Don't want to be "that guy/girl," but I might have to...
December 29, 2009 9:44 AM   Subscribe

Law school filter: I saw someone recording a class last semester, which is against our school's regulations. Big deal?

I definitely witnessed a classmate recording a class last semester, using the "Record" function in the Mac version of MS Word. She did it at least on two separate occasions toward the end of the semester. Such activity is specifically against our school's regulations, which prohibits the audio recording of any class unless done by the professor for students absent due to religious holidays.

Further, the professor of the class recorded specifically stated at the beginning of the semester that he did not allow recording.

I know the recording itself does not rise to the level of cheating on an exam (which was closed book), but our school's regulation/honor code does state that awareness of some infraction, such as this, is itself a violation if we do not report it. I don't want to be "that guy/girl" and feel like a tattle-tale, but at the same time I was deeply offended by what I saw, and that the classmate thought she was somehow exempt from the rule prohibiting her from gaining an unfair advantage. I'm also aware that the law is a self-regulating profession and that we have a duty to uphold the highest of ethics, etc. etc. I take that seriously but also don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Granted, I should have done something about this sooner, but exams were about to start and I had enough stress of my own, so my own hands are not 100% clean.

Has anyone dealt with this at their own law school? If so, is this something you'd report after the fact? Alternatively, should I say something to the classmate, that I saw her? I had decided against this since it doesn't seem particularly useful, but am willing to hear other points of view. Or at this point, should I just drop it altogether?
posted by anonymous to Education (50 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
our school's regulation/honor code does state that awareness of some infraction, such as this, is itself a violation if we do not report it.

This is all you need to know; don't be an unethical lawyer or lawyer-to-be.
posted by dfriedman at 9:45 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Drop it, how much could unfair advantage could it really give her? Who has time to listen to lecture tapes?
posted by Kirklander at 9:47 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


[I] don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.

That's the job of the honor council or whatever body you report the incident to. It's not your job to judge whether or not to bring an action against the student, nor to decide the punishment if he or she is found to have violated the honor code. Your job is simply to report the incident.

In an analogy to the criminal law, you're just filing a police report. The police still have to decide whether to investigate, the prosecutor whether to indict, the grand jury whether to return the indictment, the jury whether to find guilty, and the judge to mete out punishment.

Your role is very clear, as is the course you must take. It's not a comfortable role, but be reassured that there are several layers of due process and personal and professional judgment before this person is punished. If you are mistaken or the action does not deserve punishment or the student had special dispensation or whatever, it will almost certainly be found out.
posted by jedicus at 9:56 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


When I was an administrator in an American law school's dean of students office this is what I would have told a student who reported this infraction to me: thank you for obeying the rules and regulations of your tenancy here at the law school. We appreciate your honesty and willingness to abide by the rules. We'll take it from here.

Then we would have taken it from there. It may seem an odd rule, but it is the rule. It probably has less to do with advantage to the students and more to do with the proprietary content of the lectures.

It only gets harder: you will, as a practising lawyer, receive barely competent pleadings, listen to lawyers for the other side lie, watch them completely misrepresent (or misunderstand) the current state of the law of your jurisdiction. You'll see them double-bill; you'll watch them copy other people's work without permission or without making sure it applies. You'll see them kick back perks to one another for cases. It's a shitty horrible nasty place, the legal profession, but it serves an important purpose and there are good people in it. But it won't get any better until lawyers start questioning the shitty practices and behavior of the lawyers around them.
posted by crush-onastick at 10:01 AM on December 29, 2009 [21 favorites]


Put me down in the mind your own business group with the rest of the ethically suspect.

There are a lot of different levels of ethics and morals and somewhere in there is a firm instruction not to tattle on others, especially for something relatively trivial.

You're going to be seeing dubious behavior for the rest of your life. You're going to have a very busy career making citizens arrests if you decide this is your path.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:03 AM on December 29, 2009 [5 favorites]


Believe me, its not much of an advantage to have a recording of a lecture - I know from experience.

