Law Professor Seeks Bar Discipline For Attorney Who Posted Anonymous Criticism Of Her Work And Other Female Professors

nancy-leong-fullbody2There is a free speech controversy swirling around an ethics complaint in Illinois brought by University of Denver law professor Nancy Leong. Leong runs a blog site called Feminist Law Professors and recently discovered the identity of an anonymous commenter who has, according to Leong, left racist and sexist comments. She says that he is a a public defender in his late 40s and she wants him punished for his comments. We have discussed the free speech rights of public employees in an earlier column and blog postings, including the right to speak on blogs and Internet sites. The actions of Leong are troubling for those of us who believe strongly in free speech values, including the right to anonymity.

The poster used “dybbuk” in posts that referenced Leong. In one post, he talks about a 28-year-old law grad and wrote “I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.” He also criticized Leong, including her presentation in Hawaii on “racial capitalism,” stating “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train. Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”

Leong found dozens of references about her on five different websites as part of her investigation, including disparaging her scholarship and describing her as “a comely young narcissist” and a “law professor hottie.” She also said that other professors that he criticized on these various sites were overwhelmingly directed at women and professors of color. She considers anonymous postings with sexist elements to be unethical. She writes in the complaint that “There are over 6,000 tenured and tenure-track law professors in the United States have less practice experience than I do. Most of them have weaker publishing records than I do. Most of them have weaker teaching evaluations than I do. Almost all of them have been members of the legal academy longer than I have. Almost all of them have more power and prominence than I do. In light of these facts, it is difficult to think of a reasonable explanation for [dybbuk’s] obsessive attention to an untenured professor.”

That does not sound like the basis of an ethics complaint. I am highly sympathetic to Leong because I have long been amazed how anonymity unleashes the both base and juvenile instincts in some people. Many posters are consumed by jealously and prejudice — venting these feelings in a way that would never be tolerated in many public or employment settings. They often seem personify their anger in their own lives or careers against those who take on public causes or positions. It is a sad statement of our species and something that has led many blogs to ban either anonymous postings or all comments from their sites.

I can certainly understand Leong’s desire to set matters straight, though I have had far worse comments directed my way as a newspaper columnist and a television commentator. I rarely if ever respond or even correct false statements on my background. As many know, this blog enforces a civility rule while working hard to avoid banning individuals in light of our free speech principles. We also recognize the right of anonymity. When you write for a newspaper or a blog, you willingly become a public figure — a role that comes with both good and bad speech direct at you by others. One of the few exchanges that I have had with a critic was not over the content of criticism but the tenor. Some of you may recall that a few year ago I had an interesting exchange with another legal blog where the host expressly rejected civility on her site or other sites. I continue to believe that people, especially lawyers, carry a responsibility to engage in respectful and civil dialogue. All of us will have relapses, but most of us were raised to show such respect in dealings with others, even those with whom we disagree. Clearly Leong is dealing with someone who long ago abandoned such restraints, but that does not mean that his speech should be the subject of discipline by a bar.

In my view, the criticism of Leong’s writings or experience falls squarely under protected speech. Ironically, she has an impressive publication and academic record that speaks for itself without the need for extrinsic disciplinary mechanisms. Moreover, as an anonymous filing, these are postings that do not reflect on this man’s employer. Underlying the complaint seems to be a view that sexist or racist statements made as an anonymous person would still constitute a violation. We have discussed in many blogs and columns and (here) how non-discrimination laws have increasingly collided with free speech principles.

In a blog posting, Leong speaks about investigating harassers. She says that she tracked down her critic to confront him:

To my regret, my harasser refused to speak to me. I called him at his office (once) and left a message with the person (not him) who picked up the phone simply leaving my name and number and asking him to call me. He didn’t call back. A few days later I emailed him (once), explaining that I had identified him and that I wished to discuss his Internet posting activities. The email was difficult to write. It triggered emotions relating to an experience confronting a person who abused me many years ago. I did my best to keep the email polite and professional and–to the extent I could–I tried to express some sympathy for circumstances in his life of which I might not be aware.

