A draft paper by Raymond Fisman (Columbia Business),  Shachar Kariv (Berkeley Economics) and Daniel Markovits (Yale Law) has gotten surprisingly little attention given its potentially radical implications.  Maybe it’s the title: Exposure to Ideology and Distributional Preferences. I would have gone with something different.  Perhaps “Law and Economics Eats Law Students’ Hearts.”

The authors looked at first-year students at Yale Law School taking contracts and torts.  They labeled the students’ professors by their purported tendency to emphasize economic and “humanist” rhetoric in class.*  They then used the natural experiment of law school sorting to determine the effect that exposure to economic ideology had on law students’ distributional preferences in the dictator game. That is, did students taught by economically-minded [...]]]>

Richard Posner. Founder. Latter-Day Apostate?

A draft paper by Raymond Fisman (Columbia Business),  Shachar Kariv (Berkeley Economics) and Daniel Markovits (Yale Law) has gotten surprisingly little attention given its potentially radical implications.  Maybe it’s the title: Exposure to Ideology and Distributional Preferences. I would have gone with something different.  Perhaps “Law and Economics Eats Law Students’ Hearts.”

The authors looked at first-year students at Yale Law School taking contracts and torts.  They labeled the students’ professors by their purported tendency to emphasize economic and “humanist” rhetoric in class.*  They then used the natural experiment of law school sorting to determine the effect that exposure to economic ideology had on law students’ distributional preferences in the dictator game. That is, did students taught by economically-minded professors behave differently than those taught by professors disposed toward humanism or critical-legal studies?

The bottom line: students taught by economically-minded professors were both more selfish and more likely to see fairness as a form of kaldor-hicks efficiency.  By contrast, students taught by humanists were more generous and also  likely to see fairness as a matter of equity.

These are important results for those interested in legal education.

• First, and most obviously, it suggests that our preferences for altruism and the content of fairness are highly manipulable — one semester of teaching by a professor – at Yale, no less – can affect them.  I admit to being a bit surprised by the size of the effect, given the mixed results from earlier work on the relationship between economics and altruism.  It’s also surprising that Yalies are so impressionable!  I wonder whether the effect persists past a semester, and whether better coding of actual classroom discussion would have changed the results.
• Second, it suggests yet more reasons for researchers to think hard about the effect that law school teaching has on the content of legal doctrine.  As I’ve argued, it’s quite likely that some law school professors who never published a lick have had more effect on substantive legal doctrine than those who’ve written reams, simply by influencing how their students (who went on to be lawyers and judges) thought about the content of rules and the byways of arguments.  We should do more work like this!
• Third, and most personally, this makes me nervous.  I’m a highly socratic teacher who places lots (and lots) of emphasis in the first-year on efficiency-arguments and on the need to look beyond questions about distributional equality in the present case.  I thought that by doing so I was helping students to think critically about the dynamic nature of contract law – the relationship between contract rules and market price; the usefulness of an intelligent system of defaults; the importance of getting beyond gut intuitions.  But maybe I’m also indoctrinating the students to grab more of the pie for themselves.  Nuts.

*The method they used to code economic preferences was, to be frank, a little mystifying.  They gave points for PhD’s in economics, but had to make exceptions for Alan Schwartz, PhDless but L&E to the bone, Guido, for obvious reasons, and both Robert Gordon and Carol Rose, who are similarly off-set.  Why not simply ask the professors themselves how much they emphasized economic rhetoric in class?  Or the students?

This is a conversation I have every year, at least once, with students. It happens individually; in groups; at events. It’s a topic that can be very important for law students (and attorneys and professors, too!). I feel a little silly giving the talk — I’m really not much of a drinker myself, and hardly an expert on the topic. But I do know what I’ve observed. And so I tell my students, this:

When you go to work for a law firm, you will be invited to events that involve drinking. These events can provide good networking opportunities; they can help your career; and they can be a chance to relax and have fun. However, any time work [...]]]>

This is a conversation I have every year, at least once, with students. It happens individually; in groups; at events. It’s a topic that can be very important for law students (and attorneys and professors, too!). I feel a little silly giving the talk — I’m really not much of a drinker myself, and hardly an expert on the topic. But I do know what I’ve observed. And so I tell my students, this:

When you go to work for a law firm, you will be invited to events that involve drinking. These events can provide good networking opportunities; they can help your career; and they can be a chance to relax and have fun. However, any time work and alcohol mix, you need to be extremely cautious.