Also, you are being way too idealistic about this. No, its not a big deal. Quit being such a goody two shoes.
posted by verapamil at 10:04 AM on December 29, 2009


Nobody knows what you saw
Well, except the two of you, who definitely do.

and who really cares if somebody else did something that's not truly cheating anyways?
Except that it explicitly is cheating, or at least breaking the rules.

Right now, this very second, you are violating the honor code of your school. Another person forced that position upon you. Are you ok with that?
posted by brainmouse at 10:05 AM on December 29, 2009


Drop it, how much could unfair advantage could it really give her?

How do we know she's doing it to give herself an advantage? It could be for other students so they don't need to bother going to class.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:08 AM on December 29, 2009


Drop it, how much could unfair advantage could it really give her?

Assuming the asker's honor code is like the two law school honor codes that I'm familiar with, the received advantage is a matter for the prosecutor-equivalent to weigh in whether to bring an action and the judge-equivalent to weigh in deciding the degree of punishment appropriate to the offense. It has no bearing on whether this offense was committed. Furthermore, it's unlikely that the asker is exempt from reporting unethical behavior that 'isn't too advantageous.' The ethical rules are bright-line rules for a reason.

So why not broach it with the woman directly? "Hey, I saw you recording that thing; don't do that."

I can't speak to the asker's honor code, but the honor codes I've seen and the ethical rules for attorneys are quite clear that improper conduct must be reported to the disciplinary board/honor council. Simply talking to, warning, or reprimanding the offending attorney does not discharge the ethical duty to report.
posted by jedicus at 10:09 AM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why would someone seek to disallow presumably paying students from making an audio recording of a lecture? I suppose my take would be to drop the issue, largely because my ethics-sense compels me to disobey rules or laws which I do not find just or purposeful. And even abandoning that, I stridently disagree that you are obligated to follow whatever regulations any intermediary authority might incur upon you regarding your own personal non-infringing behaviors. It's one thing to ask someone to follow a rule, it's another thing--a despicable, draconian thing--to hold everyone else accountable as enforcement agents.

I can't see what good would be brought about by reporting this, but perhaps I just don't understand the rationale behind the rule in the first place.
posted by Phyltre at 10:10 AM on December 29, 2009 [6 favorites]


Who hasn’t?

For real...

Sure, you could read your honor code so literally as to see yourself in grave ethical danger. But isn’t that one of those absurd readings of the law that we’re not required to reach? Unless of course you are part of some lecture-pirating MP3 ring.

There is no shortage of things to be “deeply offended” by in law school. But what the profession needs, if you don’t mind my saying so, is people who are less offended by MacBook microphone recordings of Torts lectures and more offended by social injustice.
posted by Kirklander at 10:12 AM on December 29, 2009 [13 favorites]


You're only aware of what you saw, which is a student recording the lecture. You're NOT aware that you saw anyone breaking any rules - only that someone MAY have been breaking the rules. This is because certain individuals with disabilities or dispensation are going to be exempt from this rule. Remember, a student doesn't have to alert the rest of you that she's got a special dispensation. Just the teacher. (I saw a very sad exchange with a teacher when I was an undergraduate student who didn't understand that the student was hearing-impaired and hadn't received notice from the department that the student would be using a transcriber to take part in the course. Teacher just didn't get it, but only knew that she had a "no laptop" policy. So she threw a fit and the poor disabled student was left sputtering about how she had sent been sent clearance from the dean's office.)

It is only up to you to report things that you know to be a violation. The truth is that there are a dozen different reasons why this student may have been exempt from this rule and it isn't your job to focus on all of them.

You're also WAY past any reasonable time when this would matter. Law professors and administrators are, above all other things, at the mercy of their bureaucracy. It's late in the game to make a stink about this. What do you hope to do? Bump her grade down? Mar her official record? Make yourself feel better?

I would be willing to bet it is the last, as that is the root of most student complaints. And having made some petty, pointless complaints in my day, I can assure you that it's a waste of everyone's time.

We had a student STEAL another student's laptop when I was in law school. And you know what? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They talked to him and he got a firm warning. Committed a crime. And nothing. My roommate was the victim and chose not to press charges because he was a nice guy. But there were no academic sanctions whatsoever. And that was a crime, which he was caught (on camera and found with the stolen laptop) committing.

