Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 10, 2007
LAW: Too Gay To Answer

From the comments, this is just a ludicrous lawsuit:

Stephen Dunne, 30, of Boston, is seeking $9.75 million in the suit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was denied a license to practice law in May after scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade.

Dunne, who is representing himself in the case, refused to answer an exam question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property, and claims in the suit that it cost him a passing score.

In the suit, Dunne called the question "morally repugnant and patently offensive," and said he refused to answer it because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs.

Now, I'll agree that there can be a problem when professors in college or law school ask politcally loaded questions and give better grades to people who agree with them. But let's walk through the absurdities here:

1. The bar is pass-fail.
2. The bar is written by committee and graded by committee, generally in haste.
3. The entire purpose of the bar is to demonstrate your ability to regurgitate the rules that make up the law as it presently is. There's nothing offensive about being asked to describe the world we live in. And if men were angels, no bar exams would be necessary.
4. $9.75 million?

Posted by Baseball Crank at 1:00 PM | Law 2006-08 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

4. $9.75 million?

Sure, because a guy that barely passes (or fails) the Bar was bound to be a top lawyer, with tremendous earning potential.

He probably should have been sure he was scoring well enough before he climbed on his high horse. Sorry, counselor, you lose.

Bonus for him: He has displayed all the important qualifications for a job in the Bush DoJ!

Posted by: Mr. Furious at July 10, 2007 1:54 PM

4. $9.75 million?

Why so little, right?

I mean, if the guy whose cleaners lost his pants can sue for $56 million, how can a bad question on the bar exam that costs you a job as an attorney only be worth $9.75 million?

Posted by: Al at July 10, 2007 3:13 PM

LOL! The drycleaning guy was the back-end of a post I wrote at my blog today, after reading about this case here.

Check it out.

Posted by: Mr. Furious at July 10, 2007 5:30 PM

The "drycleaning guy" was a JUDGE! That makes it all the worse . . . but clearly explains why he deserved so much more than just a lowly bar exam failer.

It's that Law License that allows us to grossly over-inflate our fees, fellas! Without that license, and membership in the cartel, err I mean the ABA, we're just a buncha overblown clerks.

(I like being a lawyer, but facts are facts.)

Posted by: Mike at July 11, 2007 7:05 AM

I think most state bars have character and fitness requirements that forbid discrimination on certain grounds, such as race, religion, etc. Even if he eventually passes, I would not be surprised if Massachusetts rejected his bar application over this incident.

Posted by: WD at July 11, 2007 12:04 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg