-
OBABL Links & Resources
Mar
30
Young v. Covington: New Lawyer, More Mud
Filed Under • Stand Up!
Today’s Legal Times updates readers on developments in Young v. Covington. The piece opens with the most recent development in the case:
Latif Doman of Doman Davis, a small litigation and employment discrimination firm with offices in New York and Washington, will take the reins on the case, which has caused a stir in D.C. legal circles.
The article quotes me as saying that it was Mr. Doman’s passion for this issue that ultimately swayed me. This is not entirely true. While Mr. Doman, who is black, is passionate about the issues raised in my lawsuit, he also happens to be extremely smart and accomplished. He has nearly fifteen years of litigation and employment law experience, which has included high profile cases like his representation of Genard Parker in his suit against the singer, Ashanti. I confess to also being impressed with his legal bona fides–University of Pennsylvania Law School (ranked 7th by US News), Law Review, Federal Clerkship (Chief Judge John Garrett Penn), and BigLaw experience–that reassure those that need reassuring.
Mr. Doman’s accomplishments lend themselves to the assumption that he is a very good attorney and deserving of the legal community’s respect. I, on the other hand, had marginal law school grades, difficulty passing the bar and legal experience limited primarily to document review. The question the Legal Times’ article raises is this: Are attorneys with less sterling credentials less deserving of training and a workplace free of discrimination?
As the article points out, my claims against Covington involve the segregation of minority attorneys and the use of racial slurs in the office. Covington admits that derogatory language was used in the office and that staff attorneys are not provided the same benefits and training as other attorneys at the firm and are not included in many firm meetings and events. They then try to make the issue about my grades rather than their firm practices.
From LegalTimes:
In the meantime, Covington seems to be settling on a hardball strategy for dealing with the suit. Last week it released a lengthy response to her complaint, in which it portrayed her as a dilletantish, marginally qualified attorney who never understood the nature of her job.
One of Young’s more incendiary accusations against Covington is that the firm used its staff attorney program to recruit minority lawyers, then systematically denied them the chance to rise into the associate ranks. She published a controversial essay on the topic for the Huffington Post titled “Law Firm Segregation Reminiscent of Jim Crow.”
Covington’s response tries to hammer home the point that staff attorneys were generally less qualified lawyers whose only job was to handle electronic document review. It then proceeds to use Young herself as an example, using an Aug. 14 letter to the EEOC in which the firm first responded to her discrimination claims (pdf).
“Ms. Young is an African-American whose publicly-stated career interests focus on the media; she has published a book, appeared as a ‘talking head’ on TV and written commentary for newspapers and blogs,” the letter states. “Ms. Young graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1995. Her average grade was only slightly better than a ‘C,’ well below the threshold level for a Covington associate. She did not pass the bar until 1998, three years after her law school graduation.”
What constitutes being qualified? What’s the better indicator of the kind of lawyer I have the potential to be? Grades or the fact that my writing has been endorsed by some of the world’s most respected publishers: Random House, USA Today, and The Washington Post? Or perhaps it is the fact that I wrote a complaint that Covington was forced to answer.
OBABL has talked about the low bar passage rate for black attorneys, but we haven’t said much about law school grades. GULC is a t-14 school that grades on the curve, so half of the class is always going to be in the bottom half. Is it better to be in the bottom half of a t-14 school or closer to the top at a less expensive, lower ranked school? If going to a top law school only benefits those at the top of the class, should law school promotional material alert students to this fact?
Comments
7 Responses to “Young v. Covington: New Lawyer, More Mud”
Leave a Reply
I posted this last night. I am curious as to why your civil case was moved to District Court from DC Superior Court? Are you happy about this?
What were your LSAT scores? You college grades?
If you want to cite going to a “top” law school as a reason for getting lower grades, then show that you had the same qualification as the other students in getting into that school (i.e. had the same grades, credential, LSAT, as the other students).
The fact is, right or wrong, minority students get an advantage in admittance to top law schools. LSAT and Grade cut-offs are different for Under Represented Minorities (URMs) than for other students. It is unfair to say that you’re C+ GPA at GULC is worth more than a B+ GPA at Catholic when the student at Catholic might have also gotten into GULC but-for not being a minority (or, alternatively), you might have gone to Catholic but-for being a minority.
I am not trying to dis affirmative action, just want to point out that its an unfair assertion for you to make.