Your complaint is so much less concrete, so much older, and of so little gravity that it almost guarantees that pursuing it is a waste of time for everyone.
posted by greekphilosophy at 10:18 AM on December 29, 2009 [14 favorites]


Why would someone seek to disallow presumably paying students from making an audio recording of a lecture?

Because as pointed out upthread it could allow other students to skip class and get the recording from others. The American Bar Association and law schools take class attendance pretty seriously, as law student absenteeism is sometimes a problem. Also, some overzealous professors take their copyright in their lectures pretty seriously.

It's one thing to ask someone to follow a rule, it's another thing--a despicable, draconian thing--to hold everyone else accountable as enforcement agents.

Self-policing is how the legal profession works, as the asker pointed out. There's no lawyer police investigating unethical lawyers. If you don't like it, great, don't become a lawyer. If the asker doesn't like it, then he or she should work to change the system (run for honor council, work for the bar association, etc). But right now he or she has signed on to an ethical duty to report, full stop.

Believe me, its not much of an advantage to have a recording of a lecture - I know from experience.

Once again, that's not for the asker to determine. He or she noticed two incidents, an investigation may find others. There may be other students skipping class and using these recordings. And of course, the way law school grading works, even a single point on an exam can be the difference between letter grades.

You're only aware of what you saw, which is a student recording the lecture. You're NOT aware that you saw anyone breaking any rules - only that someone MAY have been breaking the rules. This is because certain individuals with disabilities or dispensation are going to be exempt from this rule.

It's not the asker's job to determine if a rule was broken: after all, if it were, then why bother with an honor council or a jury? No, the asker's job is very much to report something that appeared to be a violation of the rules. Any special dispensation will quickly be determined as part of the investigation: an investigation that the asker is likely not required or equipped to undertake.

Your complaint is so much less concrete, so much older, and of so little gravity that it almost guarantees that pursuing it is a waste of time for everyone.

That's not for the asker to determine! That's the honor council's job. And your story about the stolen laptop, while unfortunate, says nothing about the honor council at the asker's law school.
posted by jedicus at 10:23 AM on December 29, 2009 [6 favorites]


Ideally, you'd have asked her about it immediately. The alternative is to turn it. These are the types of issues that honor council is designed to resolve. Hopefully you've got a well functioning, student-administered honor council. If she is allowed to record the lectures, she can tell the honor council that and there will be in harm done. Issue resolved. If she doesn't, then the honor council can take appropriate action. Some schools have zero tolerance on cheating and she'll be sent down. Others might simply void her grade for that course.

Other people lie, cheat and steal. You can facilitate that by ignoring it, you can confront it directly or you can report it. My first choice is always to confront it. However, turning it in is also acceptable. Even if the honor council fails, you'll have done your part to live in an honorable society.

Having gone to 1 undergraduate university and 3 graduate schools, I can say there's a variation in the strength of honor codes. The universities where I learned the most and where I was happiest had very strict honor codes.
posted by 26.2 at 10:43 AM on December 29, 2009


Isn't it unethical to peek over somebody's shoulder and spy on them, keeping tabs on what they're doing on their own computer* in MS word in the middle of a lecture? On multiple occasions? How closely would you have to be looking at her computer to see this, anyway?

The asker would not have to be 'spying' or even looking particularly closely. When the record function in Word for Mac is used, it throws up a big red RECORDING icon and a red volume meter.

Many law school classrooms are lecture halls with a kind of stadium seating. It's almost impossible not to see the screens of numerous people in front of you. Alternatively, the asker could sit next to the recording student. It could even be a friend of his or hers. The asker could easily have seen the RECORDING icon without reading the other student's notes or even being able to read them.
posted by jedicus at 10:44 AM on December 29, 2009


That ship has already sailed. You already broke the honor code by not reporting it when it happened.

Reporting it now seems pointless. Decide what you're going to do if you see something like that happen again.

