Support NeoGAF

[miyuru]

Yeah, I thought that said "I got FZERO on my final math test". But yeah, I agree with the above. Mmhmm.

 

[Tortfeasor]

Tortfeasor, if you're a Canadian lawyer, I'll retract what I said about you not knowing what you're talking about, but I am firm that your advice will only dig him into a deeper hole.

There are numerous problems with threatening a lawsuit. One, it'll bring publicity and won't help him in his path to college. Sure his formal record won't say he cheated, but oh wait, there's this newspaper article talking about the lawsuit... second, it creates enemies whom he doesn't need. His best chance to win a path to his 1st choice college is to gain the support of this teacher or Dean so that his letter of recommendation explains how he has grown and matured.

The folly of your recommendation is that in his first post he explains that he wrote down the formulas because "I was afraid I might forget it and they never ever used to check them before." This is his admission of intent to cheat. Many schools clearly indicate that the act of writing down the formulas is the definition of cheating (not looking it up during a test). It is fallacy to assume that his school does not have written policies. It is fallacy to assume that the Dean is unprepared to defend his case in court.

Moreover, a cursory search of the Canadian case law suggests that this would be a losing battle. Polten v. University of Toronto already demonstrates that Canadian courts will take a non-interventionalist approach when it comes to an academic instutition and its setting of standards for a degree. In this case, it is unambiguously clear that the standards for a degree are rooted in the standards for a passing grade in a class.

The lawsuit idea has minimal chance of succeeding -- getting the teacher/Dean to accept his apology and support him in the future has significant potential.

I've said all I need to say.

I am an american attorney and have no idea about Canadian law. I assumed that Date of Lies was in America. If he is in Canada, my advice may or may not help... As I keep saying, consult an attorney in his area.

Writing a letter is not the same as filing a suit. It would not be public, it would be between his attorney and the dean (or the school board). If he did file a suit, depending on the case law in his jurisdiction he could have multiple arguments. I didn't ever say that making one of the arguments I laid out earlier would win his case, I just said they would be plausable arguments. It is up to his attorney to judge the liklyhood of his having a chance to win in his jurisdiction based on prior case law and statutes.

As all attorneys know, in practice very few suits actually go to trial. Maybe 2%... In fact very few threatened suits even get filed. I was just coming up with a plausable way to give Date of Lies a bargining chip so that the dean might back away from his "it is setteled, you automatically flunk the semester, nothing you can do will change that" zero tolerance policy. Looking at what I was trying to do from that perspective, I think I was giving him pretty good advice to go speak with a local attorney...

/disclaimer: I am not familiar with the laws of where Date of Lies and am not giving him legal advice... For legal advice go see an attorney in your area.

 

[Loki]

Are you an attorney? Do you know what you are talking about?

I didn't say to sue him... I just said to have a lawyer write a letter threatening to sue. The dean seems to have left little room for anything except to accept the punishment, writing the letter could perhaps open the door to the dean and you coming to a compromise. The dean may be afraid of litigation and may want to make you a deal to make it go away. As far as Pfucata deciding you do not have a valid cause of action, that is bullshit. Talk to an attorney.

Remember, most crimes require both intent and action. Ask to see the rules about cheating as they apply to your school as they were written when you were "caught". If there is nothing in writing, you may have a case. If there is something in writing see if there is any language of intent in the rules. You may be able to make a good argument that you didn't intend to cheat, that your actions were only negligent. You may be able to differentiate yourself from the other who cheated by saying that they intended to cheat while you had no intent to cheat and that while you did write a formula in your calculator, you had never indented to bring it to class or meant to erase it, etc... From your story it also seemed that you were caught before the test started. Did you actually cheat yet? Was there any act? Anyways... There is always an argument that you can make. Speak to a licensed attorney in your area.

