OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Close This Box!

This turns out to be a knotty question.  Some people might intuitively expect that all such candidates would be rejected.  After all, if we conceive of the job of a lawyer as to enforce the law, shouldn't we demand that all applicants be pure as the driven snow?  And since law schools want to make sure that all graduates are (or can be) admitted to practice, isn't a school rolling the dice by accepting someone with a conviction?

Of course, there are reasons why per se exclusion is problematic.  For me, a key problem is the disparate racial effect of such policies.  We know that the criminal justice system captures and convicts a disproportionately high number of African-American drug offenders (vis-a-vis actual rates of use)  for example.   We can debate why this is - and whether it reflects active racial bias - but disparity  remains real.   The disparity is problematic not only because it would over-exclude minority applicants; it would also over-include unconvincted white offenders who, as a result of our social structure and policies, will never face this sort of collateral sanction.

There are other reasons to consider ex-offenders.  The criminal act may have been truly a one-off, and may offer little predictive evidence of future behavior.  It may not be the sort of crime likely to cast doubt on a graduate's skills, honesty, or demeanor.  Or it may be long in the past.  As a practical matter,, these applicants are usually seen eligibile but high-risk.  As a result, the prior record (and subsequent conduct) must be closely scrutinized.  

Thus, the case of Marcus Epstein.   Epstein, a staffer for race-baiting former GOP Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, appears to have been initially accepted into the University of Virginia Law School for this fall's entering class.  At some point the admissions folks seem to have discovered that Epstein  attacked an African-American woman on the street, back in July 2007, while calling her the N-word.  He has been convicted of some version of the offense and apparently awaits sentencing.  Reports in the last day or so now indicate that UVa has reveresed itself, and that  Epstein is not welcome in this fall's class. 

Why?  It's possible that Epstein didn't disclose his arrest on his application.  It's possible that the offense was too recent.  It's possible that the school didn't want students of color to feel that the institution was tolerant of his behavior - or simply that it didn't want these students to be fearful of some repeat conduct.  It's difficult to know if UVa would ever admit a person who'd been convicted of an act of racial hate.   Or maybe the admissions folks were just disgusted.   And let's be candid: UVa can easily fill the Epstein seat with a superior candidate.

But I'm guessing that Epstein must have had some mighty fine predictors - i.e., LSAT and GPA numbers.  He's got the talent - so he's probably fully capable of writing a mighty fine apology note to the law school of his choice.   I'll be very curious to see what, if any, school considers him a risk worth taking this fall.  Or maybe this won't be about risk at all.  I'm not sure that even the most conservative law school wants the PR that would attend the arrival of Marcus Epstein.