Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Prof. Nancy Leong's precious "scholarship" about how law is boring compared to her fave movies.

She has never practiced criminal law. Her legal experience c dybbuk10/25/13
That is a fricking liberal arts paper, not something that be propita10/25/13
And the irony is that law professors who write liberal arts murdock10/25/13
I wrote a paper for an English class that got online publish propita10/26/13
How dare you criticize the law review system. Every law pro massivemissive10/25/13
I just skimmed that piece. Provocative. The section on Harol allordpwnsu10/25/13
Dear "dybbuk," First, thank you so much for calling atten nancyleong10/26/13
I highly suspect this is a flame, but I'll bite. Yes, bec fmllawyer10/26/13
Nancy forgets that in the real world most us don't have the dopesmokeresquire10/26/13
Oh, you don't think writing about "racial capitalism" for $1 fmllawyer10/26/13
Http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blog spot.com/2013/09/butthurt dupednontraditional10/26/13
Nancy Leong, I am going to avoid the temptation to matc dybbuk10/26/13
LOL! This made my day, total ownage jdmbacpa10/28/13
Wow a real law prof posted here! Nancy, did you see that dopesmokeresquire10/26/13
Hi dopesmokeresquire, Nice handle, and thanks for your ve nancyleong10/26/13
One of the problems with much of the so-called legal scholar kmc66610/26/13
I haven't seen dybbuk or any of his "little friends" say any ignominiousdocreview10/27/13
Good post jdmbacpa10/28/13
I see you are well practiced in obscurantism. raskolnikov10/27/13
Ms. Leong: Thank you for coming on here. I apologize for allordpwnsu10/26/13
Ms. Leong: A further follow up question. Did you talk to allordpwnsu10/26/13
You know, when I watch Vanishing Point, Sullivan's Travels, mikoyan10/26/13
Perhaps rather than hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, you allordpwnsu10/26/13
I did find that a funny comment from Ms. Leong. I talk shit mikoyan10/26/13
She is just one of those gals who always wanted to write, oh billyx10/26/13
Nancy, Until I went in house last year, I was a trial la sparky10/27/13
TITCR. I've been admitted for over 30 years, and one of tranquiljd10/27/13
I wondered about that. Being spoiled-brat proud of being ci dupednontraditional10/27/13
If you have an impressive resume, why do you make so little adamb10/30/13
In a previous posting Professor Leong indicates that there a ichininosan10/27/13
I'm glad that some of the racist/sexist crap spewed by a few lolskewl10/27/13
They are "sympathetic to the concerns" of law students/gradu dupednontraditional10/27/13
Yes. Law students and graduates are where these dirty thieve fmllawyer10/27/13
Well I saw "The Road Warrior" so I guess they don't have tra doublefriedchicken10/28/13
"Well I saw 'The Road Warrior narratives so I guess they don imoothereforeim10/30/13
I think Nancy should consider doing a follow-up law review a hankstamper10/30/13
Everyone knows Nancy sent a takedown notice over the other t fmllawyer10/30/13
I think that one of the threads may have been moved to OT, b adamb10/31/13
The 20 hour work week gives law professors a lot of time to ignominiousdocreview10/31/13
Do you think papers on racial capitalism, which society dema fmllawyer10/31/13
I know, because I posted it. It was a letter that Prof. Leon ichininosan10/31/13
I imagine that Nancy is checking this thread about once an h hankstamper10/31/13
The problem with Nancy's premise is simple. She posits the i abazungu10/31/13
But have you ever stepped back and considered the why? Why a allordpwnsu10/31/13
White cops don't like Polacks either. http://www.detroit sparky10/31/13
I've never understood why law professors are so critical of vanity11/01/13
Nancy is derisive of anonymity on the internet, yet as a law hankstamper11/01/13
In academia -- and in legal scholarship in particular -- the adamb11/02/13
To be fair, practicing law sucks relative to watching movies midlaw11/03/13
Be careful: if you say something that Nancy dislikes, she re adamb12/23/13
When did that happen? jackiechiles12/23/13
In a post last week, she claimed to have filed ethics violat adamb12/23/13
Is it unethical to make sexist or racist remarks though? I' jackiechiles12/23/13
Unethical under the rules of professional conduct? I guess i allordpwnsu12/23/13
Adult bullying is a real thing. We need to make being mean i jackiechiles12/23/13
We can't allow lawprofs to have their works criticized. Th vespucius12/23/13
What's next, peer review becomes a violation of people's fre kmc66612/23/13
Absolutely. Don't you realize that these law profs only mak vespucius12/23/13
Well, some folks in this thread posted some very unnecessary allordpwnsu12/23/13
I mean I'm all for wasting the bar's resources, so now I kin jackiechiles12/23/13
The disciplinary commission in my state wouldn't even open a inindiana12/23/13
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com /2013/12/law-professor-tr raskolnikov12/23/13
Campos strikes again Guest12/23/13
I'm against racism, sexism, etc. People should be judged on cavebro12/23/13
That article is offensively bad. spaghetti12/24/13
She is the perfect poster child for what is wrong with legal depressedandhungry12/24/13
I think you're just jealous. dudeingorillasuit12/24/13
And sexist. allordpwnsu12/24/13
Holy crap - just tuned into all this. Wow, that woman has so eddiemunster01/23/14
Unintentional "Sixteen Candles" reference probably not a goo jbot01/24/14
I'd avoid calling her "hot stuff" -- that is exactly the kin adamb01/24/14
Your mockery of her bar complaint is sexism itself. Prepare jackiechiles01/24/14
I'm surprised she finds time to chase down internet trolls w eddiemunster01/24/14



dybbuk (Oct 25, 2013 - 10:11 am)

