebook.

Trivia Tuesday: The University of Chicago Law School’s Numerical Grading System

Clear Admit — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:00:02 +0000

In this addition of Trivia Tuesday, we’re taking a look at the University of Chicago Law School’s grading system. While many of its peer schools have made changes to their grading systems in the past couple of years, such as altering the curve to increase the number of students who could be given A-range grades (as NYU did) or effectively getting rid of grades entirely (as Harvard Law and Stanford have done by switching to simplified Honors, Pass, Low Pass, Fail systems), Chicago has held steadfast to the unique numbers-based scheme it has used for decades without a hint that it intends to change its ways any time soon.

Chicago’s system is based on a 186-point scale, with the numbers roughly corresponding to letter grades (i.e. 180-186 = the A-range and 174-179 = the B-range). The curve requires instructors to give an equal number of A-range grades as C-range grades in classes enrolling over 50 students, and to ensure the median grade is a 177, or B/B+. Seminars are given more leeway, and the median in those classes is usually higher.

Since the unconventional complexity of Chicago’s grading system would be likely to confuse recruiters, the Registrar of the University records the numerical grades as letter grades on students’ official transcript. This resolves any bewilderment recruiters and interviewers might feel concerning Chicago students’ grades.

For more information about Chicago’s grading system, be sure to read the Clear Admit School Guide to Chicago Law School!

University of Chicago Law Women’s Caucause Hosts Judges

Clear Admit — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:18:38 +0000

The Law Women’s Caucus at University of Chicago Law School hosted an Illinois Supreme Court justice and three federal district court judges on April 11^th, for a lunchtime discussion about the intersection of law and gender. Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis and Northern District of Illinois Judges Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ’79, Amy J. St. Eve and Virginia M. Kendall talked about their experiences as women in the judiciary and shared insights on how to balance their demanding positions with their family and home life. The women shared their own personal roads to their judiciary positions and reflected on the differences in the opportunities available to women then and now. The speakers also offered their own advice, such as Rebecca Pallmeyer who initially worked for a commercial law firm before securing a position as an administrative law judge for the Illinois Human Rights Commission. She stated “If you go to work for a big law firm, that’s fine. Do not live up to the salary you’re being paid. Put some of that money aside… That way, if you’re offered a terrific position in public service, you can afford to take it.” The other speakers shared insights and advice as well, sharing with law students bits of advice and wisdom.

For the full press release, go here.

Harvard Law School Selects Environmental Law and Policy Program Policy Director

Clear Admit — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:00:43 +0000

Harvard Law School has selected Kate Konschnik, current Chief Environmental Counsel to U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as the Environmental Law and Policy Program’s Policy Director. As Director, Konschnik will work together with the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic to support a new environmental policy project. She will also contribute by working to develop existing projects and research initiatives. In her current role, Konschnik has worked with the Senator’s office on various important environmental policy issues and helped the Senator move closer towards establishing a National Endowment for the Oceans.

Archibald Cox Professor of Law and Director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law Program Jody Freeman stated: “As the new Policy Director, Kate will add a critical component to our burgeoning environmental law program—developing policy initiatives on issues like renewable energy, fracking, offshore drilling and carbon capture technology. Some of this work will build on projects initiated in our highly successful Environmental Law Clinic and some will be entirely new. Kate’s work will help to promote policy relevant faculty research and enlarge HLS’s footprint in important environmental, climate and energy debates.”

For the full press release, go here.

Guest Post from Anna Ivey Consulting: Disclosing Criminal Issues in Your Application: Useful Terminology and FAQs

Clear Admit — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:59:04 +0000

Gregory Henning from Anna Ivey Consulting shares other useful tips about disclosing a criminal issue on your law school application.

Disclosing Criminal Issues in Your Application: Useful Terminology and FAQs
by Gregory Henning

In a previous post we discussed the general rules to follow when assessing when and how to disclose a criminal issue in your background. Even with those rules in mind, however, you might find yourself struggling with how to answer a “disclosure” question on an application (whether college, law school, business school, etc.) because you aren’t familiar with the terminology.

Criminal disclosure questions often include terms that may seem familiar to you, but have specific meaning in the context of an application (e.g., arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction, “no contest,” expunge, etc.).

