From today's Recorder:

"Sujit Choudhry, the former UC-Berkeley law school dean sued by his executive assistant for sexual harassment, has filed a grievance with the university alleging that attempts to punish him as a faculty member amount to an "unfair, unjust" second bite at the disciplinary apple."

If I was The Philosopher King I would have this scoundrel caned in the public square while forced to say Thank you Sir, may I have another?" after each strike.

And people wonder why lawyers have a bad rep...

In his home country there may be no laws which address sexual harassment. He's an entitled POS, and thought he could behave badly at the greatest university in the world. He may have misjudged things here. . .

1979bear;842681855 said:

---

In his home country there may be no laws which address sexual harassment. He's an entitled POS, and thought he could behave badly at the greatest university in the world. He may have misjudged things here. . .

---

In his country it's called "courting."

pingpong2;842681838 said:

---

And people wonder why lawyers have a bad rep...

---

Sure blame the lawyer. Nobody likes lawyers until you need one because you think you got screwed. It is the job of the attorney to make all credible arguments on behalf of the client that can be made in good faith (as determined by the lawyer and the client). That is the way that the American justice system operates. Your lawyer is not the judge; but he/she is your advocate, your "hired gun".

If you want to blame anyone blame the juries. If the juries would not grant awards based upon ridiculous theories of law then the attorneys would not assert those ridiculous theories of law. But as long as the juries do, the lawyer is almost ethically required to assert those ridiculous theories on behalf of his/her client.

Imagine that a lawyer explains to his/her client as they walk away empty handed from the trial:
"Smith, I KNOW that a jury would have awarded you $1.0 Million if I had made such-and-such an argument, but I just didn't think that it would be good public policy to make such an argument even though it was a real winner."

1979bear;842681855 said:

---

In his home country there may be no laws which address sexual harassment. He's an entitled POS, and thought he could behave badly at the greatest university in the world. He may have misjudged things here. . .

---

I find this line of reasoning taking the easy way out in blaming another country/culture. This guy is literally a professor/dean OF LAW in *this* country... If anyone should understand the laws of this country, it should be someone entrusted with teaching it, no? So let's just call him a POS and leave his country of birth out of it.

Further, our alma mater seems to have sh*t the bed in their handling of it, [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/26/uc-berkeley-sexual-harassment-tyan-sorrell-sujit-choudry"][U]as this article in the guardian details[/U][/URL]:

Quote:

---

Emails that Sorrell and her attorney shared exclusively with the Guardian shed new light on the ways in which UC Berkeley officials failed to support her during the investigation, backing her claims that she was effectively punished for reporting harassment.

---

Quote:

---

According to the lawsuit, Sheri Showalter, human resources director, told her she could use her own accrued sick and vacation days to take time off a move that seemed like a punishment, especially considering that the dean was allowed to continue his job without interruption.

---

Also, just FYI, she is a Cal graduate (class of 2010) who was raising 5 children while she was pursuing her degree.

Instead of the Trailblazers Rip City on their uniforms, Boalt Law Professors shall wear Pushback City t-shirts from now on.

"Before President Napolitano used the power of her position to publicly condemn me, portray my conduct falsely, and make me a pariah at UC Berkeley, I would have had the chance to preserve my academic career. But her decision to shame me in the press and direct my ouster has destroyed my professional reputation."

Pathetic.

68great;842681858 said:

---

Sure blame the lawyer. Nobody likes lawyers until you need one because you think you got screwed. It is the job of the attorney to make all credible arguments on behalf of the client that can be made in good faith (as determined by the lawyer and the client). That is the way that the American justice system operates. Your lawyer is not the judge; but he/she is your advocate, your "hired gun".

If you want to blame anyone blame the juries. If the juries would not grant awards based upon ridiculous theories of law then the attorneys would not assert those ridiculous theories of law. But as long as the juries do, the lawyer is almost ethically required to assert those ridiculous theories on behalf of his/her client.

Imagine that a lawyer explains to his/her client as they walk away empty handed from the trial:
"Smith, I KNOW that a jury would have awarded you $1.0 Million if I had made such-and-such an argument, but I just didn't think that it would be good public policy to make such an argument even though it was a real winner."

---

A good lawyer would have settled out of court long before going to trial. The check writer doesn't want to see the case go to a jury and any plaintive lawyer who is worth his salt should be willing to take the table stakes and consider it a win. The ridiculous jury awards you hear on TV are few and far between.

68great;842681858 said:

---

Sure blame the lawyer. Nobody likes lawyers until you need one because you think you got screwed. It is the job of the attorney to make all credible arguments on behalf of the client that can be made in good faith (as determined by the lawyer and the client). That is the way that the American justice system operates. Your lawyer is not the judge; but he/she is your advocate, your "hired gun".

If you want to blame anyone blame the juries. If the juries would not grant awards based upon ridiculous theories of law then the attorneys would not assert those ridiculous theories of law. But as long as the juries do, the lawyer is almost ethically required to assert those ridiculous theories on behalf of his/her client.

Imagine that a lawyer explains to his/her client as they walk away empty handed from the trial:
"Smith, I KNOW that a jury would have awarded you $1.0 Million if I had made such-and-such an argument, but I just didn't think that it would be good public policy to make such an argument even though it was a real winner."

---

CalLifer;842681859 said:

---

I find this line of reasoning taking the easy way out in blaming another country/culture. This guy is literally a professor/dean OF LAW in *this* country... If anyone should understand the laws of this country, it should be someone entrusted with teaching it, no? So let's just call him a POS and leave his country of birth out of it.

---

Very good point because otherwise a good part of this country should duck at the mention of Hitler...because he's German.

beelzebear;842681878 said:

---

Very good point because otherwise a good part of this country should duck at the mention of Hitler...because he's German.