She has never practiced criminal law. Her legal experience consists of a one-year clerkship, and a few-months-long "fellowship," cowriting amicus briefs for a do-gooder organization.

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/directory/full-time/nancy-leong.pdf

And yet criminal practitioners of long experience can thank Professor Nancy Leong of the University of Denver School of Law for her magnificent scholarly insight that caselaw analyzing the constitutionality of traffic stops is boring compared to her favorite movies and songs. In fact, not just boring, but a "rude awakening of the sweet American dream."

1. Nancy Leong, "The Open Road and the Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of the American Dream," 64 Fla L.Rev. 305, 328 (2012) ("These dry judicial narratives contrast starkly with the joyful, liberated narrative of the open road that we find in our most exalted cultural texts.")

2. Open Road at 324-325 ("In addition to the sort of cultural texts in which we find the narrative of the open road, another highly influential chronicle of the traffic stop is the judicial opinion—a cultural text antithetical to our literary and cinematic staples. That dry medium has nothing of the poetry or magic of our best novels and our favorite movies. Rather, the sterile chronology of a typical judicial opinion examining a traffic stop represents a rude awakening from the sweet American dream of the open road.")

3. Open Road at 328 ("Judicial narratives that begin with a traffic stop are notable for their depressing sameness. There is no poetry in these narratives. They read like the documentation of an audit.")

4. Open Road at 330 ("This clinical evaluation of the content of the traffic stop effectively punctures the uplifting fantasy of the open road. The symbolism of the road as a route to a better life—one free and unencumbered—dissipates in the face of bickering over whether a host of minutiae means that a police officer saw enough or heard enough or knew enough to establish "reasonable suspicion." The American dream has no time for such details; put another way, someone whose fate hangs on those details has no time to chase the American dream.")

See link, for numerous other quotes and a short fictional tribute.

http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-law-school-scam-is-like-highway-to_25.html

Reply
propita (Oct 25, 2013 - 11:26 am)

That is a fricking liberal arts paper, not something that belongs in a law review. Nothing wrong with it being a liberal arts paper, but it should NEVER have been printed in a law review. And I bet a bunch of English professors would criticize the shit out of it.

And she gets paid to do this?!

Reply
murdock (Oct 25, 2013 - 12:36 pm)

And the irony is that law professors who write liberal arts stuff would have their work LAUGHED AT in a real, peer-reviewed lib arts journal.

That's actually what annoys me the most about law profs. They get paid more and are twice as arrogant as their undergraduate prof peers, and they didn't even go through the writing of a dissertation, the years of schooling, or the incredibly competitive hiring process that tenured liberal arts profs made it through.

I have infinitely more respect for my undergraduate poli sci profs and their scholarship than anything my law profs have done.

Actually even the fluffiest liberal arts stuff done by actual doctors of X is still usually pretty interesting on some level. This stuff would never have been published in a poli sci journal.

Reply
propita (Oct 26, 2013 - 10:09 am)

I wrote a paper for an English class that got online published by a group at the school. No fluff, but the thesis was, I was told by classmates, "obvious." When I mentioned that comment to my advisor, one of my English profs, she said, "Maybe, but the important part was that you backed up your argument throughout your paper and you did it well."

There's nothing wrong with a well-written and legitimate liberal arts paper--just not in a law review.

Oh...and legal analysis class taught me very little about supporting an argument. It taught me format, but my undergrad English classes honed my writing skills.

Reply
massivemissive (Oct 25, 2013 - 11:56 am)

How dare you criticize the law review system. Every law professor will tell you that law reviews serve an invaluable purpose to society and the legal community. Heck, even the normally level-headed Orin Kerr recently wrote that law reviews are gold.

I had no idea that "judicial narratives that begin with a traffic stop are notable for their depressing sameness." My legal knowledge has just been vastly improved and my life worth living now that I have this information.

Shame on you!

Reply
allordpwnsu (Oct 25, 2013 - 12:24 pm)

I just skimmed that piece. Provocative. The section on Harold and Kumar really made me stop and think. Unfortunately, if I were grading it, I would have to give it a C- because she failed to mention probably the most important movie about the open road produced in the past 2 generations - Cheech and Chong's classic Up in Smoke, where a Mexican-American and a half Asian Canadian had to evade police at border checkpoints and on the open road in order to deliver a cargo truck that was made out of marijuana to its destination. The juxtaposition of that narrative on the narrative of the checkpoint would have likely been the most important piece of legal scholarship in the past 50 years.