When you are being asked to disclose information as part of your application, it is your responsibility to know which terms apply to your situation and whether disclosure is required. You may feel comfortable remaining blissfully ignorant now (after all, if you don’t know what the terms mean, how can you be held accountable if you make a mistake?), but as we discussed in the previous post the repercussions of a “mistake” in your disclosure can be far reaching.

The best way to guarantee that you are fully informed before answering a disclosure question is to speak to an attorney who practices criminal law in the jurisdiction where your incident took place. Then, and only then, can you be certain how to classify your situation before answering the application question. The descriptions below should not in any way be taken as legal advice. Instead, they provide a general overview of the terminology you might find on applications, a basic glossary to consider before you seek further assistance in addressing your concerns.

Was I Charged with a Crime?

Applications may ask if you have ever been “arrested, cited, or charged with any criminal violation.” Generally speaking, a charge is a formal accusation of a crime. A charge is usually brought by way of some “charging document.” Charging documents include criminal complaints, indictments, or an information. It is not essential that you know the definitions of complaint, indictment or information. The important thing to determine is whether one of these documents was ever filed accusing you of a crime.

The best way to determine this is to order any paperwork related to your criminal case. In most states you have a right to order your criminal record (it may cost you a little bit of money and it’s possible that you will have to appear in person to receive the copy). You can also request copies of the court file (sometimes called a “docket”) relating to your case. This can sometimes become more complicated if the incident took place when you were a minor. Once you have gathered all of the paperwork you can consult with an attorney to see if there is a charging document accusing you of a crime.

For the vast majority of applicants, the information and indictment will be inapplicable. That is, few applicants will have been charged with a crime by an information or indicted by a grand jury for a criminal offense. If this happened to you, chances are that you are well aware of the circumstances of your case.

For most applicants who have a criminal disclosure issue, the criminal charge will come by way of a “complaint.” A complaint is a document that someone files accusing you — literally “complaining” — that you have violated the law in some way. Police officers usually apply for complaints, thus you may see a police report filed among court papers in your case or attached to an application for a criminal complaint.

But civilians may also apply for a criminal complaint. This is important to remember because it is possible that you were “charged” with a crime even if you were never arrested.

If you were charged with a crime, it is possible that you were “arraigned” on the charge. An arraignment is a formal proceeding in court where the charges are read aloud (or presented to you in hand), you enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, and bail (if applicable) is argued. You may also be appointed an attorney or asked to hire one yourself. If you recall going through this process in front of a judge or magistrate then chances are you were charged with a crime.

It is also possible, however, that you were charged with a crime but did not have to appear in court. In some jurisdictions, a person can have an attorney appear on his or her behalf to respond to a criminal charge. Thus even if you never appeared in court to enter a plea or to have charges read to you, you may have been charged with a crime.

FAQ about Being Charged With a Crime:

1. Can I be charged with a crime without being arrested? YES. The police or a civilian can accuse you of a crime and file a criminal charge against you even if you were never arrested.

2. If I receive a ticket from a police officer is that a criminal charge? MAYBE. Police can give you a ticket for some offenses and then file documents afterward that accuse you of a criminal offense. It is important to request all paperwork related to your incident in order to determine what happened. For example, you may be pulled over and given a citation from a police officer and then later have charges filed against you relating to your driving in that case.

3. If the case was dismissed when I first went to court was I still charged? MAYBE. It’s possible that you had your case dismissed when you first appeared in court either by agreeing to some minor punishment (dismissal in exchange for community service, for example) or because the attorney convinced the prosecutor or the court that the case should be dismissed. But it is possible that you were formally charged with the crime and then the charges were dismissed; this may still count as being “charged” for purposes of the application question.

4. My case was “expunged” – doesn’t that mean I was never charged? NO. Whether you were charged has little to do with the outcome of the case. Even if the matter was dismissed, expunged, or sealed, it is possible that you were still “charged” with a criminal offense. For more on this see the section below on “sealed” or “expunged” cases.

5. A spouse / family member / significant other had me arrested and then “dropped the charges” in court before anything happened. Was I charged with a crime? MAYBE. The actions of your spouse / family member / significant other regarding the resolution of the case are irrelevant. If a charge was brought against you by an acquaintance, the police, or some other authority – even if the charges were “dropped” or the party “refused to press charges” later on – it’s possible that you were still charged with a crime.