One thing you might do is to pretend to assume good faith and say "OMG! You probably didn't notice that your computer is recording the lecture! Thank God I noticed it before you got in trouble for violating the honor code."
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:48 AM on December 29, 2009


An ethical attorney here to say, with all due respect, please just grow up and move on.
posted by applemeat at 10:57 AM on December 29, 2009 [6 favorites]


Another vote for please do tell the honor council. This requires very little effort on your part.

Arguments about how it's "no big deal" are specious; rules exist for a reason and the line must be drawn somewhere. Arguments about the value of "minding your own business" are also specious; choosing to do nothing in a situation where something clearly needs to be done is obviously unethical.

The ethical rules are bright-line rules for a reason.

Jedicus is right.
posted by Lobster Garden at 10:57 AM on December 29, 2009


jedicus, I think you might be missing the underlying point at the heart of the OP's question. Anonymous is asking if his/her opinion of the situation is relevant. The OP posits that the rules require reporting, but he/she does not personally believe that such a report is necessarily warranted or would perform any positive function.

You seem to be implying that Anonymous' opinion of the situation is not relevant; that he/she is not truly acting as a free decision-making agent in this case because the rules require reporting infractions. To wit:

"If the asker doesn't like it, then he or she should work to change the system (run for honor council, work for the bar association, etc)."

The implication is that the only people who have any say in the content and enforcement of the rules are the leadership groups tasked with forming the rules. But this is is patently false. A set of rules or laws does not remove moral responsibility from the individual. Law and regulation are only a small part of what enforces order in this world--it is the nature of individual compliance, and lack thereof that govern what actually happens.

Ergo--no honor code, law, or regulation makes it okay for the OP to report something to a governing body if they aren't comfortable with what they believe the result might be. It is the job of each and every living human being to be an arbiter of reasonable conduct. To imply that because it's "the honor council's job", one should simply do as one is told without consideration? Why even bother being human?
posted by Phyltre at 10:58 AM on December 29, 2009 [3 favorites]


No one on metafilter is going to be able to answer this question for you -- but I think it's a more difficult problem than some people here are making out. You have perhaps not yet taken your professional responsibility course (cue lawyer jokes ...) but the Model Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to report/rat/narc misconduct of others. In fact, it says:
Rule 8.3: Reporting Professional Misconduct
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
I can't really say how often this rule is followed in practice, but that's the rule. You're not a lawyer, so you're not bound by the Rules -- but you might use this Rule as a guide. You might also have agreed when you started law school to follow certain similar rules.

According to the Rule, you must report misconduct, but only misconduct that you know has occurred, and then only misconduct that "raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, etc., ...". Although I mostly agree with jedicus above, I do think that before reporting someone it's appropriate to consider the nature of the misconduct. Here's a quote from the Official Comments:
[3] If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. ...
The question isn't "is this a big deal?" but "does this speak to the honesty of the person?". This is something for you to consider, and I think you're entirely justified in taking this seriously.
posted by lex mercatoria at 11:00 AM on December 29, 2009 [2 favorites]


Perhaps she has a reason to be recording the lectures, such as an accommodation for a disability, and cleared it with the professor or school beforehand?
posted by spinifex23 at 11:10 AM on December 29, 2009


Ergo--no honor code, law, or regulation makes it okay for the OP to report something to a governing body if they aren't comfortable with what they believe the result might be. It is the job of each and every living human being to be an arbiter of reasonable conduct. To imply that because it's "the honor council's job", one should simply do as one is told without consideration? Why even bother being human?

The asker explicitly signed on to the honor code. In many if not most law schools, the students actually physically sign a copy as a requirement for registration. In some schools, they again sign an affirmation of their understanding of the code prior to taking each exam. The asker is free to decide that the code is requiring something unethical of him or her, but in that case his or her options are to either leave law school or to break his or her own oath to uphold the honor code. He or she absolutely knew what she was getting into. This is not like an act of civil disobedience; if the asker felt that the rules were too draconian, he or she had the option not to go to law school in the first place.

