Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > US Immigration, Citizenship and Visas
Reload this Page >

OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Old Mar 8th 2006, 11:53 pm
  #31  
I'm back!
 
Just Jenney's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Just Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond reputeJust Jenney has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Great post, Rete.

In reading through this thread, one thing that came to mind which no one is mentioning is the information that USCIS itself provides, such as at Infopass appointments or through their infamous I-800-misinformation line.

There have been dozens of times where I've read this NG's resident attorneys say that it's not USCIS's fault if their employees give out the wrong information, and it's not USCIS's fault if the recipient of that wrong information suffers negative consequences by relying on it to be correct. That it is the responsibility of the immigrant, not USCIS employees, to know US immigration laws and procedures.

So wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that USCIS employees are practicing law without a license when they answer immigrants' questions about the immigration process? And I don't just mean answering questions incorrectly -- I mean answering ANY question.

For those so worried about UPL, shouldn't you be telling people NOT to ask USCIS employees to help answer their immigration questions? USCIS employees aren't licensed to practice law, just like most of this NG's participants aren't licensed to practice law. And yet they answer immigration questions the same way that we do -- in fact, it is their JOB to do so. To make matters worse, because the answers are coming from employees of USCIS, the immigrants receiving those answers are MUCH more likely to believe they are getting correct, legal information that is safe to act upon.

Just curious...

~ Jenney
Just Jenney is offline  
Old Mar 8th 2006, 11:56 pm
  #32  
MDUdall
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

    >No one here on the AVUMB newsgroup accepts money or gifts for their
participation.

Please show me anything that says one must charge a monetary fee in
order for advice to be legal advice in nature. Plus, some might be
compelled to engage in this activity for non-monetary reasons. Perhaps
the gaining of reputation?

I know we disagree about this, and that is perfectly understandable. So
why not ask those in your state in charge of this matter for an
unbiased opinion.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/about/about.shtml

    >There are several immigration forums on the Usenet beside AVUMB, i.e.
alt.visa.us, misc.usa.immigration and they have several long time
participants on them who are sought out for advice. Some even have
extensive home pages detailing various immigration processes and they
are not attorneys. Yet, why is it that on those two forums, which by
the way are homes to several US attorneys as well, is the issue of UPL
not rearing its ugly head and why aren't people like Kevin Keene or
Rich Wales being raked over the coals and strong armed to curtail their
participation because they are obviously held in high regard by the
newsgroup community and their words are treated as gospel?

I don't participate on multiple immigration forums. Do you?

    >I often find that you over reach in your attempt to find an analogy for
UPL, i.e. doctors, pilots, etc. The AVUMB forum is not on the same par
as someone who opens an office and hangs a phony shingle on the wall
proclaiming themselves a doctor and then dispenses medicine and in some
cases performs surgery.

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? You talk about those who "hang
out a phony shingle". Most net-tarios don't do that, but they render
legal advice just the same. I would think a more apt comparison would
be someone (not licensed and who lets others know that) who
systematically and regularly over the span of years takes it upon
themselves the task of diagnosing people's medical problems and
recommending courses of treatment. Surely you can see how dangerous
that could be to the public, especially when the natural tendency in
that situation would be for some to rely upon the medical advice (based
on a diagnoses) as a substitute for going to a trained doctor.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again. I personally draw a
distinction between those who occasionally post about what happened in
their own case vs. those who make it a habit and hobby to do this over
the span of years (and you can apply this to my medical analogy above
too).

    >Your issue with the N-400 and UPL. Just the fact that
you have posted in a thread that you believe that anyone who files an
N-400 who has participated in a forum that deals with immigration
should put down that they are guilty of having committed a crime, has
done much to hurt your credibility.

No, actually I "asked" the person if they ran this potential problem by
their attorney, and if so, what they found out.

Yes, people make mistakes. I recall a highly respected prolific
hobbyist who openly told someone to lie at the POE in order to
immigrate with a non-immigrant option. I also recall another prolific
hobbyist telling someone to lie about their true residential address on
an I-751 and that hobbyist probably didn't know this has been found to
be a material misrepresentation by the courts. That advice might have
caused the recipient of that advice huge immigration problems, and I
wonder if that hobbyist ever contacted his recipient (of the
information) to warn him about the incorrect advice given?