Was I Arrested?

For most people, a formal arrest is an event that sticks in their mind and requires no further explanation. In some cases, however, confusion, intoxication, or the complexity of a situation will leave someone uncertain as to whether he was arrested.

An arrest is a seizure – usually by police officers – that is often accompanied by a prolonged detention and/or the filing of criminal charges. The stereotypical arrest involves the use of handcuffs, verbal warnings about an individual’s rights, traveling to a police station or some other detention facility, and often a post-arrest processing (booking). There are other types of detentions that may apply to law school applicants, and it’s important once again to research your particular situation to figure out if you were actually arrested.

FAQ about Being Arrested:

1. I was never put in handcuffs – was I still arrested? MAYBE. Police can arrest you without handcuffing you (for your safety, for health reasons, etc.) so don’t assume you were not arrested just because you were not handcuffed.

2. I was handcuffed – does that mean I was arrested? MAYBE. Police can handcuff you for a number of reasons. Just because you were handcuffed does not mean you were necessarily arrested (although you might also have been arrested).

3. I was handcuffed, brought to jail, fingerprinted, and booked – but then they dismissed the charges. That’s not an arrest, is it? MAYBE. That situation has all the hallmarks of an arrest; whether you were charged with a crime has nothing to do with whether you were arrested.

4. I was drunk and was brought to the police station overnight to sober up – is that an arrest?MAYBE. Some law enforcement agencies will place people in what’s called “protective custody,” an event that involves detention by the authorities without the additional characteristics of an arrest (handcuffing, reading of rights, booking, etc.). However, in some cases police do make a formal arrest in order to place you in some form of temporary detention. If you believe you fall into this category, consult with an attorney to determine how to classify your situation.

5. I was caught by store security for stealing and then police came and took my information before releasing me. Was I arrested? MAYBE. Store security can effect an arrest and often assist law enforcement authorities with formal arrests. If you believe you fall into this category, consult with an attorney to determine how to classify your situation.

6. I was handcuffed, brought to the police station, fingerprinted, and booked – but no one ever said “you’re under arrest.” Was I arrested? MAYBE. There are no magic words that indicate an arrest. While most arrests include a police officer telling you what’s happening, you can still be arrested even if no one says the word “arrest.”

Was I Convicted or did I Plead “Nolo Contendere,” “No Contest,” “Admit to Sufficient Facts,” or “Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal”?

Some disclosure questions will ask if you have ever been “convicted of a criminal offense.” What is a conviction?

A conviction is a finding (or judgment) by a judge or jury that a person is guilty of a particular crime or charge. This judgment can come by way of a plea of guilty or a finding after a trial. If you’d stood trial as a defendant in a criminal case, it’s a good bet that you had legal counsel, know the outcome of the case, and remember the details of the event.

For most applicants, the issue of criminal convictions arises if they have been charged with a criminal offense and resolved the case in some way short of going to trial or pleading and being found guilty. While some applicants may have plead guilty to a criminal offense (and therefore were “convicted” of the charge), a number of applicants have resolved a criminal matter by some other method that involves a combination of punishment and a partial admission of responsibility.

The nature and circumstances of those resolutions varies considerably among states. Pleas can include:

“Continuance Without a Finding” (aka CWOF or “admission to sufficient facts”)
“Nolo Contendere” (aka “no contest plea”)
“Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal” (aka “ACOD,” “pre-trial diversion,” “pre-trial probation,” or “Probation before Judgment”)

Each of the terms above involves a different set of circumstances and is defined by the law of the state where the incident took place. In some cases, such as a plea to “sufficient facts,” the defendant must make an admission or acknowledgment before the court that he has done something wrong. In other cases, including some forms of pre-trial diversion or probation, no such admission is required.

These types of adjudications often involve a nominal punishment of some kind, including a fine, a diversion program (most often for driving offenses or incidents involving alcohol or drugs), community service, or a probationary period.

Applicants are often confused or ill-informed about what these terms mean. Because the terms vary so much among jurisdictions, you should gather the relevant documents from your case and seek legal advice about how to classify your situation.