You know, before I hadn't grasped the importance of peer review, but after noticing this glaring deficiency, peer review makes all of the sense in the world.

Reply
nancyleong (Oct 26, 2013 - 1:44 pm)

Dear "dybbuk,"

First, thank you so much for calling attention to my scholarship. I'm beyond honored, and indeed more than a little incredulous, that you've now been commenting about "The Open Road and the Traffic Stop" for over a year, and that you have even gone so far as to write a fictional tribute to it. I was under the impression that fan fiction is a genre normally reserved for adolescents enamored of the "Twilight" series, so I am flattered by the depth and intensity of your attention, as well as impressed by the amount of time you apparently have on your hands to express it.

I can't pretend to fathom exactly what goes on in a unique mind like yours, but perhaps your fascination with "The Open Road and the Traffic Stop" is due to the fact that entire paragraphs of this particular article were quoted in a concurrence to a published Fourth Circuit opinion (see United States v. Mubdi, 691 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2012)).

Given that my work has clearly already had a profound impact on you, perhaps one day I can even inspire you to go one step further. As you've already noticed, I always publish and comment under my own name, and accept the consequences of doing so. Perhaps you and your little friends will one day consider doing the same -- as we grown-ups do -- rather than cowering behind a protective cloak of anonymity like children.

Best wishes,
Nancy Leong

Reply
fmllawyer (Oct 26, 2013 - 2:40 pm)

I highly suspect this is a flame, but I'll bite.

Yes, because anonymous comments have never had a place in history - particularly when the anonymous commenters' careers and reputations could be adversely impacted when criticizing a thoroughly corrupt industry like the law school industry. You don't think the individuals and companies profiting handsomely off the law school industry will do anything they can to ruin those who have the temerity to speak up?

I take it you haven't read the Federalist Papers, Nancy? James Madison and his "little friends" found it appropriate to use pseudonyms to comment on issues of public importance. But I guess we're just "children." Ad hominem is always so convincing.

Reply
dopesmokeresquire (Oct 26, 2013 - 2:46 pm)

Nancy forgets that in the real world most us don't have the benefit of tenure.

Reply
fmllawyer (Oct 26, 2013 - 2:50 pm)

Oh, you don't think writing about "racial capitalism" for $100,00+ is the "real world"? /sarcasm

Reply
dupednontraditional (Oct 26, 2013 - 9:21 pm)

Http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/09/butthurt-lawprofs.html?m=1

Reply
dybbuk (Oct 26, 2013 - 10:18 pm)

Nancy Leong,

I am going to avoid the temptation to match your ironic put-downs and insinuations. I appreciate your comment below that you are potentially sympathetic to “some” scamblogger concerns, though how sincerely I do not know. So here are my concerns:

Your scholarship is worthless, as is that of many of your law professor colleagues. But "Open Road,” deserves attention as the single worst law review article I have ever read, one moreover, written by a person who constantly blogs that legal scholarship holds immense value for students and the profession. Pompous phrase-mongering combined college freshman quality cultural criticism (“The American Dream," Nancy, really?) cannot substitute for scholarly rigor and insight. Unless the law review author is a lazy scammer, like you.

Don’t believe me? Present your “Open Road” findings to a group of public defenders. Tell them that you have learned, through extensive study, that “The symbolism of the road as a route to a better life- one free and unencumbered—dissipates in the face of bickering over whether a host of minutiae means that a police officer saw enough and heard enough or knew enough to establish reasonable suspicion. The American dream has no time for such details; put another way, someone whose fate hangs on those details has no time to chase the American Dream.”

Explain to the public defenders how your findings will help them represent their clients. Those public defenders—“little” people, if you like—will either dismiss your scholarship as a bad comedy act, or be extremely insulted.

After the public defenders have educated you as to the precise value of your so-called scholarship, you can then proceed to explain to your students (infinitesimal people?) that you have never practiced the field you purport to profess, criminal procedure. Your students are paying a fortune in borrowed money in the trust and belief that you can offer them valuable professional training. And you are getting rich off that misplaced trust, drawing a lucrative salary to teach a subject you really know very little about, along with the opportunity to write bullshit, which you pass off as scholarship.

Again, you have never practiced criminal law. You have not even dabbled. Has it even to you occurred to devote some of your ample free time, time you evidently devote to watching bad moves, to helping a prisoner craft a collateral or a clemency petition —a genuine area of unmet need? Or is such work for little lawyers? Because you, from your elevated heights, have too much important thinking to do about "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle"?

How can you be so supercilious, snippy, and affected? A decent person in your position would express humility and gratitude. But having read that slop called "Open Road," I will go one step further. You should lower your eyes in shame at the sight of your Sturm students, the victims or your scamming. Or at the sight of criminal practitioners, of whom pretty much every one is more qualified to do your job than you

Reply
jdmbacpa (Oct 28, 2013 - 8:10 pm)

LOL! This made my day, total ownage

Reply
dopesmokeresquire (Oct 26, 2013 - 1:49 pm)

Wow a real law prof posted here!

