The gall of e-mail scams

Re: E-mail Scams continue to successfully target lawyers (July). For the past 10 years, I have been receiving hundreds of these e-mail scams a week, no doubt helped along by some disgruntled party in a lawsuit. I am amazed by three things: 1. the persistence of the scammers; 2. the gullibility of my colleagues; and 3. the seeming inability of prosecutors and law enforcement to go after foreign scammers who are committing criminal acts willy-nilly and soliciting crimes right and left.

The latter is my main complaint. Just because a criminal is outside the U.S. does not preclude jurisdiction and prosecution. Prosecuting several hundred of these miscreants would do the trick. Unfortunately, prosecutors are unable, unwilling and apparently unconcerned with shutting down these scams.

In the aggregate these scams siphon off tens of millions of dollars each year, plenty of incentive for the criminal.

Dr. Jonathan Levy
Hilton Head Island, S.C.

What are they afraid of?

The June article reporting that the bar board reached a “compromise” on electronic lawyer search reveals a microcosm of all that is unrepresentative about the board. It does nothing about the practice of law by paralegals and LegalZoom.com but is frightfully afraid that listing an area of specialty by the attorneys it is supposed to be representing would somehow mislead the public. What about those of us who have been certified as specialists by the State Bar? Is that certification misleading? The board’s only function seems to be in representing the interests of large firms and “consumer lawyers” to the exclusion of all others.

John M. Minnott
San Clemente

Transparency needed

I am a long-time L.R.I.S. panelist and have a Web site. I strongly believe that local and state bar associations should disclose their members online, along with the members’ Web sites and other contact information, areas of practice, membership (not mandatory with local bar associations), and specialization (who’d want to hide that?). I find the arguments to the contrary somewhere between frivolous and corrupt.

Robert Burns
Ocean Beach

Fuzzy admission standards

Re: “Researchers suggest expanding criteria for law school admission“ (June). However well intentioned Professors Shultz and Zedeck may be, their new 26-factor test for law school admission will still constitute an end run around restrictions on affirmative action. Muddying the waters of law school admissions criteria will allow politically correct, liberal admissions boards to achieve their desired quota of diversity. Under such a system, all law schools will be able to use the new “fuzzy” standards “as a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate admissions.”

John Fowler
Azle, Texas

An elaborate contrivance

The people of California have passed a law, Prop 209, that outlaws discrimination based upon (inter alia) race. Yet the California Bar Journal places on its front page an article which talks glowingly about an elaborate contrivance designed to discriminate based upon race. It is ridiculous that Zedeck and Shultz pretend that their efforts, which now seek $3 million to $5 million more to pursue, have nothing to do with discrimination. They even state that the end of “affirmative action” provided the motive for their project. Quite simply it is yet another effort to base admissions on race.

Bob Baker
Harvest, Alabama

MCLE and law practice

Apropos of Allen P. Wilkinson’s letter (July), those of us who have been around for a while may remember that at one time Law Practice Management was a required MCLE subject. For many years I was a member of and advisor to the Law Practice Management and Technology Section. We were instrumental in having LPM made a required subject.  Too bad that was changed, especially in these stressful economic times.

Malvina Abbott
San Diego