Re: Lying on resume
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:37 pm
.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=283914
so, why anon?Anonymous User wrote:I emphasized that point because I anticipated other posters will respond to my first post by distinguishing the other cases of lying by exploiting vagueness principles ("blatantly lying about whether you worked at firm X is not like rounding up your hours," etc.). The ethnicity case does seem like this one -- it's on the "right side" of the use of the "blatancy" test, if you just want to stipulate the relevant test to use.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Because just because other people don't care about their integrity still doesn't make it okay to lie. I'm sorry you seem to know so many law students/lawyers who are shitty people.Anonymous User wrote:The overwhelming flavor of responses to OP makes me curious about whether TLS is a representative cross-section of lawyers in this country. (And to be clear, my curiosity is intellectual; I'm not advocating OP do one thing or another here.)zhenders wrote:I second what everyone else here has said.
1. Don't lie. I mean of all of the stupid things to do, you jump on a forum to get everyone's views on whether flat-out lying on your resume is a good idea? This is one of a VERY small handful of professions where your literal right to practice can be taken away--and this is one of a very small number of things you can do that can lead to that. Frankly, the fact that you're so seriously considering this makes me think you really shouldn't be a lawyer.
2. Look for pro bono opportunities to build your resume. If you need to make money, apply for restaurant jobs; make ends meet other ways. Don't lie and lose your license.
3. As others have suggested, learn the skills, and put that on your resume. Be prepared to talk about where you gained your skills. If you can find a way to learn that includes a certification, that's even better.
Don't lie on your resume.
Do you all really think lying in this profession is so rare that it ought to be a clear, governing, bright-line test that distinguishes what you can do from what others in fact do in this profession? People lie about their race/ethnicity in law school admissions to gain URM/affirmative action advantages (E. Warren is just the most prominent example); people lie to their professors about why their assignments are late or faulty; about what background skills in preparation for a plumb school gig they have; about why they are enrolling in law school in the first place; about which firms they are going out for during on-campus interviews; about how they are studying for their exams and what supplemental services they pay for; in their cover letters and interviews for clerkships; etc etc etc. And I haven't even *begun* to list the many ways in which practicing attorneys lie -- to supervisors, clients, judges, etc.
Some of these lies are "bigger" than others, but then it seems the question is not about lying, it's about whether you can get caught lying. So the permissibility of the practice then turns on the cost-benefit analysis, nothing more. And to those who respond with a distinction between "white" and "grey" and "black" lies, then you're playing a very different game altogether. In that game, how is lying about working for an employer X different than saying (eg) your parents are immigrants of country Y and that you're a first-generation college grad?
To me it seems a more realistic picture of working law in this country counsels that OP pay less attention to flat bans on lying and more on questions like a few posts ago, about what he might say in an interviewer when the firm asks for a reference to verify the claim on his resume.
Why play by a set of rules that no one (or very few others) play by?
Also your emphasis on people lying about their ethicity/background to get into law school is kind of weird.
I'm actually kind of surprised you think my emphasis on that point is weird, if by weird it strikes you as unusual, given how many people who are in a position to use it either do use it or at least think about using it. (Maybe you think I'm just very cynical.)
Finally, the point about integrity seems a little unproductive. If OP is considering doing what he's considering doing, the moral system that renders lying a veto on some contemplated action may not be the one he shares with you (if it was, he wouldn't be considering this action). So raising the integrity point is kind of like pointing to a prohibition in the Bible when an atheist asks what he can and cannot do -- the presuppositions may not apply.
I don't think anything I'd say further would be helpful for OP, so I'll just leave it there.
Yeah, I think you're overly cynical about this. I don't think people are rampantly misrepresenting their ethnicity/background to get into law school. In fact, I reject your contention that it's not about lying, but about whether you get caught. Again, your selection of law students/lawyers sounds very depressing, or maybe it's just your view of the universe that's depressing.Anonymous User wrote:I emphasized that point because I anticipated other posters will respond to my first post by distinguishing the other cases of lying by exploiting vagueness principles ("blatantly lying about whether you worked at firm X is not like rounding up your hours," etc.). The ethnicity case does seem like this one -- it's on the "right side" of the use of the "blatancy" test, if you just want to stipulate the relevant test to use.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Because just because other people don't care about their integrity still doesn't make it okay to lie. I'm sorry you seem to know so many law students/lawyers who are shitty people.
Also your emphasis on people lying about their ethicity/background to get into law school is kind of weird.
I'm actually kind of surprised you think my emphasis on that point is weird, if by weird it strikes you as unusual, given how many people who are in a position to use it either do use it or at least think about using it. (Maybe you think I'm just very cynical.)
You asked a general question, I gave a general answer.Finally, the point about integrity seems a little unproductive. If OP is considering doing what he's considering doing, the moral system that renders lying a veto on some contemplated action may not be the one he shares with you (if it was, he wouldn't be considering this action). So raising the integrity point is kind of like pointing to a prohibition in the Bible when an atheist asks what he can and cannot do -- the presuppositions may not apply.
If you don't see the difference between making reasonable-but-likely-useless motions and lying about material facts, I'm predicting a long, difficult road ahead for you.L_William_W wrote:The fact of the matter is that integrity won't pay my student loans or enable me to move out of my parent's house.