Mentioning the real and obvious dangers of UPL is not protecting the
hobbyist from himself, it's protecting the unwary immigration community
from the hobbyist.
 
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:04 am
  #33  
Banned
 
Matthew Udall's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Matthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
So wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that USCIS employees are practicing law without a license when they answer immigrants' questions about the immigration process? And I don't just mean answering questions incorrectly -- I mean answering ANY question.
I’ve often posted that the CIS (and a Congressperson for that matter) is “not” someone’s private attorney and its not their job to render detailed advice based on a client’s unique facts/situation. But you are correct in that they are asked to do this often, and sometimes their general information is incorrect.

I just did a consultation today and it took over an hour just to get the callers story/facts down. I doubt a CIS employee on the 800 number would spend that amount of time.

When I was going through my divorce, I went to the court here in L.A. to pick up some paperwork, and in the clerk’s office they had multiple signs saying, “Don’t ask the clerks about which forms to file and questions about divorce proceedings. They are not licensed to practice law” (I might be off a bit, but that was the gist of the message).
Matthew Udall is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:12 am
  #34  
BE Enthusiast
 
hcj1440's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: SFO
Posts: 871
hcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond reputehcj1440 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
Actually, for me DCF cases are more difficult (logistically) and are more stressful. While I try to always submit a well-documented AOS, if it gets kicked back at least the couple are not put in as bad of a situation where I’ve instead put together a package and sent a U.S. citizen half way around the world to try to file something at a Consulate. But that’s just me I guess (and I’ve done a fair amount of DCF work).

I’ve been participating in groups for years, and I believe mine was the first post to ever mention looking at DCF as an option. Back then, none of the net-tarios knew it existed, but they did run with it once I brought it to their attention. And of course, that’s a good thing.

Maybe the attorney’s advice was based on unknown (to us) factors you shared with the attorney. Maybe he was concerned how you would meet the I-864 requirement if you were living outside the U.S. and with no job in the U.S. Who knows why he gave the advice he gave based on your unique facts and/or goals. None of us were there to hear the conversation.

Mr Udall --

I do appreciate your thoughts on DCF and how they may be logistically more difficult for an attorney to handle. My attorney (and his office) did AOS cases in their sleep in San Francisco. If they did *any* DCF cases, I think it's reasonable to assume they were fewer and farther in between. Add to that the unpredictability of dealing with different US consulates, and I can see why it may have been a more uncomfortable option to offer.

Still, IMHO he should have mentioned the DCF option, discussed the pros and cons with us, and allowed us to participate in an informed decision instead of unilaterally making the choice FOR us. Knowing what I know now, I believe we were excellent DCF candidates. I was "domiciled" in the US and was only traveling on vacation, I had sufficient assets for an affidavit of support as well as access to a joint sponsor if necessary, my husband did not have any overstay or other issues which would have caused him to be inadmissible, etc.

Anyhoo -- I chalk it up to a lesson learned for me. I have learned this lesson over and over again in different arenas, whether it be financial advice, legal advice, or what have you. This is what I have learned: The help of a professional can be absolutely invaluable. But, I am the one who has to live with the consequences of whatever decision we make. Professionals are human; they make mistakes; they may have ulterior motives or merely "comfort levels" that aren't necessarily the best option for me. I hope I am never so trusting again.

P.S. I am not bashing attorneys and I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm just advocating educated consumerism.
hcj1440 is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:18 am
  #35  
Banned
 
Matthew Udall's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Matthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by hcj1440
Mr Udall --

I do appreciate your thoughts on DCF and how they may be logistically more difficult for an attorney to handle. My attorney (and his office) did AOS cases in their sleep in San Francisco. If they did *any* DCF cases, I think it's reasonable to assume they were fewer and farther in between. Add to that the unpredictability of dealing with different US consulates, and I can see why it may have been a more uncomfortable option to offer.