What you are suggesting is for the asker to say "Yes, I intentionally agreed to this code, draconian rules and all, but I have now decided to break that agreement." He or she could do that, but I would counsel against it. At the very least it is, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils to report the incidents than to violate the agreement to uphold the honor code.

Perhaps she has a reason to be recording the lectures, such as an accommodation for a disability, and cleared it with the professor or school beforehand?

If that is the case, it will be determined quickly by the ensuing investigation. Law school honor codes are generally packed with due process and rights of the accused (as they should be). Many codes even allow the accused to hire an actual attorney to represent them before the honor council. It is highly unlikely that an obviously innocent student would be railroaded by the honor code.
posted by jedicus at 11:15 AM on December 29, 2009


I expect that your chosen profession, like many others, has its own unwritten code of ethics, enforced not by an 'honor council' but by your peers. Learn it now.

(To be less cryptic: that there is unethical behavior at all in your field is evidence that many, probably the vast majority, of successful practicing lawyers are not meeting their professional obligation to report. Find one you know and respect, and ask them why.)
posted by a young man in spats at 11:17 AM on December 29, 2009


Not sure what's weirder, that the school makes such a big deal out of it, or that someone actually did it. Lots of law students feel (wrongly, natch) that pure stenography is the best form of note-taking. Is there anything preventing people from sharing notes? If not, why not? Good questions to maybe ask the dean in an off-the-record conversation about why this rule exists, what it's meant to prevent, and whether (and if so, why) the school feels that this is something that bears directly on fitness for the practice of law.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:18 AM on December 29, 2009


If you ran a law school like Iran, with everyone informing on everyone for minor infractions, then I suspect a lot of people would be tossed out for violating the honor code rules against getting high.
posted by Kirklander at 11:24 AM on December 29, 2009


Not sure what's weirder, that the school makes such a big deal out of it, or that someone actually did it.

Yeah, at mine they just said it was a bad way to study.
posted by Kirklander at 11:37 AM on December 29, 2009


You have a duty to report. Our profession isn't like others. We have to tell. That is our job. Usually smart lawyers spend time making sure they don't see violations. You didn't get that choice.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:37 AM on December 29, 2009


for all the people bringing up the idea that the recording student might have had a cleared reason for what she did, that is something that isn't up to the asker of this question. her duty seems clear - report it, take her licks for waiting so long, and report sooner next time.
posted by nadawi at 12:08 PM on December 29, 2009


How do you know she doesn't have a learning disability and thus permission to record lectures?
posted by Jacqueline at 12:11 PM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jacqueline - the asker doesn't know, but if it is what is going on, the people in charge will know that. the asker's ethical obligations don't diminish, no matter what the reason for the recording was.
posted by nadawi at 12:20 PM on December 29, 2009


Here is a pretty good quote from Prof. Patrick Schlitz's classic essay, "On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy and Unethical Profession":
I don’t have anything against the formal rules. Often, they are all that stands between an unethical lawyer and a vulnerable client. You should learn them and follow them...

...But complying with the formal rules will not make you an ethical lawyer, any more than complying with the criminal law will make you an ethical person. Many of the sleaziest lawyers you will encounter will be absolutely scrupulous in their compliance with the formal rules. In fact, they will be only too happy to tell you just that.

...You should treat others as you want them to treat you. Be honest and fair. Show respect and compassion. Keep your promises. Here is a good rule of thumb: If you would be ashamed if your parents or spouse or children knew what you were doing, then you should not do it.
posted by Kirklander at 12:22 PM on December 29, 2009 [7 favorites]


I wouldn't do it. What have you got to gain or lose by whatever she's doing? Leave her alone. She's obviously anxious enough to risk breaking the rules. Why compound to her misery? Do you really want to be the person ruining this young woman's law school career?

You have a choice. A rule is a rule is a rule doesn't work here. You're not a lawyer yet and you won't get brownie points for reporting her. You'll just seem like a hyper-competitive crank to everyone who finds out that you reported her and word will get around that you were the one who told on her.

Don't be that guy.
posted by anniecat at 12:34 PM on December 29, 2009 [3 favorites]


I fall into the category of "what can possibly be gained by this?" It's been too long that they'll possibly do something about a relatively minor and unsubstantiated allegation. Let it go.