DO NOT think that the fact that it’s a party (or after-work drinks) limits your consequences. Remember, these people are not your family, and they’re not your friends. This is your employer and your co-workers. Just because it is a party — or after-work drinks — does not mean you can let your guard down. Stupid stuff that you do while drunk, in the presence of co-workers, will become part of your (unofficial) permanent record. It absolutely can affect your career.

DO NOT assume that just because other folks are drinking heavily, it’s fine for you to do the same. Other attorneys may be drinking a lot. Let them. You are a law student or a junior associate. The other attorneys may be immune from harm — they may have longstanding ties with firm partners, they may have good client relations, or otherwise be able to get away with drinking too much at the party. Or, they may be on their way out of the firm anyway, and not give a damn.

DO know your limit. Know your limit, and stay well shy of that limit.

And remember that a firm party is NOT the time to start experimenting. And it will be very tempting. You’re on a law student budget all year, with no time or money to go out. Suddenly, you’re at the firm party and it’s an open bar, with all sorts of top-shelf liquors.

Don’t do it. You’ll survive the firm party, you’ll get a paycheck, and then you can buy as much Patron or whatever else as you want. DO NOT make up for lost time at the summer associate party. The hiring partner is watching you. It’s not worth it, no matter how nice the open bar looks. The ultimate goal, remember, is to get (and keep) a job.

Another danger with experimenting at a firm event is that liquors affect different people differently. I have a friend who does fine with beer or wine, but who cannot drink tequila. DO NOT branch out to unfamiliar drinks. Stick to something you know you can handle. A firm party is a very bad time to discover your particular Achilles heel.

DRINK SLOWLY. Really, it’s not that hard, just sit and nurse your gin-and-tonic for an hour, as you make small talk. DO NOT start competing with anyone. DO NOT start doing shots. DO NOT get involved in any sort of drinking games. Seriously, this is real life, not sophomore year. Just get your drink, and slowly sip it, and nod in conversation. And for Heaven’s sakes, eat something. Nibble on some hors d’oeuvres. This will make it slightly less likely that you’ll end up doing something stupid.

Remember, this is the era of Facebook. And it’s also the era of Above the Law. Anything stupid that you do won’t just be the punchline of jokes around the office for the next several months or years; it will also be on the internet. If you have too many margaritas and end up jumping into the fountain, it will be on Above the Law the next day. (Yes, it will be slightly sanitized to “a male associate at a Los Angeles firm” — but your classmates, friends, many possible future employers, will all know that it’s you.)

Use good judgment. You be the level-headed one; let the other guys be the stupid ones. (Above the Law’s Summer Associate tag gives numerous illustrations of this principle.)

And, a special (somewhat lengthy) note for women:

I hate to possibly sound sexist, but I think it’s important to be frank about this: Women can be uniquely vulnerable in drinking situations. If you’re a woman, some male attorneys will probably try to get you drunk in order to hook up with you. (Obviously, this can happen outside of the male-female context, but from my observation it happens overwhelmingly in the context of male attorneys plying females with alcohol.) Not that all hook-ups are unwelcome — you decide that. But it’s very problematic if someone who you don’t want to hook up with uses alcohol to obtain some kind of pseudo-consent.

These kinds of hook-ups can be physically unsafe. They can have humiliating emotional fallout. And to top it all off, they can have gendered effects on your career — despite decades of feminism, it can still be a “good girls don’t” world at many firms, where women will be judged more harshly than men for the same actions. Even worse, your drinking may be used to (wrongly) blame you for any abuse, or to excuse your abusers.

In warning about this possibility, I do NOT mean to endorse these double standards. And I do NOT mean to say that women who drink invite abuse, or any other such nonsense. The fault for abuse rests with the perpetrator. Sex without real consent is rape, and alcohol doesn’t change that. If you’re a victim of sexual abuse, you have certain responses available, including civil or criminal law. But it’s best to avoid the problem altogether. Remember that there’s trouble out there, and that you should have all your wits about you to avoid it. Hopefully, you already figured this kind of thing out earlier (such as in college), and have an idea of how to take care of yourself.