Still, IMHO he should have mentioned the DCF option, discussed the pros and cons with us, and allowed us to participate in an informed decision instead of unilaterally making the choice FOR us. Knowing what I know now, I believe we were excellent DCF candidates. I was "domiciled" in the US and was only traveling on vacation, I had sufficient assets for an affidavit of support as well as access to a joint sponsor if necessary, my husband did not have any overstay or other issues which would have caused him to be inadmissible, etc.

Anyhoo -- I chalk it up to a lesson learned for me. I have learned this lesson over and over again in different arenas, whether it be financial advice, legal advice, or what have you. This is what I have learned: The help of a professional can be absolutely invaluable. But, I am the one who has to live with the consequences of whatever decision we make. Professionals are human; they make mistakes; they may have ulterior motives or merely "comfort levels" that aren't necessarily the best option for me. I hope I am never so trusting again.

P.S. I am not bashing attorneys and I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm just advocating educated consumerism.
I used to practice in SF too and I loved living in that city (I still miss it).

If their practice is like mine, then yes, they probably don’t do nearly as many DCF cases for the simple reason that most petitioners live in the U.S. and don’t have the resources to do DCF. And, it “could” be that they just were not aware of the option.

As far as making a decision for a client, the client has the ultimate say in the matter. I’m often asked, “what should I do”, and the best reply I can give is that I can outline all of the options, but the client has to decide what works best for their unique situation (and I can often tell them of “factors” that other people seem to think are important and that weigh heavily in their decision making process).
Matthew Udall is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:25 am
  #36  
Account Closed
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by rete648
I wanted to reply to Mr. Folinsky's thread in a manner in which I will
be viewed only as a participant and not as a "moderator" for a site
that is a portal to this Usenet newsgroup, alt.visa.us.marriage-based.
Hi:

I posted the article to cause some debate. Also, I would like to reiterate that the dividing line is not a "bright line" at all. I will be the first to admit that.

On the money thing -- perhaps I'm influenced by the fact that the "PL" I engage in is not "U" in any way -- but I try to avoid creating the attorney-client relationship and, believe it or not -- that realtionship can be created even when money is NOT paid. So, the fact of money, or lack thereof, changing hands is not relevant in my mind.

[Although the flip side is true -- acceptance of money IS indicia of a relationship].

BTW, I saw Alan Diamante in Immigration Court yesterday and several of us attorney types were discussing the article. Much of our contempt is not for the notarios, but for the licensed attorneys who should know better!

I'm on the local LACBA/AILA/MABA/EOIR liasion committee and we had our quarterly meeting today. One of the plagues of the local immigration court are the "Notarios" who hire young hungry attorneys to make the actual appearances and to try cases without adequate preperation. We gave the liaison judge a copy of the article to let THEM know they now have a way of dealing with an intractable problem.

Please read Alan Diamante's comment -- he has to FIX the damage. My main problem with UPL is the damage that it causes -- and that is what I try to deal with -- the damage, not the niceties and lines of the law on this one.
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:28 am
  #37  
Account Closed
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Jenney & Mark
Great post, Rete.

In reading through this thread, one thing that came to mind which no one is mentioning is the information that USCIS itself provides, such as at Infopass appointments or through their infamous I-800-misinformation line.

There have been dozens of times where I've read this NG's resident attorneys say that it's not USCIS's fault if their employees give out the wrong information, and it's not USCIS's fault if the recipient of that wrong information suffers negative consequences by relying on it to be correct. That it is the responsibility of the immigrant, not USCIS employees, to know US immigration laws and procedures.

So wouldn't it be a fair statement to say that USCIS employees are practicing law without a license when they answer immigrants' questions about the immigration process? And I don't just mean answering questions incorrectly -- I mean answering ANY question.

For those so worried about UPL, shouldn't you be telling people NOT to ask USCIS employees to help answer their immigration questions? USCIS employees aren't licensed to practice law, just like most of this NG's participants aren't licensed to practice law. And yet they answer immigration questions the same way that we do -- in fact, it is their JOB to do so. To make matters worse, because the answers are coming from employees of USCIS, the immigrants receiving those answers are MUCH more likely to believe they are getting correct, legal information that is safe to act upon.

Just curious...

