Widener Dean Not Working in Hypotheticals Anymore; NY Bar President Living in Reality As Well

First, I can't believe I hadn't yet posted on this, but Widener professor Lawrence Connell, who, as I noted previously, got into trouble for what seemed to be a routine law school hypothetical, has now actually brought a lawsuit against the dean for her statements in the post-incident administration hearings.

Lawrence Connell contends that dean Linda Ammons falsely characterized him as racist and sexist in administrative proceedings when she sought to oust him from his job of 26 years after he used a hypothetical involving her murder, reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The complaint was filed last week in Sussex County Superior Court, in Delaware. Connell, who is white, and his lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, contend that Ammons, who is black, targeted him because of his conservative beliefs, according to the Associated Press.

I'm frankly surprised that this came back up, because usually when people threaten lawsuits, they're just blowing smoke out their butt, but this is interesting to say the least.

For what it's worth, Dean Linda Ammons spent five years as a television personality and worked in public relations for four years. I wonder if it ever crossed her mind that bringing formal proceedings against a long-tenured professor was the best step for Widener's reputation.

Also, after law school, it appears she went directly into administrative service (and after six months jumped into the governor's service - anyone could do that, right?) and never really worked as a lawyer. Not that I think that's a requirement, but aside from her administrative position with the state public defender, I don't see anything that actually requires bar passage.

Definitely a story to watch. In one corner, a long-tenured male conservative. In the other corner, a black female ladder-climbing administrator transplant from Ohio. Race, gender, politics, career trajectories - this is so scripted it seems like a law school hypothetical for teaching kids about libel or academic freedom, or maybe a final exam question.

In happier news, I encourage readers to check out this report from the New York State Bar Association president. It basically points out four areas (firm structure, training, work-life balance, and legal technology) and how those areas will change and it's spot-on on pretty much everything. Aside from a few dumb ideas (e.g. requiring public service), there's some good stuff in there:

The Task Force recommends that the State Bar Association examine potential licensing reforms, such as . . . sequential licensing, which would permit limited practice for new attorneys pending further training and examination; [and] adjusting an applicant's score on the bar exam to reflect the successful completion of skills courses. . . .

As the economy recovers, it is apparent to many observers that the legal profession will not return to business as usual. Competition for legal work will be intense. Law firms that do not understand and address these changes will have difficulty competing in the emerging marketplace.

Yup. Hopefully other state bar associations continue to catch on to the "new normal" and they can spearhead the changes necessary to meet tomorrow's demands of this "profession" before it loses all marks of an actual profession.