Even female associates who stay relatively sober also need to be wary of drunk senior associates and partners at these events. In other words, even if you do see this as a professional event, others might not, so be careful to avoid uncomfortable situations (e.g. find a female “buddy” and stick with her all night or keep an eye on each other to minimize the risk of finding yourself alone with a drunk senior male colleague, avoid sharing a cab ride home solo with same).

I hate to say that women need to be more careful than men– it’s not really fair, and it’s yet another inequality for women who already face an uneven playing field. It’s especially unfair since women are often de-facto excluded from many other firm networking opportunities (like golf), so female associates may feel they have to go out for drinks, in order to network effectively. But women do need to realize that there are likely to be at least some predatory attorneys at any large firm — there shouldn’t be, but there will be — and that those attorneys tend to focus on women. And on the flip side, male attorneys: Get it through your heads that no means no, and that sex (or any hooking up) without consent is a crime. Using alcohol to “get around” a lack of consent is morally wrong and is illegal (though deeply underprosecuted); it can get you fired or sued or both. And saying “I just had too much to drink” is not an excuse.

–

Well, I hope this wasn’t too depressing of a discussion. I don’t want to give the impression that all law-firm drinking is terrible. I know lots of attorneys and law students who drink responsibly. For many young attorneys, going out for drinks is a very effective way to network. Firm events can be very good networking opportunities, too. And these can also be a way to relax and have fun. They certainly have their upsides. But they’re not without risks. And that’s why you should always remember, law student, to be extra careful any time that you drink with colleagues.

Curiously, in [...]]]> In May, I blogged about a motion to quash a subpoena seeking information about an anonymous poster’s identity in the Autoadmit litigation. Although it briefly looked like Judge Droney might throw out the case on SMJ grounds, last week he denied the motion to quash, and let the lawsuit proceed (while denying defendant’s petition to continue to proceed anonymously). The decision makes all of the expected moves. I do think it odd that posters’ expectation of privacy could be vitiated by AT&T’s Internet Services Privacy Policy (which states that they will comply with discovery requests). This argument would suggest that there is never an expectation of privacy online – a result that I imagine Solove would find somewhat objectionable.

Curiously, in a motion filed Friday to extend the time to file their amended complaint to August 7, plaintiffs state that they “recently learned that the subscriber disclosed by AT&T is not John Doe 21 (”AK47″) but likely knows his identity.” In light the admissions in AK47’s pro se motion to quash, I’m left a little confused as to what is going on in the litigation. Also of interest, plaintiffs state that they are “close to identifying five additional pseudonymous defendants in the case. Specifically, Plaintiffs are in the process of scheduling a deposition with one pseudonymous defendant . . . Plaintiffs have discovered the identities of three additional pseudonymous defendants, and are very close to deciding whether to name these individuals as defendants.”

My guess is that KVN must be using this case as a “training exercise” for its younger attorneys. Otherwise, I can’t see why they would be going to the wasteful lengths they have thus far.

While you are over at Mark’s blog, be sure to download the letter [...]]]> Keker & Van Nest has responded to ““AK47’s” motion to quash the subpoena seeking information about his identity. Looks like we’ll soon be seeing some exposure of the Autoadmit posters. As Mark Randazza puts it:

I must say that it was a whole lot of overkill. The same thing could have been accomplished in a one-line opposition “the issue is moot.” Apparently, AT&T has already outed AK47. Accordingly, the 29 page opposition is a bit puzzling.

My guess is that KVN must be using this case as a “training exercise” for its younger attorneys. Otherwise, I can’t see why they would be going to the wasteful lengths they have thus far.

While you are over at Mark’s blog, be sure to download the letter allegedly sent by this defendant to the plaintiffs.

[Update 1: Ciolli issues a statement.]

[Update 2: Skimmed the complaint. It is much more damning than the original. Keker did a nice job reshaping the factual allegations to focus on the worst conduct. It also looks like they are staffing up, which means they must think they have a way to find actual defendants.]

[Update 3: Brian Leiter offers interesting commentary here. The WSJ Law Blog reports here.]

[Update 4: Just came across this Harvard Law Record article from earlier in the week, purporting to report on the traffic patterns of HLS students reading and [...]]]> Here’s the amended complaint, filed yesterday. Details to follow later in the day, if I get a chance. Here’s why I think this happened.