~ Jenney
Hi:

No, they are practicing law -- but with permission and screwing it up all the time. BTW, unlike other types of "PL" -- the government employees are immune from liability and the public has no right to rely on the information they give out -- its called "equitable estoppel" and it can't be alleged against the government or its employees -- the Supremes have said so [Schweiker v Hansen -- a crop insurance case of all things].
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:29 am
  #38  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,358
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
That’s nice in “theory” but I don’t think that is what happens in practice. Again, look at all of the answers to “should I hire an attorney” questions to see the mindset of the majority. Plus, we have some net-tarios that have gained reputations as legal advisors. Heck, one even brags about taking an immigration class in junior college and even thought that would qualify her to represent people in immigration court! (until set straight by another member).



Hey, I like that!
For those who are wondering, I am the person Mr. Udall is referring to. I attend City University of New York which Mr. Udall considers a Junior College. Please note that CUNY also has a School of Law and when you graduate you will have earned a Law Degree the same as his.

The program I attend is here:

http://sps.gc.cuny.edu/programs/cert...ration_program

Please read the end paragraph. It spells out what the program enables the graduate to do in the world of helping immigrants. And yes, that means I can go to immigration court with an immigrant and advise him/her on their case.

Rete

BTW Mr. Folinsky can vouch for the credentials of the courses founder, Allan Wernick.
Rete is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:42 am
  #39  
Account Closed
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
When I was going through my divorce, I went to the court here in L.A. to pick up some paperwork, and in the clerk’s office they had multiple signs saying, “Don’t ask the clerks about which forms to file and questions about divorce proceedings. They are not licensed to practice law” (I might be off a bit, but that was the gist of the message).
Hi:

LOL. I'm doing a probate for a family member now and ran into those signs in the Superior Court and was told "I'm sorry, we can't give legal advice. Consult with an attorney." To which I responded "I AM admitted to the bar, but 'live' in the Federal Building." Then they were quite helpful!

Another situation, on some work on my house some years back, my contractor went to pull the permit and B&S said there were omissions on the plans. Now my contractor was not about to modify certified architect plans. My architect said plans were fine but it would be extra money to pull permit and B&S were full of it. So **I** went down -- the plan checker notes one omission, I ask for clarification, "ask you architecht", "I did and she said they were fine. What do I need to have them do?" So the plan checker shows me -- and since **I** own the plans, I take out my pen and make the correct and ask "Are they OK now" "No, look at omission #2" "Please explain" "Ask your architecht." "I did ..." -- we went through this SIX times when plan check signed off and I pulled the permit. My practice of immigration law sure came in handy!
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 12:49 am
  #40  
Account Closed
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Rete
For those who are wondering, I am the person Mr. Udall is referring to. I attend City University of New York which Mr. Udall considers a Junior College. Please note that CUNY also has a School of Law and when you graduate you will have earned a Law Degree the same as his.

The program I attend is here:

http://sps.gc.cuny.edu/programs/cert...ration_program

Please read the end paragraph. It spells out what the program enables the graduate to do in the world of helping immigrants. And yes, that means I can go to immigration court with an immigrant and advise him/her on their case.

Rete

BTW Mr. Folinsky can vouch for the credentials of the courses founder, Allan Wernick.
Hi Rete:

I can vouch for Allan Wernick's credentials -- in fact, he taught the course for a while at Los Angeles City College -- which is a "Community College" [the newer politically correct term for "Junior College"]. Not only are those classes taught in "Community Colleges", they are also taught in "Extension" and "Certificate" courses adjunct to 4-years schools such as UCLA, California State Univeristy, and apparently CUNY. These are NOT classes in a course of study leading to a degree.
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 1:00 am
  #41  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
scrubbedexpat099 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

I think this site could well be described as an 'attractive nuisance', but not perhaps in the same sense as it was meant. I am more familiar with UK Legal practice, and always assumed that this referred to children, not adults.

I actually have recently gone through the State US Licensing System for my Profession, It involved 4 days in class, 4 exams, all were multiple guess. If you failed you could do it again the following day. I know that those recently licensed have limited knowledge, I have spoken to them.

