« Scientists Manques? | Main | Three Views of Education as an Associative Good »
May 03, 2007
Latest Xoxohth Fallout
The WSJ's Law Blog reports that Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge has rescinded its job offer to Anthony Ciolli, the Penn 3L who was until recently the Chief Education Officer at Xoxohth. The correspondence reported by the Journal makes clear that the Firm's decision flowed pretty directly from the Washington Post's article about the Board.
As I've written before, I think the Board provides a unique view into some law students' (and young associates') view of the profession, which may be "frank and heterodox", transgressive, or just plain ugly and foolish. I've wondered why students spend so much time on an activity that is (now clearly) likely "to lead to professional embarrassment if publicized." Maybe, after Edwards' action gets disseminated, they won't.
Does the distribution of justice here seem fair? (Both respect to Ciolli and to the anonymous other commentators, who are not sanctioned)? What effect will this kind of action have on anonymous speech by law students, including anonymous blogging? I'll leave the comments open. But I'll be moderating them, so be civil.
[Update: There's an interesting discussion thread on this topic at XO.]
Posted by Dave Hoffman at May 3, 2007 12:21 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2001
Comments
Whether it was fair depends on what role you think law firms should take and what rules they should follow. Should law firms be in the job of upholding values? If values, which values? It's hard to resolve this, so views are going to differ.
Descriptively, though, I don't think it was surprising. Autoadmit has become a lightning rod for controversy, and a law firm that hires one of the two main people behind it is going to face a lot of criticism both from the inside and the outside.
Posted by: George Harrison at May 3, 2007 01:21 PM
It's certainly legit. In the interviewing process, firms reject candidates for far less substantive, and far more subjective, reasons -- eg, "she wasn't a good fit for this place," "we just didn't click," etc. If you think this isn't a legit reason for rejecting someone, then yo must think firms should hire solely on grades, law review membership, etc., right?
Posted by: Scott Moss at May 3, 2007 02:16 PM
I might feel sorry for him if he at least recognized that AutoAdmit has ever caused harm to anyone other than himself. But based on our back-and-forth here:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/04/theres_a_bit_mo.html#comments
I don't think that that's the case.
Posted by: Bruce Boyden at May 3, 2007 02:32 PM
The righteous indignation of this firm is unreal. First, Ciolli had his Autoadmit title on his resume when he was interviewed. Second, Edwards Angell employs an associate who committed vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of drugs (see http://www.apria.com/resources/0,2725,494-526708,00.html)
Hypocritical much, Mr. DeWitt?
Posted by: Scott at May 3, 2007 02:35 PM