[Update 1: Ciolli issues a statement.]

[Update 2: Skimmed the complaint. It is much more damning than the original. Keker did a nice job reshaping the factual allegations to focus on the worst conduct. It also looks like they are staffing up, which means they must think they have a way to find actual defendants.]

[Update 3: Brian Leiter offers interesting commentary here. The WSJ Law Blog reports here.]

[Update 4: Just came across this Harvard Law Record article from earlier in the week, purporting to report on the traffic patterns of HLS students reading and posting on Autoadmit. The Record wasn't exactly a groundbreaking publication when I was at HLS, but maybe times have changed.]

I have contacted several sources to try to figure out what is going on. As best as I can ascertain, Mark Lemley and David [...]]]> What the heck is going on in the Autoadmit lawsuit? Last week, Judge Christopher Droney granted plaintiffs’ third extension of time to serve their complaint, giving them an extra thirty days to effect service. He explained that the plaintiffs are investigating some “recently revealed” information concerning one of the parties. To date, none of the defendants has been served, and the defendants (including the headliner, Anthony Ciolli, Penn Law ‘07) have of course not moved against the complaint. It’s been over four months since the case was filed, and the litigation is stuck at go.

I have contacted several sources to try to figure out what is going on. As best as I can ascertain, Mark Lemley and David Rosen have been negotiating with non-party Jarret Cohen over the summer, seeking a settlement that would:

• delete past and prospective threads on Autoadmit about the plaintiffs;
• de-index the plaintiffs from Google and other search engines;
• require Autoadmit to log IP addresses;
• require Autoadmit to create a term of service agreement and a complaint response system.

In return, plaintiffs would dismiss Ciolli, and (I take it) proceed against the pseudonymous defendants alone. But this settlement, which would seem to come close to giving plaintiffs all that they were seeking in the case apart from revealing the pseudonymous posters’ names, has stalled. Why?

Here are a few theories. First, perhaps Cohen (or his attorney) is concerned that if he agrees to these terms, it would create an avenue for a later claim for liability that Section 230 would otherwise have immunized, i.e., he will have created a monitoring and responsibility system where none previously existed. Second, plaintiffs’ leverage is insecure. I’ve heard rumors that plaintiffs have acknowledged that they originally named Ciolli on the mistaken belief that he had written some of the libelous posts. But if Ciolli didn’t write any of the unlawful posts, his liability is at best obscure. (Volokh agrees.) This puts plaintiffs in a bit of a bind. If they drop Ciolli now, they lose their best leverage against the board, and the opportunity to really change how it works and create a precedent for other like gossip sites. If they serve Ciolli, I think he’d have a strong motion to dismiss (accompanied by a nonfrivolous sanctions motion). All this would seem to reduce the incentive for Cohen to settle today. But the service clock is ticking – how many extensions of time will Judge Droney grant? (His chambers rules state that he’ll extend deadlines until the result materially affects his scheduling order.) Third, what about the pseudonymous defendants? Nothing I’ve heard makes exposing the defamatory posters – the most culpable wrongdoers – more likely. (Leiter’s hopes otherwise, but if XO didn’t track IP addresses before, I don’t know how likely it is that plaintiffs will be able to find them after the fact. It is small, and cold, comfort to think about such law students sweating it over the long summer if they ultimately will remain in the shadows.)

All of this suggests why lawsuits are such a bad fit for the reputational harms that sparked this mess. You can’t sue the “real” wrongdoer; the host is basically immunized; and defendants you can find are (at best) tangentially involved. This makes sense: people willing to put their names in public are likely to be more careful and less culpable. On the other hand, the lawsuit itself seems to have had significant chilling effects on the Autoadmit board, as several posters have “retired.” Whether this is a good thing or not probably depends on your perspective.

Solove, do you have a better way?

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 [...]]]> 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.]

[Update 2: Also check out this very long post at Feiminste: "When it comes to internet-land, we all make choices. I’ve made a similar choice similar to Anthony’s — to co-run a website, and to do so under my full, real name. I’ve done that knowing that there will most certainly be consequences to that decision."; and this post at Overlawyered: "[I]if you ever wanted to know how damning it is in the modern legal community to be associated with a controversial website accused of misogyny, you now have an answer: it’s worse than being accused of killing someone.”