Nancy, did you see that new england schoolof law is putting the screws to its tenured faculty by threatening them with 8 hour workdays? care to weigh in?

Reply
nancyleong (Oct 26, 2013 - 2:53 pm)

Hi dopesmokeresquire,

Nice handle, and thanks for your very legitimate question. I don't want to hijack dybbuk's thread on what appears to be one of his "fave" topics, so I won't be responding in this forum, but you're welcome to follow up with me by email. You can find my contact information elsewhere online, and I'm more than willing to discuss these issues in a civil fashion, as are the majority of my colleagues.

One of the problems with many of the so-called scam blogs is that they tolerate and even encourage sexist, racist, and vitriolic comments. This alienates many people who are sympathetic to some of the the concerns that have been raised about legal education and who would welcome an opportunity to engage constructively about how legal education should change moving forward.

For the reason I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I'm unlikely to return to this thread or this blog in the future. But please do feel free to get in touch by other means.

Nancy

Reply
kmc666 (Oct 26, 2013 - 3:27 pm)

One of the problems with much of the so-called legal scholarship is that it tolerates and even encourages inane prose. This alienates many people who are sympathetic to some of the the concerns that have been raised by legal scholarship and who would welcome an opportunity to engage constructively about how legal scholarship should change moving forward.

Reply
ignominiousdocreview (Oct 27, 2013 - 12:08 am)

I haven't seen dybbuk or any of his "little friends" say anything sexist, racist, or particularly vitriolic in this thread. But my saying that distracts from the obvious fact that you didn't respond to DSE's question about lazy professors at all.- you just danced around the issue with some condescension and complaints about imagined bigotry.

I have several questions. Does your scholarship justify Denver's non-discounted $208,407 (or $2,477/mo for 10 years) in tuition? Does your scholarship help the 57.7% of your students who don't get full-time employment as lawyers within six months? The money that subsidizes your luxurious lifestyle has to come from somewhere. Here is my source for those figures: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=co

A lot of young lawyers, myself included, feel as though we were lied to by people like yourself. I feel that you and other law professors like yourself hide behind a veil of institutional prestige and academic jargon to conceal that your law school exists not to benefit your students, but a privileged class of administrators and tenured professors who earn six-figure salaries, work less than 30 hours a week, and enjoy job security unheard of in the private sector. Do you have anything to say in response to that?

Reply
jdmbacpa (Oct 28, 2013 - 8:14 pm)

Good post

Reply
raskolnikov (Oct 27, 2013 - 4:47 pm)

I see you are well practiced in obscurantism.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Oct 26, 2013 - 8:13 pm)

Ms. Leong:

Thank you for coming on here. I apologize for my harsh criticism of your paper above and after spending the better of this afternoon reading it in full, I think I should have given it a B-. Can you please elaborate on why you didn't mention Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke in the piece?

Keep up the good work and don't let the haters phase you. Your scholarship is critical and I shudder to think of a world in which the Fourth Circuit didn't have your scholarship available.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Oct 26, 2013 - 8:26 pm)

Ms. Leong:

A further follow up question. Did you talk to the publishing law review to see how they cite checked your piece? Your vast knowledge of American pop culture juxtaposed over law probably made for many days of enjoyable movie watching and song listening for the youngsters who were fortunate enough to receive the assignment of your cite check. Best cite check ever! Pizza and popcorn for all. Truly inspirational and I'd love to hear the war stories if you'd be kind enough to share them.

Reply
mikoyan (Oct 26, 2013 - 9:59 pm)

You know, when I watch Vanishing Point, Sullivan's Travels, Buffalo '66, Brown Bunny (ugh), Duel, or Drive--or Lost in America, The Sure Thing or even National Lampoon's Vacation--the sense I get from them is not that the road represents the path to "a better life," unless "crushing loneliness and lack of meaning" is synonymous with that term, which a law professor might well believe, as long as such applies to others, particularly their students.

Does the paper even go into the seven decades' worth of criticism American cinema has already applied to the (always naive) fantasy of the open road? Does it do so without using the phrase "counter-narrative"?

Reply
allordpwnsu (Oct 26, 2013 - 10:13 pm)

Perhaps rather than hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, you could draft and publish a counterargument in a law review.

Reply
mikoyan (Oct 26, 2013 - 10:20 pm)

I did find that a funny comment from Ms. Leong. I talk shit about law school, law professors, and the like all the time in my own name--but I'm not so profoundly stupid as she thinks I should be, as to do it on JDU.

But in any event, I don't think I have the necessary qualifications: sadly, I've yet to convince Congress to support my movie reviews with a salary funded by tax dollars. Of course, neither did Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael, who wrote things someone might actually want to read.

Reply
billyx (Oct 26, 2013 - 11:43 pm)

She is just one of those gals who always wanted to write, oh, so very badly.

Looks like her dream came true, after all. She does write badly.

Got a good laugh there...thanks...
Looks like another vampire draining the life blood of naive young kids....