I knew a guy who did bankruptcies and foreclosures. Sometimes he would deliberately make bullshit discovery requests just to delay the foreclosure process. This is a dishonest field. There's no way that both a plaintiff and defendant in a civil suit are telling the 100% truth.
No, that would have been lying. This really isn't as difficult as you (or other people in this tread) are making it seem.tyroneslothrop1 wrote:If he'd gotten us to back off, that would have been good lawyering, right?
a lie that leads to a positive outcome is still a lietyroneslothrop1 wrote: If he'd gotten us to back off, that would have been good lawyering, right?
this implies there are doc review positions you're not interested in?L_William_W wrote: There's a document review position that I'm interested in, but it requires experience. I don't have experience.
Why? There's no evidence OP attended a T13. An F is allowed.mvp99 wrote:I give him/her a C- just for the attempt.UVA2B wrote:...you’re joking, right?
Looks like a case of anon abuse to me Nony.A. Nony Mouse wrote:Because just because other people don't care about their integrity still doesn't make it okay to lie. I'm sorry you seem to know so many law students/lawyers who are shitty people.Anonymous User wrote:The overwhelming flavor of responses to OP makes me curious about whether TLS is a representative cross-section of lawyers in this country. (And to be clear, my curiosity is intellectual; I'm not advocating OP do one thing or another here.)zhenders wrote:I second what everyone else here has said.
1. Don't lie. I mean of all of the stupid things to do, you jump on a forum to get everyone's views on whether flat-out lying on your resume is a good idea? This is one of a VERY small handful of professions where your literal right to practice can be taken away--and this is one of a very small number of things you can do that can lead to that. Frankly, the fact that you're so seriously considering this makes me think you really shouldn't be a lawyer.
2. Look for pro bono opportunities to build your resume. If you need to make money, apply for restaurant jobs; make ends meet other ways. Don't lie and lose your license.
3. As others have suggested, learn the skills, and put that on your resume. Be prepared to talk about where you gained your skills. If you can find a way to learn that includes a certification, that's even better.
Don't lie on your resume.
Do you all really think lying in this profession is so rare that it ought to be a clear, governing, bright-line test that distinguishes what you can do from what others in fact do in this profession? People lie about their race/ethnicity in law school admissions to gain URM/affirmative action advantages (E. Warren is just the most prominent example); people lie to their professors about why their assignments are late or faulty; about what background skills in preparation for a plumb school gig they have; about why they are enrolling in law school in the first place; about which firms they are going out for during on-campus interviews; about how they are studying for their exams and what supplemental services they pay for; in their cover letters and interviews for clerkships; etc etc etc. And I haven't even *begun* to list the many ways in which practicing attorneys lie -- to supervisors, clients, judges, etc.
Some of these lies are "bigger" than others, but then it seems the question is not about lying, it's about whether you can get caught lying. So the permissibility of the practice then turns on the cost-benefit analysis, nothing more. And to those who respond with a distinction between "white" and "grey" and "black" lies, then you're playing a very different game altogether. In that game, how is lying about working for an employer X different than saying (eg) your parents are immigrants of country Y and that you're a first-generation college grad?
To me it seems a more realistic picture of working law in this country counsels that OP pay less attention to flat bans on lying and more on questions like a few posts ago, about what he might say in an interviewer when the firm asks for a reference to verify the claim on his resume.
Why play by a set of rules that no one (or very few others) play by?
Also your emphasis on people lying about their ethicity/background to get into law school is kind of weird.
Mask onAnonymous User wrote:The overwhelming flavor of responses to OP makes me curious about whether TLS is a representative cross-section of lawyers in this country.
Fuck it, mask offSamarcan wrote:I don't think anything I'd sayfurtherwould be helpful for OP, so I'll just leave it there.
I was too lazy to unmask both posts.Caesar Salad wrote:Mask onAnonymous User wrote:The overwhelming flavor of responses to OP makes me curious about whether TLS is a representative cross-section of lawyers in this country.
Fuck it, mask offSamarcan wrote:I don't think anything I'd sayfurtherwould be helpful for OP, so I'll just leave it there.
Shocker.Caesar Salad wrote:Fuck it, mask offSamarcan wrote:I don't think anything I'd sayfurtherwould be helpful for OP, so I'll just leave it there.
Truly loathsome poster.cavalier1138 wrote:Shocker.Caesar Salad wrote:Fuck it, mask offSamarcan wrote:I don't think anything I'd sayfurtherwould be helpful for OP, so I'll just leave it there.
That's another lie. Here's something to think about: the fact that they want someone with experience doesn't mean they won't take someone without experience. You can still apply and definitely list Relativity as a skill.L_William_W wrote:That's actually a good idea. I'll scrap the original idea (which in retrospect was stupid), but mention Relativity as a skill and maybe say that I did doc review during my law school clinics.estefanchanning wrote:You guys OP is desperate cut him some slack. Obvi he knows this is wrong. He just wants reassurance that chances of getting caught are low.
OP, if you're gonna lie, don't be so blatant. Instead, why don't you start learning Relativity and add that to your skills? Also, can you you somehow tie past work experience to doc review? Like if you worked at a law office, say you did doc review for them even if just once etc.
I agree. Lying for a job is bottom of the barrel.ggocat wrote:I'm sorry you're in a rough spot, OP.
But I'm disgusted by your post. I don't know if it's the lack of integrity or apparent stupidity that I'm most offended by.
Don't make the rest of us look like shit.
The answer to your question is "no."