(A caution while indulging. It seems that the increased attention paid to the Board, and associated cascades of rumor, is exacerbating its ugly side. Odd. Doesn’t sunlight usually cleanse?)

h/t: Belle Lettre

First, study the school’s academic program. With respect to the first year, look for courses that distinguish the school’s curriculum from those of others. Pay particular attention to the first year writing course. An attorney’s success depends a lot on writing ability, so it’s worth it if the school you attend has a rigorous program staffed with experienced instructors. You will likely discover a broad range of approaches, from second or third year law students as instructors, to recent [...]]]> Here are some suggestions for studying a law school you may be thinking of attending. A lot of this information can be gleaned from the school’s website, and you can use the time you have on campus to get your questions answered.

First, study the school’s academic program. With respect to the first year, look for courses that distinguish the school’s curriculum from those of others. Pay particular attention to the first year writing course. An attorney’s success depends a lot on writing ability, so it’s worth it if the school you attend has a rigorous program staffed with experienced instructors. You will likely discover a broad range of approaches, from second or third year law students as instructors, to recent graduates as part-time instructors, to teaching fellows on three year terms, to full-time faculty. In my opinion, writing programs taught by full-time, permanent faculty are likely to be most effective because those teachers gain experience that can be lavished on you. Teachers who are themselves students, or whose time at the school is limited, cannot do likewise.

Beyond the first year, look for the richness of program in areas that interest you. Don’t necessarily assume a school’s offerings in an area are superior because they have a specialized “program.” Look under the hood. Does the school have full-time faculty teaching the courses that matter to you, particularly the core courses in your area? Are they experts in the field? There’s nothing wrong with seeing some adjunct (i.e. part-time) faculty in a program. Very often they’re experienced lawyers with a lot to offer. But, if there are too many, there won’t be anyone around for you to talk to when you need it most because the adjuncts will be at their regular jobs. Take some time to study the skills program as well. Clinics or externships offer great exposure to the profession and practical experience that can serve you well.

Second, take a look at the strength of the student services program. Every school has a Dean for Students, career counseling, financial aid, and placement offices. However, not every school puts enough resources behind them. How many people are available to speak with you if you want advice? How many job listings does the placement office have, and in how broad a range of jobs? Is there specialized counseling for public interest or government employment? Are there vibrant student organizations you’d like to join?

Third, get a sense of the library because you’re going to do a lot of research and studying for 3 years. You may be tempted to think all libraries are the same, but they’re not. Collection size matters. If you’re doing research and can’t get a book, you’re stymied while you wait for it to come in on interlibrary loan. Reference staff also matters. They’ll help you find things, and they’ll also be helping you learn to conduct research. Finally, when you visit, go into the library and see if you’d enjoy studying there. Is it quiet, comfortable, and well-lit? Believe me, some libraries will make you want to stay and read, and others will drive you to Starbucks.

Fourth, study the physical facility. Go to a classroom and check out the sight lines, particularly from the back of the room with people sitting in front of you. You might be surprised how many large classrooms make it very hard to see the professor when the room is full. If you can attend a class, make sure you can hear the professor and the students. Are there places for students to gather and talk? Space for student organizations? Take a look too at information technology. Is the library/campus wireless, and are there adequate terminals and printers for your use? Is there power for laptops in the classrooms? Is there audio-visual capacity in classrooms so instructors can use the latest technology? If you’ll be driving to and from school, is there enough parking?

Fifth, try to meet some students and faculty. You’ll spend three years talking to them, so get a sense of whether you’ll enjoy them and learn from them.

And last, but not least, get a feel for the place. Every school has a unique atmosphere. It’s a bit like hunting for an apartment. Ask yourself if it feels right.

This afternoon I was informed about an incident of cyber harassment that took place on Friday by someone purporting to be a member of this community. [A poster wrote and circulated defamatory comments about a Yale Law Student to the YLS community.] Like Jarret, I condemn this incident, and we’re both ashamed and embarrassed that anyone in this community would engage in this kind of [...]]]> Anthony Ciolli, a Penn law student, founder of Autoadmit/Xoxohth, and recent correspondent with Dan Markel, has resigned from the Board. His announcement:

This isn’t the sort of post I was expecting to make until after graduation, nor is it a post I am particularly happy to write given the circumstances. But unfortunately, it’s something that simply must be done.