Reply
sparky (Oct 27, 2013 - 9:52 am)

Nancy,

Until I went in house last year, I was a trial lawyer, with several years experience practicing plaintiff's civil rights and employment work. Not racist or sexist either. Took on cases with tenuous liability because I thought the clients, for the most part, women and African Americans were treated unfairly.

I went to a real law school too, same conference that your undergrad school is in. Aside from 1995, 1996, 2000 and 2008 we generally kick the shit out of it in football.

Unlike you, I even argued in the United States Court of Appeals three times and have my name on a few other federal appellate briefs and one response to a cert petition in the Supremes. Also tried several cases, and have a couple seven figure judgments, although to be fair, I was second chair on those.

Despite going to a world class law school, I really have to say I did not learn a whole hell of a lot about being a real, practicing lawyer. I had to write law review quality survey papers, but they really didn't teach you how to get your point across in the twenty page limit most judges place on you in motion practice.

Same for the rules of evidence. I learned the theory of very obscure hearsay objections, but I did not learn how to raise the most basic objection in a deposition or in trial.

I think the bitch over here is you and your colleagues do not prepare the "average" law school student to do what they will generally do, and that is be a real, practicing lawyer. And you charge a hell of a lot of money for, what many would argue, is a worthless education for someone who wants to practice law in the trenches.

I can honestly say, the law review articles in my state dealing with the annual survey of what the appellate courts have done in various areas are helpful.

However, the esoteric ones you and Professor Hip Hop write are essentially analytical deadwood.

Despite what you said about flouncing your first day over here, I hope you pop in from time to time.

Best,

Sparky

Reply
tranquiljd (Oct 27, 2013 - 3:10 pm)

TITCR.

I've been admitted for over 30 years, and one of my areas of expertise is appellate litigation. I always thought the the purpose of a law review article was to assist the practitioner either in researching an area of law with which s/he was unfamiliar or in providing updates on changes in the law. When did the law review devolve into some odd hybrid of the ABA Journal and Vanity Fair?

I know that the reviews are under a lot of pressure to print articles on topics that have not been previously handled. I had lunch with two friends the other day, both of whom were editors on journals at their respective schools, and they told me that they were strongly encouraged to print articles on obscure issues rather than do updates on recognized issues. That's all well and good, but it does nothing for the legal community at large.

BTW, the Mubdi case that was cited above was vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded to the Fourth Circuit. On remand, the Fourth Circuit vacated the original decision. I'm not sure that I would use that particular case to bolster an argument justifying that type of scholarship, but that 's just me.

Reply
dupednontraditional (Oct 27, 2013 - 6:32 pm)

I wondered about that. Being spoiled-brat proud of being cited in an opinion that got the sh!t kicked out of it seems odd to me, but hey, not all of us can fathom the great minds of the privileged few, I guess. They are our Promethean Betters, and us poors need to get back in line.

Reply
adamb (Oct 30, 2013 - 3:29 pm)

If you have an impressive resume, why do you make so little money?

Reply
ichininosan (Oct 27, 2013 - 11:38 am)

In a previous posting Professor Leong indicates that there are law faculty who are "sympathetic to some of the the concerns that have been raised about legal education and who would welcome an opportunity to engage constructively about how legal education should change moving forward." She invites those of who have genuine concerns about legal education to contact her directly so that we can have civil discourse on the subject. If I believed that Professor Leong is "sympathetic" to these concerns and therefore sincere in her offer to have civil discourse, I would contact her. But she is insincere. How do I know this? The public record:

1. On October 15, 2013, over 500 law school professors submitted a letter to the ABA opposing a proposal to decouple ABA accreditation and tenure for professors. As I noted previously, the fact that few professors at the "better" schools signed this letter while many professors at the "lesser" schools did is telling insofar as whose interests the signatories sought to protect. To be crystal clear: professors at schools whose students have decent employment outcomes do not believe professors at law school whose students who have dismal prospects need tenure. The other signatory professors have no interest in reform, or in their students,whatsoever. They care exclusively for their own economic interests. Along with three of her colleagues, professor Leong signed that letter. Are you surprised? I'm not.

2. In March, 2013, a total of 67 professors submitted a letter to the ABA calling for reform of legal education. The signatories include many reform-minded professors familiar to readers here, including Brian Tamanaha, Paul Caron, Paul Campos, Orin Kerr, and Deborah Merritt. Professor Leong did not sign that letter, nor did any of her colleagues at Denver. Shocked? I'm not.

The non-discounted cost of attending Denver is $208K over three years. Of last year's 317 graduates, less than half found jobs requiring JD passage. And only 20 (yes, 6.3%) found the law firm / fed clerk jobs that they will need to finance their education. If Professor Leong cared about the state of legal education, or even the state of her former students, she would need to first deal with these very uncomfortable facts. She might also need to consider the extent to which the exorbitant cost of attendance is designed to fund her scholarship. If she did, she might come to learn that discussions of legal education reform are not so "off-topic" from discussions about her scholarship after all. But that's a discussion Professor Leong does not want to have.