FAQ about Convictions, Probation, and Pre-Trial Diversion:

1. My lawyer told me that if I admitted what happened and did community service, the case would get dismissed. Is that a conviction? MAYBE. In most cases, if a charge was dismissed then there is not a conviction for that charge. However, in some cases a person can admit to doing something, sustain a conviction, and be placed on a period of probation, after which the case is dismissed. Depending on the jurisdiction, this can amount to a conviction. You should consult an attorney if you admitted to wrongdoing as part of your case.

2. I was given pre-trial diversion and stayed out of trouble for some period of time. I was not punished in any way (no community service, no fine, etc.). Is this considered probation? MAYBE. Being placed on pre-trial diversion, pre-trial probation, or some period of supervision – without more, such as an admission of guilt or responsibility – is usually not considered probation. However, these pre-trial diversion programs may qualify as “probation” in the jurisdiction where the incident took place. You should read the paperwork from your case very carefully and then consult with an attorney to see if your situation qualified as “probation” in that jurisdiction.

3. I don’t remember what happened in my case but I know it was eventually dismissed and my attorney said it would never appear on my record. So I was never put on probation, right? MAYBE. Just because a case ended in dismissal does not mean that you avoided probation. In some jurisdictions, a case can be continued, deferred, or stayed for a period of time, after which the case is dismissed. However, the period during which the case was continued or stayed may qualify as a probationary period. The laws of each jurisdiction determine whether this period of adjournment or continuation was considered “probation,” so once again, you should receive legal advice if you have a question about classifying your case.

My Case was Sealed / My Case was Expunged

Many jurisdictions have a process for “sealing” a criminal record, an act that closes the criminal record from public view unless it is sought by a court order. In other places a record can be expunged from the public rolls. This is considered more permanent than “sealing” a record, and has the effect of eliminating or eradicating the record (with a few exceptions).

Sealing or expunging a record is usually done by either (1) the passage of time or (2) a motion or request by someone made before a court or magistrate. The laws of each jurisdiction determine if, and how, records are sealed or expunged in that jurisdiction. For some jurisdictions, juvenile cases are expunged after a set period of time, such as when the defendant reaches the age of 18. In other cases, a person can move to seal his or her record after a set number of years passes from the date the case concluded.

There is great confusion surrounding the notion of sealing or expunging a record, and many people believe – incorrectly – that if their case resulted in something short of a conviction, it was automatically sealed or expunged. Unless you have a document from a court indicating that your case was sealed or expunged, you should assume that neither applies to your case. Expungement and sealing of a record is not the default status for a case that has been concluded (even if the charges were dismissed).

Even if your case was sealed or expunged, you may still have to disclose the incident on your application (and, for future lawyers, for admission to a state bar). Sealing or expunging a criminal case can prevent it from appearing on a standard criminal record check, but by applying to school you likely waive any protection of that information because you agree to be honest on your application.

FAQs about Sealed / Expunged Cases

1. My case was dismissed prior to trial in exchange for 20 hours of community service, so my case was expunged, right? MAYBE . The outcome of a case (in terms of guilt or innocence, or the disposition of the case) has little effect on whether the case is expunged or sealed.

2. My case happened when I was a 14-year old kid, so it’s sealed now because it’s a juvenile case, right? MAYBE. The sealing or expungement of juvenile records varies from state to state. Do not assume that a juvenile case is automatically sealed. Order your paperwork from the case and consult with an attorney from the jurisdiction where the case took place.

3. I was on probation, but my attorney said that if I didn’t get into trouble again I would not have “a criminal record” – so I don’t have to disclose anything at all? MAYBE. A “criminal record” is a general team that has many meanings. You can have a “criminal record” even if you’ve never been convicted of a crime (but have been arrested and charged with one). Law enforcement and the courts have records of prior arrests and criminal charges, even if the person was not convicted. This would be the broadest definition of a “criminal record.”

The term could also be interpreted to mean that unless a person was convicted of a crime, he has no criminal record. Under that narrower definition, you might not have a “criminal record,” and you would need to get clarification on what, exactly, the application is asking for.

However, few schools will ask if you have a “criminal record.” Instead, they’ll be much more specific in the inquiry, asking about arrests, charges, convictions, etc. Instead of guessing about which definition is being used by the school and whether you have a “criminal record,” read the instructions on the disclosure question very carefully and consult an attorney if necessary.