This afternoon I was informed about an incident of cyber harassment that took place on Friday by someone purporting to be a member of this community. [A poster wrote and circulated defamatory comments about a Yale Law Student to the YLS community.] Like Jarret, I condemn this incident, and we’re both ashamed and embarrassed that anyone in this community would engage in this kind of behavior. This incident crossed a line for me that simply should not have been crossed, and I cannot remain emotionally attached to a community where these sorts of actions are condoned.

Thus, I feel I have no choice but to resign as Chief Education Director. I will continue to work on other sites with Jarret, and temporarily assist Jarret while he manages my exit, but after what happened this Friday I simply cannot remain involved with AutoAdmit anymore, at least not in its current incarnation.

With regret,

Anthony

How is this different from the codes of conduct that currently govern law student behavior? Temple, to take an example I’m familiar with, has a broad-ranging student code that includes the following provisions of interest: It shall be a violation of this Code for [...]]]> Reputation Defender is a new start-up that seeks to commodify internet self-help. According to yesterday’s WashingtonPost article on Xoxohth, the service will destroy harmful content about you wherever it appears on the World Wide Web, presumably through an escalating series of gentle reminders followed by hard nudges against hosts. As I blogged yesterday, the site is trying to make a public good out of this private remedy by “encourag[ing] law schools to adopt a professional conduct code for students.”

How is this different from the codes of conduct that currently govern law student behavior? Temple, to take an example I’m familiar with, has a broad-ranging student code that includes the following provisions of interest:

It shall be a violation of this Code for a TLS student knowingly to do or to attempt to do or to assist in . . . a course of conduct . . . directed at a member of the Law School community which would cause a reasonable person in the victim’s position severe emotional distress or which would place a reasonable person in the victim’s position in fear of bodily injury or death, provided that this provision shall not be interpreted to abridge the right of any member of the Law School community to freedom of expression;

[or] . . . engage in conduct, not otherwise covered by any other provision of the Code, involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation with regard to activities or programs related to the Law School, which adversely reflect upon his or her fitness to remain a student at the Law School.

Such policies are fairly widespread, often with explicit stalking provisions. I think that any law student who posts the name of another student at their school, in a public forum with a hostile sexual or racial tone, and refuses to stop making such comments on demand, would face probable disciplinary sanction if they were identified. (I understand there are First Amendment implications here, somewhere, but that is an argument I’ll leave to folks like David Bernstein to make.) This conclusion holds even if the comments were intended in jest, so long as a reasonable person would feel threatened (in the language of most codes). I assume that law students read disciplinary codes when they start their education, or would not find them terribly surprising.

Now, whether such a student would be liable for making comments about students at another university – who they may never have met, or intend to meet – is a harder problem. Individual law schools may believe that they have an attenuated interest in such cases, and that the matter is better left to Bar Committees or the police. This is a jurisdictional concern. They may also believe that they have no writ for protecting non-community members – something like an international law/statist view. (What will happen when the human rights folks get a hold of such codes is an interesting problem!) That said, I am pretty sure that a substantiated allegation of cyberharassment would be good grounds for denying bar admission, though criminal prosecution would be unlikely. So, law students submitting pictures to such contests, or commenting about the affected students, run a real risk of professional sanction if they are discovered.

What, then, does a national code add? Most importantly, I think, the goal would be to create intra-school responsibilities, resulting in a work-around of the host-immunity problem by sanctioning students who enable such conduct, instead of just the (anonymous and hard-to-reach) students that perpetuate it. Thus, the national code of conduct would make law school disciplinary committees something like private attorneys general for conduct that the criminal law will rarely reach and the ethical rules reach only on discovery.

Additionally, a national code of conduct might have a signaling function. No doubt there would be a following campaign to enlist law school student deans in education efforts about the professional consequences of cyber-stalking for victims and perpetrators alike, and to suggest that schools have ways of detecting such conduct that will (no doubt) be undisclosed. These efforts will not eliminate cyber stalking by law students, but it will push it to less public fora. Good.

Photo Credit: The Code of Hammurabi, diorite, c. 1750 bce, Old Babylonian.