Actions are telling.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/20131009_comment_ch_4_law_professors.authcheckdam.pdf

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/03/67-law-profs-and-deans-.html

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=denver&show=ABA

Reply
lolskewl (Oct 27, 2013 - 11:51 am)

I'm glad that some of the racist/sexist crap spewed by a few posters was deleted. But if she really has been following the movement (or if she stepped out of the limousine liberal bubble), she'd understand intuitively why young lawyers/law students with a shitton of debt and no tenure or other form of job security would not want to contact faculty members directly. That she "insists" on this condition before we can submit ourselves to her groundbreaking analysis of why it's okay to charge someone 34K in tuition to go to Denver Law shows exactly how much she's really interested in a dialogue.

At least Stevie D. showed up here and engaged in a long thread.

Reply
dupednontraditional (Oct 27, 2013 - 6:42 pm)

They are "sympathetic to the concerns" of law students/graduates like ranchers and butchers are sympathetic to the needs of the next herd of cattle being raised.

Reply
fmllawyer (Oct 27, 2013 - 7:24 pm)

Yes. Law students and graduates are where these dirty thieves and fraudulent hucksters get their next student loan fix.

Who is seriously financing their law school educations with debt at this point? They should be able to make a mental incompetency argument to rescind their student loan contracts.

Nancy, if you're still reading this (and we know you are because you're enraged this thread is showing up on the first page of Google results), know that your salary is financed through human misery. It's not entirely your fault but you partake in it willingly.

Reply
doublefriedchicken (Oct 28, 2013 - 10:59 am)

Well I saw "The Road Warrior" so I guess they don't have traffic stops in Australia and we see how that worked out.

Reply
imoothereforeim (Oct 30, 2013 - 8:49 pm)

"Well I saw 'The Road Warrior narratives so I guess they don't have traffic stops narratives in Australia narratives and we see how that narratives worked out."


Fixed it for ya.

Reply
hankstamper (Oct 30, 2013 - 8:12 pm)

I think Nancy should consider doing a follow-up law review article on the stark contrast between statutory rape laws and the exuberant narratives of young love found in our most celebrated cultural texts.

Perhaps she could title it something like, "Romeo and Juliet and the Jurisprudence of Statutory Rape: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of Young Love." She could probably just change a few words here and there, and have a finished article. E.g., "These dry judicial narratives [of sex crimes] contrast starkly with the joyful, liberated narrative of young love that we find in our most exalted cultural texts.")

Reply
fmllawyer (Oct 30, 2013 - 10:34 pm)

Everyone knows Nancy sent a takedown notice over the other thread regarding her "scholarship" right and got it deleted, right?

Reply
adamb (Oct 31, 2013 - 9:26 am)

I think that one of the threads may have been moved to OT, but individual posts have been deleted. I guess part of her job is patrolling the internet to keep her image clean (I thought that the law schools paid professional services to handle this).

Reply
ignominiousdocreview (Oct 31, 2013 - 9:48 am)

The 20 hour work week gives law professors a lot of time to google themselves

Reply
fmllawyer (Oct 31, 2013 - 10:05 am)

Do you think papers on racial capitalism, which society demands, needs, and expects, are going to generate themselves as if by thin air? The good professor is meeting a societal need. It's just good and simple economics.

Reply
ichininosan (Oct 31, 2013 - 9:31 pm)

I know, because I posted it. It was a letter that Prof. Leong publicized on Facebook, addressed to Adam Liptak (NYT), protesting his article on the uselessness of law review articles. I assume the reason that she did not want it published here was because the real audience of the letter was the law professor clique. Protests like hers look ridiculous outside of that echo chamber. The NYT did not publish her "concerns," which seemed frivolous to me, and I assume to any other person whose identity is not vested in sanctity of the law reviews.

Reply
hankstamper (Oct 31, 2013 - 5:41 pm)

I imagine that Nancy is checking this thread about once an hour, sort of like an insecure teenage girl with too much time on her hands constantly checking her Facebook posts for new comments.

Reply
abazungu (Oct 31, 2013 - 6:56 pm)

The problem with Nancy's premise is simple. She posits the idea that there exists a romanticized cultural narrative about the road and road trips. She is correct about this. Then she posits the idea that legal decisions that deal with vehicle stops are dry and factual and have nothing of the romance of our favorite texts about the open road. She is correct about this as well.

The minor issue she misses is that legal decisions are dry and factual and free of romance and adventure with regards to all issues. There are many cultural narratives that receive a dry, factual treatment in judicial decisions. The plucky immigrant who wants to improve his life becomes someone who was stopped at a border crossing, or convicted of a CIMT or was found present without a visa. A loving couple whose blissful marriage meets an ignominious end are reduced to child custody concerns and the division of assets. The entrepreneurs whose company ends up in trouble are discussed in terms of breaches of contract, liability for damages and so on.

Judicial decisions are dry and factual because that's what they need to be. Ideally, they are written so that the parties to a case receive a reasoned explanation of why a case was decided in a certain way and so that future litigants and judges have a sense of how future cases might be decided. Florid prose would not meet this end.

