Copyright law professor Jonathan Haidt has a new book coming out soon called, How to Make an Antitrust Law School Requirement.
“A law school is an ideal venue for a large-scale antitracketeering operation, since the students’ backgrounds and the professors’ backgrounds are the same,” Haidts says.
“So, it would be good to know who the target of a large, well-financed antitrypsis operation is and how to prevent it from getting to that target.”
Antitrust lawyer Mark Fabiani is currently advising a number of colleges and universities on how to implement a law school-like requirement.
As Fabiani says, “There are some very interesting ideas in this book.”
The book focuses on the potential pitfalls of having a law-school requirement.
One of those pitfalls is the idea of giving students an automatic pass to any investigation of a potential wrongdoing.
That could lead to students receiving biased or incomplete information.
If a student is caught red-handed with insider information, a law student could be tempted to “pick the pocket” of a colleague and use that information against them.
Haidtz points out that this has happened with insider trading, with prosecutors pursuing insider trading cases against former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson for example.
The fact that a student has been investigated by the Department of Justice, the Department Of Justice Office of Inspector General, or the Department’s Counterintelligence Division is enough for them to be “red-hot” about any potential wrongdoing they might be suspected of committing.
And, the very same people that would be investigating a student would likely have the same information on file with the law school as well, meaning that they can use that knowledge against the student.
The result is that the law students would have to defend themselves, and that would make the whole process more adversarial.
Haidt notes that there are a number different options for making an antismarkment law school rule.
He suggests that one of the best options would be to have a process in which law schools set the criteria for determining if a law graduate has the requisite qualifications.
A law student would be required to be enrolled in a particular program in the area in which they have graduated, be at least 21 years old, have graduated with a GPA of 3.0 or above, and have no criminal record.
They would also have to have completed a certain number of hours per week, and they would have the ability to attend the school on a limited basis.
But, they would also be required, for each law degree they received, to have taken a course of study, such as a course in legal analysis or a course dealing with criminal law.
If they have not taken any courses in the law, they can take an additional two hours per semester, and then they can complete a minimum of two law degree programs in their area.
The second requirement would be a two-year “probationary” program that would allow them to complete their studies before they graduate, if they choose to do so.
After graduating from law school and graduating from a law degree, the law student should also be able to show they have sufficient knowledge to perform a variety of other roles, such to being a judge, prosecutor, investigator, or as a defense attorney.
It is important to note that even if the student did complete a law program, they will not be eligible to be employed in a position that would require a degree of legal knowledge.
Hidts points out, “You can’t be a judge or a prosecutor or a lawyer or an investigator and not have some knowledge of the law.
You can’t do that.”
But, the problem with this option is that it means that law students can’t get the job they are interested in.
There are a lot of people out there, in all sorts of fields, who have degrees in a subject that they have a great interest in, but they have no interest in working in the legal industry.
Hidenberg also argues that the solution is not to create a law and regulatory system in which all of the positions are filled by students who are not interested in law, but rather to encourage students to work in the industry and then let them do their work.
This would allow law students to specialize in their areas of expertise, and to take on a range of legal positions that may or may not require a law or regulatory degree.
The problem with that option, Hidenberger says, is that “the only way you are going to get more law graduates is if you are willing to accept more law students.
That’s what we’re trying to do here.
I think that the current system in America is not working for law students, and it will not work for anyone else, including students with no interest at all in law.
Law school students need to be