---

If I recall correctly Adolf was born in [U]Austria[/U] but fought in the German Army in WWI.

bar20;842681867 said:

---

A good lawyer would have[U] settled out of court [/U]long before going to trial. The check writer doesn't want to see the case go to a jury and any plaintive lawyer who is worth his salt should be willing to take the table stakes and consider it a win. The ridiculous jury awards you hear on TV are few and far between.

---

I agree; roughly 95% of cases do settle. I was speaking on the assumption that the defendant wouldn't settle since the claim was so ridiculous.

concernedparent;842681865 said:

---

"Before President Napolitano used the power of her position to publicly condemn me, portray my conduct falsely, and make me a pariah at UC Berkeley, I would have had the chance to preserve my academic career. But her decision to shame me in the press and direct my ouster has destroyed my professional reputation."

---

Ha, ha...so what!

68great;842681884 said:

---

If I recall correctly Adolf was born in [U]Austria[/U] but fought in the German Army in WWI.

---

[video=youtube;OcLhk-RXXcQ][/video]

CalLifer;842681859 said:

---

I find this line of reasoning taking the easy way out in blaming another country/culture. This guy is literally a professor/dean OF LAW in *this* country... If anyone should understand the laws of this country, it should be someone entrusted with teaching it, no? So let's just call him a POS and leave his country of birth out of it.

---

No.

Being PC suits you. Fine. The indian culture even in 2016 contributes to this sort of behavior. Facts are not comfortable, bit they are facts. This guy did what he did at Cal. He deserves whatever justified criticism he gets. Including criticism from me.

1979bear;842681894 said:

---

No.

Being PC suits you. Fine. The indian culture even in 2016 contributes to this sort of behavior. Facts are not comfortable, bit they are facts. This guy did what he did at Cal. He deserves whatever justified criticism he gets. Including criticism from me.

---

Yeah, it's not like American culture in 2016 doesn't contribute at all to this sort of sexist behavior or create an environment for sexual harassment. Glad to have your correction that it's only indian dudes responsible.
[video=youtube;9tU-D-m2JY8][/video]

1979bear;842681894 said:

---

No.

Being PC suits you. Fine. The indian culture even in 2016 contributes to this sort of behavior. Facts are not comfortable, bit they are facts. This guy did what he did at Cal. He deserves whatever justified criticism he gets. Including criticism from me.

---

Q: What do you call a passed out chick getting humped by the fratboy?
A: His date.

See how that works? Every culture has sexism and violence. UC actually has a huge rape problem, and they're getting sued.

You are correct. Law school dean Choudrey behaved like a drunk frat boy.

1979bear;842681904 said:

---

You are correct. Law school dean Choudrey behaved like a drunk frat boy.

---

Or a Furd swimmer.

CalLifer;842681898 said:

---

....Glad to have your correction that it's only indian dudes responsible.
[video=youtube;9tU-D-m2JY8][/video]

---

Microaggression towards Native Americans. Insert "South Asian dudes.."

concernedparent;842681865 said:

---

"Before President Napolitano used the power of her position to publicly condemn me, portray my conduct falsely, and make me a pariah at UC Berkeley, I would have had the chance to preserve my academic career. But her decision to shame me in the press and direct my ouster has destroyed my professional reputation."

Pathetic.

---

He may be right. Good for Janet. Hope his secretary's attorney rips him a good one in the civil suit, and recovers any money he gets from Cal.

68great;842681858 said:

---

Sure blame the lawyer. Nobody likes lawyers until you need one because you think you got screwed. It is the job of the attorney to make all credible arguments on behalf of the client that can be made in good faith (as determined by the lawyer and the client). That is the way that the American justice system operates. Your lawyer is not the judge; but he/she is your advocate, your "hired gun".

If you want to blame anyone blame the juries. If the juries would not grant awards based upon ridiculous theories of law then the attorneys would not assert those ridiculous theories of law. But as long as the juries do, the lawyer is almost ethically required to assert those ridiculous theories on behalf of his/her client.

Imagine that a lawyer explains to his/her client as they walk away empty handed from the trial:
"Smith, I KNOW that a jury would have awarded you $1.0 Million if I had made such-and-such an argument, but I just didn't think that it would be good public policy to make such an argument even though it was a real winner."

---

Looks like I touched a nerve.

There's a certain level of ethics that need to be tabled in this position because they operate in the realm of the LEGAL system, not the JUSTICE system. That in and of itself is what gives people the impression that these guys are unscrupulous. Sure, they're just doing their job, but that doesn't absolve them of moral judgement from others.

bar20;842681867 said:

---

A good lawyer would have settled out of court long before going to trial. The check writer doesn't want to see the case go to a jury and any plaintive lawyer who is worth his salt should be willing to take the table stakes and consider it a win. The ridiculous jury awards you hear on TV are few and far between.

---

Well, a decision to settle is up to the client, not the lawyer.

beelzebear;842681901 said:

---

Q: What do you call a passed out chick getting humped by the fratboy?
A: His date.

See how that works? Every culture has sexism and violence. UC actually has a huge rape problem, and they're getting sued.

---

How do you make a frat boy cry during sex?

Pepper spray.

This is a legit complaint. He was punished for the sexual harassment. Then, when everyone came out of the woodwork complaining about it, the politico's got involved and punished him again. Like Ray Rice, in the NFL.

So his complaint is double jeopardy, not that he should not have been punished at all.

I think my sex ray theory is gaining viability:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3564255/Male-high-school-science-teacher-graduated-UC-Berkeley-Brown-posed-underage-girl-online-lured-juvenile-boys-sending-nude-photos.html