Nancy's article is all but useless because it tries to find a link between two things that aren't really related to each other. More than an academic work, this essay seems like a badly conceived compare and contrast essay written for a high school English class.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Oct 31, 2013 - 9:41 pm)

But have you ever stepped back and considered the why? Why are there roadblocks on the open road that disparately impact minorities? Why?

And don't we deserve better? Can't our courts hire English majors to make the decisions more interesting to read? And in so doing, can't they articulate the why better than lawyers and judges? Don't we as a society at least deserve this much from our legal system?

And why was the scene in Harold and Kumar she referenced in her article about the racist white cops funny? Because it was totally true. All white cops are racist against all minorities. So now that we know the facts, what can we do about it? We should start with a new exclusionary rule that prohibits the use of all evidence obtained by white police officers against minority criminal defendants following a traffic stop. At. A. Minimum. And then, the white police should ALL be sued under 42 USC 1983 every time they arrest a minority because the arrest is per se a civil rights violation because, but for the cop's racism, the arrest wouldn't have occurred.

Reply
sparky (Oct 31, 2013 - 10:17 pm)

White cops don't like Polacks either.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131031/METRO01/310310097/Man-beaten-harassed-by-Westland-cops-awarded-700K?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Reply
vanity (Nov 1, 2013 - 12:26 am)

I've never understood why law professors are so critical of people using pseudonyms or preferring to stay anonymous. It seems like they would encourage the use of anonymity so that people could honestly and accurately articulate their thoughts on their law review articles. Remaining anonymous is as close to tenure as the "real world" gets.

I suspect they think anonymity is overrated because you can't attack the critic personally - you actually have to engage and defend the merits of your article. This leaves people like Nancy in a bad position because, frankly, the ideas expressed in her article are useless. I could be wrong though. Maybe Nancy will stop in and enlighten us as to why she needs tenure but we don't need anonymity?

Reply
hankstamper (Nov 1, 2013 - 1:57 am)

Nancy is derisive of anonymity on the internet, yet as a law professor she probably requires anonymity of her students for final exams.

Maybe she should write an article about that contrast.

Reply
adamb (Nov 2, 2013 - 8:58 am)

In academia -- and in legal scholarship in particular -- the powers-that-be do not care about what a person writes, they care about who wrote it. So, Nancy's colleagues may tell her that she is brilliant for spending a year writing a law review article which was cited in a non-binding concurrence where the majority opinion was reversed anyway. The only thing that matters is CV credentials, not "talent," whatever that means in the law review context.

I think it enrages a person like Nancy Leong to read what real lawyers really think about her work. And I say that as someone who actually reads a lot of law review articles -- well, sections of them -- when they discuss state topics and provide a nice summary of cites. I do not think law review articles about real legal issues are useless if they actually help me research an issue more efficiently. (In law reviews, I have no use for the creative writng stuff, I'd rather read a novel in that case.)

Reply
midlaw (Nov 3, 2013 - 10:51 pm)

To be fair, practicing law sucks relative to watching movies.

Maybe Nancy will marry and support me while I watch movies to help her prep for her next article. What say you Nancy?

Reply
adamb (Dec 23, 2013 - 9:55 am)

Be careful: if you say something that Nancy dislikes, she recently said that she will file a bar complaint against you! If only we had tenure...

Reply
jackiechiles (Dec 23, 2013 - 10:08 am)

When did that happen?

Reply
adamb (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:26 am)

In a post last week, she claimed to have filed ethics violations complaints against a few of her critics. Supposedly, these complaints were based on sexist/racist message board comments. Even the existence of these posts is debatable, as she mainly has posted screenshots of anonymous comments, although she implies that many of these comments are connected to a few of her "main critics" (or something like that).

Whether she actually filed complaints -- who knows?

Reply
jackiechiles (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:31 am)

Is it unethical to make sexist or racist remarks though? I'm pretty sure there's someone in Westboro Baptist Church that's a lawyer.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:40 am)

Unethical under the rules of professional conduct? I guess it could depend on the state, but unless the attorney is breaking the law, I think it would be an uphill battle to prosecute such a case. But don't forget, the First Amendment does not apply in cases where someone says something that other people may find objectionable, so hopefully the bar can remediate this behavior.

Reply
jackiechiles (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:49 am)

Adult bullying is a real thing. We need to make being mean illegal.

Reply
vespucius (Dec 23, 2013 - 12:59 pm)

We can't allow lawprofs to have their works criticized. They have important work to do in advancing our society. Peer review is hurting these efforts.

With their low pay, we shouldn't be kicking them when they are down.

Reply
kmc666 (Dec 23, 2013 - 2:59 pm)

What's next, peer review becomes a violation of people's free speech?

Reply
vespucius (Dec 23, 2013 - 3:03 pm)

Absolutely. Don't you realize that these law profs only make the same salary as a Radiation Oncologist? And the Radiation Oncologist gets to work more and strange hours like double shifts and weekends.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:31 am)

Well, some folks in this thread posted some very unnecessary comments (which Admin has removed), but I don't know that using the bar's scarce resources to stomp these out is prudent.