Yes, the honor code is there for a reason, but I also completely disagree with those who say that it's up to the honor council to make every decision. In any real world situation there are instances where the harm is so marginal that you just let it slide. Yes, that's how bad situations sometimes develop, but it's also how systems of rules function with imperfect people. You didn't see her cheating on an exam, you didn't see her selling the recording to anyone else, and you didn't address it when the moment was ripe. It can't be undone, or prevented, so just let it go.

Also, an I mean this to sound less snarky than it may come across, I think to get a good moral grasp on this you need to separate a desire for a well-funtioning rules system and a desire to not let people "get away with things." There's a difference between preventing something that harms you or others, like cheating on a test, and this, for which it sorta sounds like you just want to see her punished because she broke the rules.
posted by mercredi at 12:36 PM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why are you asking us? Go to your Dean of Students and ask him/her. Say "If I saw somebody recording a lecture, should I report him/her?" If the Dean says "yes," then spill. If the Dean says "no," then forget about it. If the Dean says "what do you think," reply with "I don't know, that's why I'm asking you" and insist on an answer.
posted by jabberjaw at 1:14 PM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jabberjaw's answer is a cop-out and not a particularly good one at that. If you go to the Dean of Students, you are essentially taking a big step towards the road of telling on her, but asking the Dean if he/she wants to know first. If the Dean doesn't want to know, he/she can always ignore the information after receiving it with similar effects, so asking doesn't do much here.

As I see it, you don't seem to want to tell on her, and I don't think you should. The violation was small, the class is long over, you don't really know the facts, and she could be authorized to record due to a disability or other situation that she hasn't announced publicly. The main hesitations seem to be:

- "I'm also aware that the law is a self-regulating profession and that we have a duty to uphold the highest of ethics, etc. etc." - As lex mercatoria nicely argues, the misconduct has to "raise a substantial question" as to the honesty of the person. To me, this issue does raise a question, but not a substantial one. There's no real line of course and many do disagree, but de minimis non curat lex , and I personally don't think this situation would make me think "could I really trust this person?"

- You are violating a rule yourself by not turning her in. True, but blind obedience to rules is not a particularly good sign of strong ethical reasoning. You can't reasonably be punished for not turning her in (also not a strong criteria for your decision, but one worth considering), because no one is going to insist if this ever comes to light that you ought to have known about her behavior based on your seating position.

Ultimately, would her legal education and the profession of lawyering be better served if you turned her in? I don't think so. You most likely aren't keeping some evil ethically-challenged lawyer out of the bar, and while it's possible she would better develop an understanding of rules and ethics if turned in, it's more likely she'll simply be upset and resentful to have such a big deal made out of such a small matter. The consequences set in motion by reporting someone for a violation of academic integrity are very often enormous, not always because of the seriousness of the violation, but because Academic Integrity are two big scary words which Must Be Enforced At All Times lest cheating becomes even more rampant.

There's no slippery slope here, just drop it and move on.
posted by zachlipton at 2:33 PM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Since it appears that someone has had the temerity to flag my earlier posts for deletion, I summarize my thoughts once more without the gaud of snark in the hopes of putting this into perspective.

Regardless of whether the recorder had permission to record (and let's assume she did not), from a practical standpoint, having a recording of a law school class really gives no advantage at exams. Studying by reviewing a recording is far too time consuming; if that's the approach she took, you should thank her for improving the grading curve. More likely, the "no recording" rule was mandated to preserve the school's IP--the lectures at law schools are exceedingly profitable (no labs, no written homework, etc.). Reasonable minds may differ as to whether you should be entitled to record lectures for which you may be paying $120,000; I personally can't imagine wanting to preserve them for posterity, but I don't appreciate being told that I couldn't if I wanted to.