Wow, look-- we have a dirty lawyer on the board advising someone to sue (excuse me, "threatening" to sue) despite them obviously being in the wrong. Welcome, dirty lawyer. <waves>


And people wonder why attorneys are loathed. :lol Seriously-- it's great to see what law school does to people. Policy is policy; the distinctions you're making-- while perhaps "legal" according to the letter of the law (viz. intent versus negligence) -- are, in fact, bogus. Any thinking person realizes that. I hope you can sleep at night-- seriously.


EDIT:

I am an american attorney

Get outta here-- really? Nobody except an attorney would have given the advice you did in this situation. You didn't really have to make your choice of profession explicit.

 

[Incognito]

i dunno, loki. sometimes a threating letter from an attorney is all a place needs for a much needed shake up. case in point, an apartment complex was claiming my friend owed them funds in excess of 2k, yet my friend knew this was bullshit. however, what can she do? take that threat lightly and worry about her credit report being ruined for a lifetime?

she consulted a lawyer, they sent the complex a letter stating her case, and their threats soon stopped. basically, as the letter proved, the owners of the complex had no case and were trying to steal some "easy" money from a 19 year old woman.

 

[Loki]

Lonestar:


In your case, the claims being made by the owners of the complex were bogus; a lawsuit (or threatened lawsuit) is the sensible and obvious recourse to such a wrong. In this case, however, we have a case of admitted wrongdoing and a prior clear statement of policy pertaining to how such cases are to be dealt with internally (i.e., failing the class and having to take it over). It is silly to sue for "bad consequences" in any situation unless those consequences were not explicitly stated or were otherwise unforeseen; only a lawyer would argue otherwise. (Un)Fortunately, we have one on the board.


In your case, the owners of the complex had no case against your friend, and the threat of a lawsuit bore that fact out. But what are the facts we have in front of us in this case? A person who willfully cheated got caught and has to suffer the stated consequences for his actions. Does it suck for him that he'll have to take it over again over the summer? Yes. Will I lose sleep over it? No. Reasonable, sane people accept the consequences of their actions so long as they were reasonably foreseen (which this was-- unless he thought that there'd be no penalty for cheating). Only insensible people and those that encourage and abet them (see: lawyers) attempt to circumvent the proper and established penalties for illegal and improper actions. In doing so, and in trying to foster such a litigious mentality in the thread-starter's mind in order to further his profession's ends, Tortfeasor is an example of everything that is wrong with the American legal system. Period. Legal bullying-- which is all a "threatened" suit in such a situation would amount to, seeing as it has no substance-- is totally wrong and should not be countenanced.


And if Tortfeasor doesn't care for that assessment (which is entirely accurate, if admittedly rude), then he would do well to take a look at the type of mentality that he is promoting and its effect on society. To merely say, "oh, but it would help the thread starter!" is myopic, and a true student of jurisprudence-- one who was unconcerned with "getting his", that is-- would undoubtedly realize that. Even in this thread, we have a good (i.e., moral; having scruples) law student (bionic77, who made no mention of legal recourse), and a "bad" (i.e., immoral; unscrupulous) student of law (Tortfeasor, with his incitement to sue or threaten to do so, thus lining the pockets of his colleagues and ensuring that the status of accountability in our society is further eroded).

There is, unfortunately, little truth and light in "law" (our current implementation of it, at least), and we have before us a clear example of that. I hold sensible attorneys in high esteem, as they provide an essential service and a check on governmental, institutional, and corporate excess. I hold senseless ones, as seen here, in great disdain, as they are responsible for much unnecessary trouble. They promote the total disavowal of personal responsibility; I've never cheated on an exam in my life-- the times when I didn't prepare, I accepted the inevitable bad grade-- but if I ever did, and subsequently got caught, I'd take my lumps like a man no matter the consequences, unless those consequences were not explicitly stated or were grossly disproportionate (if they wanted to whip me for cheating, say ).


It's just an indefensible mentality, and any person who values sanity and truth and accountability would not tolerate it, much less try to further it.