Reply
jackiechiles (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:35 am)

I mean I'm all for wasting the bar's resources, so now I kind of want her to inundate the bar with complaints.

Reply
inindiana (Dec 23, 2013 - 12:42 pm)

The disciplinary commission in my state wouldn't even open an investigation based on her thin-skinned whining. There are too many attorneys who commingle or flat out steal client funds, screw their clients (literally or figuratively), take on matters which they have no business getting into, and engage in criminal behavior either related to the above or otherwise for the bar to waste five minutes before dismissing the complaint outright.

I have often wondered whether the disciplinary commission maintains a file consisting of the most outlandish complaints made against attorneys and if so, whether they are read out at the office Christmas party. So far nobody from the DC will confirm or deny this suspicion. A complaint alleging what amounts to little more than "he's being a big meanie" would surely deserve such ridicule.

Reply
raskolnikov (Dec 23, 2013 - 11:25 am)

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/law-professor-tries-to-leverage-phony-claims-of-racial-victimization-into-better-job

Un-fucking-believable. Give her hell dybbuk!

Reply
Guest (Dec 23, 2013 - 12:46 pm)

Campos strikes again

Reply
cavebro (Dec 23, 2013 - 3:43 pm)

I'm against racism, sexism, etc. People should be judged on their actions and the merits of their work.

That being said, I would be super pissed if my student loan dollars were going to pay the salary of someone who had never practiced law. My law school may have been ranked low — but 90% of the professors I had were highly experienced in their subjects; contracts profs was commercial law partner in BigLaw, civ pro prof was litigation partner in BigLaw, crim law, crim pro, and evidence profs were all either criminal defense lawyers or prosecutors for a number of years before becoming fulltime professors. Estates and trusts prof had written dozens of law review articles — about estates and trusts law (no movie reviews though).

Reply
spaghetti (Dec 24, 2013 - 7:29 am)

That article is offensively bad.

Reply
depressedandhungry (Dec 24, 2013 - 7:54 am)

She is the perfect poster child for what is wrong with legal education in this country. My goodness! Kids are paying her mountains of non dischargeable debt to learn about criminal law. What the hell does she know about criminal law? Heck, she was still in high school when I got admitted and I am not even that old. What does she really know about anything? How the hell did she get her job ? She can't even write in my humble opinion. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but money and lives are at stake. This is now the real deal and Nancy needs to quit throwing little infant temper tantrums because people have the audacity to criticize her public writings and taxpayer subsidized lifestyle.

Reply
dudeingorillasuit (Dec 24, 2013 - 1:32 pm)

I think you're just jealous.

Reply
allordpwnsu (Dec 24, 2013 - 1:39 pm)

And sexist.

Reply
eddiemunster (Jan 23, 2014 - 11:25 pm)

Holy crap - just tuned into all this. Wow, that woman has some serious baggage and probably unresolved daddy issues - I pity her husband (assuming she's ever interested in one).

I have to defend her just a bit though - those are some pretty heavyweight law review articles she's either written for or will soon. She's already been published more in a few short years in better journals than most of my professors did during their entire pathetic careers. Sure, it isn't law practice, but not all academics are practitioners and vice versa and it doesn't make them all worthless. Though her focus resembles more of the "Law and ____" social science disguised as law versus actual law, I'd still be more upset if she didn't publish, never practiced and spent all day on facebook (seen that happen already from one recent hire at my alma mater... she's also young, attractive and Ivy educated. No, I will not out her.)

Admittedly there is an agenda at work with Leong, to get the hell out of Denver and into a higher ranked school. Can't blame her for that; no doubt she is on the market again this year and someone will pick her up - and no, it doesn't hurt that she's a minority and attractive.

That said, she's really been milking the racism shtick for all it's worth - I lost count at the number of references to Racial Capitalism on her faculty page. I suppose race as a capitalist commodity is ok when a law is school looking to hire a minority professor though. Good luck, hot stuff.

Reply
jbot (Jan 24, 2014 - 12:53 am)

Unintentional "Sixteen Candles" reference probably not a good idea.

Reply
adamb (Jan 24, 2014 - 10:22 am)

I'd avoid calling her "hot stuff" -- that is exactly the kind of "sexism" that she accused dybuuk of when he called her "comely" three times in three comments that span over 14 months.

She will track you down on the internet and file a 107 page bar complaint.

Reply
jackiechiles (Jan 24, 2014 - 10:33 am)

Your mockery of her bar complaint is sexism itself. Prepare for the Nancy Leong hammer to come crashing down on you.

Reply
eddiemunster (Jan 24, 2014 - 11:18 am)

I'm surprised she finds time to chase down internet trolls with all the publishing going on - and the bar association doesn't give a shit about fragile egos either way. And besides, dybuuk has a legal career he actually cares about.

Shit, my break is over - pardon me while I make another latte for this hot Asian woman who just walked in.

Reply
Post a message in this thread