All the same, you had your own obligation under your honor code to report the recorder, which you affirmatively chose not to fulfill because you did not want to add to your stress during your exams. Thus, while the benefit to the recorder from breaking the rules was, as I've suggested above, dubious, your benefit from breaking the rules was arguably concrete and fully realized. You did not, in fact, have to sit in the dean's office reporting the person and did not have to appear before the Honor Council to give your testimony. Oughtn't you be punished for your infraction, as well? As I mentioned in an earlier post, you have been careful enough to post anonymously, presumably out of fear for the collateral damage you could suffer merely by asking this question.

Had you posted this in good faith when you first saw the recording take place, you could have justifiably been "deeply offended" by what seems to me to be a minor infraction (but an infraction all the same). Having bided your time to personal advantage, your officious outrage strikes me as a bit unseemly. If it was wrong, you should have spoken up then.

I would take this as an opportunity to learn about your own character. Move on and give some consideration to what you will do in the future if you should learn that a colleague is double billing, using drugs, misappropriating client funds or opportunities, or other mis- or malfeasance. Would you report him or her if it meant negative consequences for you (e.g., tarnished reputation for your firm, loss of a client, personal animosity)?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:49 PM on December 29, 2009 [2 favorites]


Fellow law student, entering my last semester. You have a duty under the honor code to report this type of infraction, so do it.
posted by Atreides at 3:07 PM on December 29, 2009


Don't be that guy. You never know what could have been going on in that person's life, such as a death in the family. It might not be fair to record, but tattling could screw them out of a college degree.
posted by SarahElizaP at 4:55 PM on December 29, 2009


As someone who once complained to her law school admins about two students who plagiarized an entire section of their Moot Court brief and was soundly told to keep it quiet, I urge you to think about your own reputation in this matter.

During law school, two students plagiarized a section of a brief - it was my original writing and they passed it off as their own. When I took this to the "professor" overseeing the brief grading, I was urged to just let it drop. I took it to the higher admins and again was told to let it drop.

I suspect that, even if you do take this to a higher admin, you'll be told the same thing. Trust me: losing faith in one's own law school sucks.
posted by LOLAttorney2009 at 5:35 PM on December 29, 2009 [1 favorite]


Mod note: few comments removed - no more lawyer jokes or "isn't it ironic..." statements please
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:28 PM on December 29, 2009


re: my comment.

If that is the case, it will be determined quickly by the ensuing investigation. Law school honor codes are generally packed with due process and rights of the accused (as they should be). Many codes even allow the accused to hire an actual attorney to represent them before the honor council. It is highly unlikely that an obviously innocent student would be railroaded by the honor code.

Thanks for the clarification. I have no idea how the honor code in Law School works, and that makes a lot of sense.
posted by spinifex23 at 11:24 PM on December 29, 2009


The honor code says you should report it. You signed off on the honor code saying you would abide by it. Ergo, you should report it. Anonymously if needs be and it's allowed.

Incidentally I'm reminded of all those Saved By The Bell episodes where someone finds a copy of the final exam and turns it in, only to find that their turning in (or not turning in) the final was the final itself. Not to say that this is a formal part of class, but it is a part of your education.
posted by subbes at 12:43 AM on December 30, 2009


Mountain, meet molehill. Drop it. Not worth the heartache or hassle. And I got a Distinction in Legal Ethics.
posted by jannw at 2:29 AM on December 30, 2009


It is wrong to tell and it is wrong to not tell. Not telling does some vague and incoherent harm to the professor, in that his (probably stupid) orders are not obeyed, and his and the school's (definitely stupid) copyright is not respected; and to the rest of the class, in that one of them has received some potential slight advantage denied to the rest.

Telling has a high probability of doing specific harm to specific people: to the lecture-recorder, who may be punished in some way, and yourself, who will have put process above outcome, means above ends, rules above people, and obedience above compassion; and furthermore, quite likely gained a reputation as a tattler.

Life is full of choices; there is no rule that says that one (or more) of those choices need lead to a good outcome.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:24 AM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


What amazed me in these answers is the idea that the OP would be taking something away from the other student. She broke the rule; she signed an honor code stating she would honor the university's code of ethical behaviors. She put herself in a position to be caught.