Also, grades are grades. Yes, someone has to be on the bottom half, but it is disengenous to imply that a C+ GPA is just below the median. In fact, the median at GULC is a B (meaning 50% of the class gets a B+ of better and 50% gets a B or lower). And there are lots of classes you would take over 3 years. In fact, after 1st year, the median is closer to B+. There is no statistical reason why you would consistently fall into the bottom 5% of the class randomly. And a C+ is not the “bottom half” it is the BOTTOM. (In fact, professors don’t have to give out a lower grade than a C+, so to get lower than that means that you did so badly the professor chose to give you that grade but was not compelled to do so - you can’t blame the curve for any grade lower than a C+).
Also, the fact that you may be a good writer has nothing to do with your lawyering skills. Yes, good writing is part of lawyering, but being necessary is not the same as being sufficient, as I’m sure you remember from the LSAT.
The last question posed is thought provoking. The issue of low grades for minority students is something that has recently sparked my interest. From my research, I have determined that identifying low grades is only a symptom of a greater problem. The greater problem is that often minority and low-income students are denied the high-quality education provided to their more advantaged peers. This starts from elementary education and continues throughout high school for the minority and low-income student. As result, others attempt to disparage those students by stating incorrectly stating that they can’t meet the standard. This deliberate deception is something that needs to be transformed. The effects of Brown v. Board still have a ways to go before access to education is really equal. I am pleased to see that you are taking on Covington, because issues like these need to be brought to the forefront and properly addressed.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/young_eeoc.pdf
It is not offensive to refer to a monkey as a monkey.
As is often the case, most issues have two sides. The debate over affirmative action and qualifications of underrepresented students admitted to leading law schools is no different. However, instead of making blanket statements we, as attorneys, must remember to stick to the facts before us. The issue, I believe, is whether African-American and Latino students are somehow wrongfully admitted to Top Tier law programs. Yes, by and large, minority applicants tend to perform less favorably than their White peers on traditional metrics required for entrance into the most prestigious law schools (e.g., the LSAT, grades, etc.). The LSAT, in particular, is touted as a “color-blind” tool to justify why one student gains admissions and another student does not. But, as alluded to above, if minority children are substantially more likely to have been educated in poor performing elementary and secondary schools then a standardized test, like the LSAT, becomes suspect. The problem of low-performing schools is not a “Black” issue, because students in my state, Illinois, who do not reside in the affluent collar counties bordering Chicago have far less academic opportunity (i.e., these students receive an inferior education). By no means do I suggest my analysis is incontrovertible fact, but to speak of merit and minority law school students attending our nations top law schools without a discussion about the root cause of the problem strikes me as disingenuous.
@curious: the reason why this was removed from DC Superior Court to District Court is because the case is an employment discrimination case (Title VII, i presume) which is federal law…DC Superior Court is not a federal court, that’s why it had to be removed to District Court.
You know, I visited numerous sites and read countless blogs on the Covington lawsuit, and I observed (so-called) law grad intellects doing what they do (pontificating about the rankings and tiers of the plaintiff’s law degree, GPA, LSAT score, etc, etc.) The majority of these bles-sed brainiacs missed the whole point of the lawsuit, by failing to address the unprofessional, risky behavior of the law firm’s staff. EVERY human being has the inalienable right, (whether your name is Einstein or June Bug) to live, work and exist in a world free of prejudice, discrimination and hostility. It’s astonishing to think that people who have been intellectually enriched on tenets of the constitution and bill of rights - and who are (for whatever it means) legally trained at “TOP schools, graduating in the so-called TOP of their class, with TOP lsats and TOP gpa’s…yada-yada, to then step into real world of work (where it all counts) and put themselves and their employer in the TRICK BAG by committing overt acts of racism and discrimination. Actions of this nature prove that their TOP law school failed to “brief” them on the consequences of mindless choices. It is pathetically comical to imagine that people (who are supposed to be CRITICAL THINKERS) can’t comprehend that all recipients of mis-treatment, are not afraid to confront it, ESPECIALLY those skillfully TRAINED in the discipline of legal defense. It’s also mystery how some individuals can be so intoxicated by the notion of superiority, and make witless decisions - placing their reputation and their future, as well as that of their employer in perpetual jeopardy. Lawsuits like these have been ongoing and WILL CONTINUE until the establishment “once and for all” rebuffs its COSTLY addiction to the CRACK of racial oppression. Kudos Yolanda, you da bomb! Welcome to the ranks of the Harriet Tubmans, Sojourner Truths, Dr. M.L. Kings…your legacy will live on and your victory is already WON!