Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Jonathan Adler and David Bernstein offer their thoughts on the appointment controversy over at the VC.
After reading the Minnesota Daily article and the other comments, a few things strike me as noteworthy:
1) When you're a 1L, "top 20" falls out of your mouth with almost no effort, on average once every other sentence.
2) When practically the entire school is aware of the "issue" and the petition, and 70 signatures by Wednesday is the best you can do, crossing your fingers for 100 by Friday, have "the people" spoken?
Inside Higher Ed has more here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/29/delahunty
I thought I would share this little nugget that I stumbled over during my studies. I found it to be particularly relevant to the Delahunty controversy.Post a Comment
“The attorney is not liable for every mistake he may make in his practice; he is not, in the absence of an express agreement, an insurer of the soundness of his opinions or of the validity of an instrument that he is engaged to draft; and he is not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well-informed lawyers . . .” Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685, 689 (Cal, 1961).
Though this case has been questioned, it has only been questioned concerning the rule-against-perpetuities. The law regarding a lawyer’s duty is still good law. So, opponents of Delahunty are not well-informed lawyers on the specifics of torture law or, rather, they generally are not well-informed. You decide.