The OP isn't manufacturing a claim against her. She's reaping the rewards of her own choices. If she gets caught and gets in trouble, then that's stems from her own actions.
posted by 26.2 at 1:48 PM on December 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


there is no rule that says that one (or more) of those choices need lead to a good outcome.

Actually, the OP specifically said there is such a rule. Of course, you may not like the rule, but there is a rule, and it's presumably backed up by potential consequences if it's violated.
posted by Jaltcoh at 1:57 PM on December 30, 2009


Jaltcoh Actually, the OP specifically said there is such a rule. Of course, you may not like the rule, but there is a rule, and it's presumably backed up by potential consequences if it's violated.

You misunderstand. There is no rule in life that says that we get a "good choice". Life is not like a puzzle or CRPG conversation-tree in which one or more of the potential things we may do will give us a good outcome. Here, the OP gets to choose whether to tell and do/take the harm from telling, or not tell and do/take the harm from not telling. He/she may not like either outcome, but that fact does not deprive or excuse him/her of having to make the choice.

26.2 What amazed me in these answers is the idea that the OP would be taking something away from the other student. She broke the rule; she signed an honor code stating she would honor the university's code of ethical behaviors. She put herself in a position to be caught.

People are not "caught" in violations of "the rules" by magic or an all-seeing god. People make up rules for their own purposes, often but not always for the benefit of the group the rules constrain (personally, I would classify the rule against recording to be clearly against the benefit of students, and vaguely to the benefit of the institution, but it's not about what I think, it's a decision the OP has to make). People obey or disobey rules for their own reasons, for group and/or personal benefit. People engage in social enforcement of rules for their own reasons, again for personal or group benefit.

To record the lecture in a manner that allows others around to be aware of it was the lecture-recorder's choice; it's not inconceivable that he/she wasn't aware that to do so was forbidden, but in any case the lecture-recorder's fate is now to some extent in the OP's hands. Obviously that's against the will and best interests of both, and it's the lecture-recorder's fault that it is so, but the OP has a decision to make.

"Just following the rules" is an excuse on which the weak (ie, the majority of human beings) rely to reduce their sense of responsibility and guilt for their own lives. If you did something that was immoral because a rule told you to, because the authority figures that make rules frightened you or awed you or impressed you into obeying the rule, you're not excused from your immoral act. You have done worse. As well as doing wrong, you have also failed to resist coercion to do wrong. Of course you might have mitigating circumstances there that constrain your choices, such as fear of punishment--the proverbial "gun to your head" being one of the more extreme examples of that--but judging mitigating circumstances is exactly what you're arguing that the OP not do.

If the OP reports the lecture-recorder it should, ideally, be because the OP accepts the argument that lecture-recording is wrong, and is so wrong that the punishment to be visited on the lecture-recorder by authorities is justified. Maybe that's the case.

Or the OP can, out of fear, or respect, or a sense of group membership and identity preservation, default his/her decision into obedience of authority. This is normal, understandable behavior; but should never be mistaken for exercising moral judgment.

Especially by a lawyer.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:39 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


You misunderstand. There is no rule in life that says that we get a "good choice".

If by "rule in life" you mean to specifically exclude the rule that the OP has encountered in his/her life, then OK, you can define it that way.
posted by Jaltcoh at 4:12 PM on December 30, 2009


I think you're either misunderstanding the previous posters point,

(Just saw this...) I think you're missing my previous comment, where I said you're free to define "rule" however you want, even if it specifically excludes what the OP is asking about. But when someone asks about the fact that they're bound by a rule saying that certain conduct is forbidden at their school, saying, "Well, after all, there's no rule against it" is, in my opinion, bad advice. Kind of like that line on the Simpsons: "Is it a crime to bet on sporting events??"
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:06 AM on January 13, 2010


Did the recording of this class hurt anyone? Or, does that not even matter? We're talking about a law school student not following the law of the class.

It poses an interesting question. Do you speak up, or say nothing?

I have always lived by the "Do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do" credo. So what's the right thing to do here?

Do it.
posted by ssdwwe777 at 12:48 PM on January 24, 2010


« Older How do I prevent further identity theft?   |   You got SERVED. (but what?) Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.