Gregory Henning is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Virginia Law School. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge R. Lanier Anderson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and then became an Assistant District Attorney in Boston. As part of the Ivey Consulting team, Greg works with law school applicants. (Note that in this capacity, and on this blog, he dispenses admissions advice, not legal advice. If you need legal advice, do seek legal counsel. Do not confuse Greg or this blog or Ivey Consulting with legal counsel.)

Practice LSAT Logic Problem: The Graduation Game II

Clear Admit — Wed, 09 May 2012 21:42:03 +0000

Today’s practice LSAT logic game comes from the folks at Manhattan LSAT. Try to answer the questions on your own, and then follow this link to the Logic Games Challenge page to post your answers to the Manhattan LSAT forums in order to be eligible to win a discount on their courses!

Seven friends—K, L, M, N, O, P, and R—all graduated within a six year span, The earliest graduated in 2001, and the latest in 2006. No more than two friends graduated in any particular year. The following conditions apply:

K and O graduated two years apart.
P and M graduated in consecutive years, though not necessarily in that order.
N graduated in 2003.
O and L graduated in the same year.
No one else graduated in the year that K graduated.

1. Which of the following could be an accurate accounting of when the friends graduated?
(A) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: N, 2004: K, 2005: R, 2006: L and O.
(B) 2001: P, 2002: K, 2003: N, 2004: O and L, 2005: R, 2006: M
(C) 2001: R, 2002: O, 2003: N and L, 2004: K, 2005: M, 2006: P
(D) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: R, 2004: K, 2005: N, 2006: L and O.
(E) 2001: P, 2002: M, 2003: N, 2004: R, 2005: L and O, 2006: K

2. If K graduated in 2002, which of the following must be true?
(A) R graduated in 2001.
(B) R graduated in 2006.
(C) P graduated in 2005.
(D) M graduated in 2005.
(E) M graduated in 2006.

3. Which of the following must be false?
(A) P graduated in 2001.
(B) P graduated in 2002.
(C) P graduated in 2003.
(D) P graduated in 2004.
(E) P graduated in 2005.

4. If M graduated the year before N did, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:
(A) R graduated in 2001.
(B) R graduated in 2002.
(C) R graduated in 2003.
(D) R graduated in 2004.
(E) R graduated in 2005.

5. If K graduated last, in how many different years could M have graduated?
(A) 1
(B) 2
(C) 3
(D) 4
(E) 5

6. If P graduated in 2003, each of the following could be false EXCEPT
(A) M did not graduate in 2004.
(B) K did not graduate in 2004.
(C) L did not graduate in 2004.
(D) R graduated in 2005.
(E) More friends graduated in 2004 than in 2006.

7. Which of the following conditions, if true, determines the two-year span during which P and M graduated?
(A) R graduated in 2001.
(B) K graduated in 2002.
(C) K graduated in 2004.
(D) L graduated in 2004.
(E) K graduated in 2006.

Trivia Tuesday: The Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition at Columbia Law School

Clear Admit — Tue, 08 May 2012 13:00:06 +0000

In today’s Trivia Tuesday, we’re discussing Columbia Law School’s Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition, the crown jewel of the CLS mooting program.

The Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition is held in three rounds starting in Autumn Term. The tournament is open to all second- and third-year students who have not previously placed in the finals or semifinals for the Stone competition. In the first round, students must present their oral arguments to a panel of lawyers and judges. Sixteen contestants then go on to the semifinal round, which takes place in the spring. The contestants write briefs on two different issues raised by a given case and argue both sides of these cases. The group of 16 semifinalists is then whittled down to four finalists, who present their arguments to a panel of well-known judges and a large audience. The competitor with the best oral presentation wins a prize. However, all students who submit a brief for the competition have the option of receiving writing credit for their effort. In 2009, Stone Competition participants worked with a fictional case that required thorough exploration of environmental issues and Native American religious freedom.

Columbia has one of the most active moot court programs of any leading law school, requiring 1Ls to participate in its Foundation Moot Court to practice their appellate brief-writing skills and present an oral argument in front of a panel of judges.

To learn more about mooting opportunities at CLS and other student organizations, check out the Clear Admit Law School Guide to Columbia Law School!