{"id":3904,"date":"2005-06-17T21:16:14","date_gmt":"2005-06-18T01:16:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/06\/17\/ethical-headaches\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:38","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:38","slug":"ethical-headaches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/06\/17\/ethical-headaches\/","title":{"rendered":"ethical headaches"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/P>
\n

potluck<\/EM><\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny  A few days ago, <\/FONT>Mike Cernovich wondered<\/FONT><\/A> aloud [“eloud”] why <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
there has been no discussion by any of the blawgosphere’s 100+<\/FONT><\/A> law <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
professors (who enjoy academic freedom) of the case of Carin Manders <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Constantine v. George Mason Univ.<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (4th Circ., June 13, 2005, No. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
04-1410).   Constantine claims that she was discriminated against by <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
GMU’s law school, because it failed to accommodate her severe migraine <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
headaches — resulting in her failing Constitutional Law — and then was<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
relaliated against by the School, when she went public with her story.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
[Mike sets out Constantine’s basic assertions, which were taken as fact <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for purposes of her appeal, but are somewhat vague and have yet to be <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
proven.]  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
I would also like to know what law professors think about the issues<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of student disability and free speech law were raised.  Not knowing <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the actual facts yet should make it easier for the professors to opine — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
offering hypotheticals — without fearing some kind of retaliation by their <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
schools. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
One issue that I want to raise, however, is what Ms. Constantine’s   \"brainG\" <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“intractable migraine syndrome” means for her ability to practice law <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in compliance with Model <\/FONT>Rule 1.3 on Diligence<\/FONT><\/A>.  No law school should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
decide that a particular disability would make it inappropriate to grant a law<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
degree to a student able (with reasonable accommodations) to complete its <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
course of study .  But, the existence of a disability should bear very directly <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on what types of law a particular graduate (or veteran lawyer) chooses to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
practice.  If stress triggers severe headaches, or such headaches occur often<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and keep an attorney from meeting deadlines, the lawyer needs to make some <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
very hard choices.  Some kinds of law practice should be considered off limits <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and, in some instances, clients may need to be informed of the issue.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n