That compares with a process that takes 3 years as a minimum in the UK, most take 5 years and is essentially of Degree level. The exams are held twice a year and unfortunately none were multiple guess.

It never occurred to me that Immigration in its basic form would be deemed soley a legal pervue, I looked at it as being more akin to applying for a SSN, or Drivers License, Unemployment Benefits, whatever. Yes, some people might need help, but not neccessarily legal help. In the vast majority of cases it is all administrative, the only reason most people have issues is that the process is designed to be user unfriendly.
scrubbedexpat099 is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 1:01 am
  #42  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,358
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Hi Rete:

I can vouch for Allan Wernick's credentials -- in fact, he taught the course for a while at Los Angeles City College -- which is a "Community College" [the newer politically correct term for "Junior College"]. Not only are those classes taught in "Community Colleges", they are also taught in "Extension" and "Certificate" courses adjunct to 4-years schools such as UCLA, California State Univeristy, and apparently CUNY. These are NOT classes in a course of study leading to a degree.

No they are not. I don't recall ever saying they did. I did say they will earn the participant who successfully completes the three courses of study an "Immigration Law Certification".
Rete is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 1:24 am
  #43  
Banned
 
Matthew Udall's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Matthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Rete
Please note that CUNY also has a School of Law and when you graduate you will have earned a Law Degree the same as his.
Have you graduated from the law school? Are you enrolled? Last I heard you were taking one or more of these basics classes (and don't forget passing the bar exam).

Originally Posted by Rete
The program I attend is here:

http://sps.gc.cuny.edu/programs/cert...ration_program

Please read the end paragraph. It spells out what the program enables the graduate to do in the world of helping immigrants. And yes, that means I can go to immigration court with an immigrant and advise him/her on their case.

Rete
Mr. F addressed your claim that you will be authorized to represent people in immigration court once before if memory serves.

As far as courtroom attendance, are you referring to the field trip they mention near the bottom of the third course’s description: “While the course does not emphasize courtroom skills, it does include a visit to Immigration Court to witness removal proceedings first hand”.

Earlier on the site, they give some general information about the three courses. I see they say: “It is designed for individuals working in companies, government agencies and nonprofit organizations where they interact with immigrants and immigrant legal concerns on a regular basis and would therefore benefit from greater knowledge of the laws and regulations surrounding immigration”.

How do you get from you benefiting from greater knowledge to being authorized to practice law in immigration court? Like I said, maybe I’m wrong.
Matthew Udall is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 1:43 am
  #44  
Account Closed
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Folinskyinla is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Rete
No they are not. I don't recall ever saying they did. I did say they will earn the participant who successfully completes the three courses of study an "Immigration Law Certification".
Rete:

Please read the post carefully -- I didn't say you said anything. I simply described the nature of the course. I did read your disagreement with Matt's charactarization as a "junior college" course. Since I'm long married to a Jersey Girl, I'm quite cognizant of the fact that CUNY includes four year degreed programs. [I'm also aware of the uproar when I was young when the then CCNY went over to "open admissions" as opposed to competitive admissions]. Although Matt's charactarization was not precisely correct, it did not strike me as all that far off the mark -- and you did ask me for verification of Alan Wernick's credentials.
Folinskyinla is offline  
Old Mar 9th 2006, 1:47 am
  #45  
Banned
 
Matthew Udall's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Matthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond reputeMatthew Udall has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"

Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
Rete:

Please read the post carefully -- I didn't say you said anything. I simply described the nature of the course. I did read your disagreement with Matt's charactarization as a "junior college" course. Since I'm long married to a Jersey Girl, I'm quite cognizant of the fact that CUNY includes four year degreed programs. [I'm also aware of the uproar when I was young when the then CCNY went over to "open admissions" as opposed to competitive admissions]. Although Matt's charactarization was not precisely correct, it did not strike me as all that far off the mark -- and you did ask me for verification of Alan Wernick's credentials.
I didn't mean anything by saying junior college. Just going from memory and I recall that it wasn't law school.

By the way Rita, you first posted about this in January 05. Are you still attending? I thought these courses were only a few weeks long.
Matthew Udall is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.