It clearly did not work and Leong proceeded to file a formal complaint. That is where I have to respectfully disagree with Professor Leong. The effort to punish this poster threatens free speech and creates a chilling message for those who wish to engage in discussions on an anonymous basis. I know that that is not her purpose but she is attempting to discipline a person for criticizing her and engaging in language that she finds offensive. That is anathema for most civil libertarians even though most of us find these writings to be offensive and insulting. As academics, we owe a special duty to free speech and the need to preserve protected spaces for such speech on campus and the Internet. This is precisely why it was so alarming to see Jewish students recently seek to strip anonymity for posters of material that they find objectionable. Free speech comes at a cost, particularly for those who become public figures. The Internet is rife with hateful and false statements. However, it is also the single greatest advance in free speech in history. I am confident that the work of Professor Leong will be remembered long after dybbuk has passed into well-deserved obscurity. However, this should not be part of that legacy.

I understand from personal experience the anger and frustration of having trolls and critics write false or vicious things about you. Yet, Professor Leong should withdraw this complaint. If not, it should be denied by the Commission as intruding into free speech areas, in my opinion.

What do you think?

Source: ABA Journal

232 thoughts on “Law Professor Seeks Bar Discipline For Attorney Who Posted Anonymous Criticism Of Her Work And Other Female Professors

  1. Free speech is fine…as long as it doesn’t become too free. That’s always the message from people who hold a position of authority and respect, perceived or otherwise.

  2. Political correctness has created “protected” classes eg women, people of color, etc.

    It has also created “free game” classes – white men, rednecks, southern males, conservatives, etc.

    When a member of a “protected” class demands disbarment as punishment for unwelcome comments I suspect that we are seeing retaliation rather than justice.

  3. When comments are anonymous, everyone needs to consider the source. During my life in academia and as an elected public official, I never responded to unpleasant, hyper-ventilating criticism. No point in giving them legitimacy. Especially from (as a friend called it) comments by A Nonny Moose.

  4. I can relate to her. I think that cyber bullying is probably one of the most cowardly things a person can engage in, but yes they have a free speech right. Eventually their victims will find out who they are and then they also have a free speech right, so it goes, round and round.

  5. If you cant stand the heat, get outta the kitchen. So sayeth JackMehoff and a lot of other commenters who speak with anonymity or however ya spull it and make fun of those who itShay don’t stink. Jack is right here but he wont chime in because he thinks that Sierra Leone needs to be let alone. Those who can: do. Those who can’t practice law: teach law. Those who teach law: blog. Those who blog law teachers: teach em.

  6. Free speech is paramount. However, along with all freedoms it comes with responsibility and accountability. The blogger who seems bent on harassing Leong should be unmasked and have his name and position attached to his words. If he can address someone in this manner, mentioning her name and position, that someone should be addressed in a like manner.

  7. It sounds like rude and inconsiderate comments were made. But I fail to see how those comments relate to the duties or ethical obligations of an attorney.

    We have standards that regulate speech such as slander. When the situation does not involve the attorneys behavior toward a client or the court why should attorneys be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens?

  8. I am not sure we need to see the painting of George the slave holder addressing the crowd— every single day. Maybe a photo of a painting of Ben Franklin.
    This Leong lady reminds me of people in towns who insist on having leash laws. The dogpac is thinking about moving to Oriental, NC because they don’t have leash laws. Having a blog and inviting speech is like having a food pantry and inviting the peasants. If you don’t like the peasants get outta the food pantry.

    I googled Leone and they put up all these photos of her. Some are supposed to be sexy. Which, if she release those photos, she is a hypocrite. Or in FL we say hypocritter.

  9. Jill, thanks for posting a link to that article. Women have been disproportionately targeted online for abuse, it’s sickening.

  10. For this issue, I’m perplexed; having been the subject of much bad faith banter.

    Without a full trial upon the merits (where both sides get to present their case – IN FULL); I’m going to disagree with our esteemed Professor.

    In this country, free speech is a civil right.

    So is the right to redress grievances!

    There are issues of the Bar and Professionalism; and the Professor knows that your BAR Card Oath and Rules of Conduct are not cavalier matters of Professional Responsibility.

    If you are going to walk, play and get paid higher than the trodden crowd; you must also adhere to different set of standards.

    Hence, the court is the proper place to address the issues in this case; and the presiding justice will have the proper authority to put any/all parts of the legal arguments/arguing – Under SEAL!


    that being said – I would also stipulate that one has the right to maintain their anonymity in certain situations;

    but I hardly think an attorney at law publicly making sexists slams – is such!

  11. Me thinks this professor has a thin skin. If she doesn’t like what she is reading on her blog, maybe she should get out of the blog business. Just how far did she go in “investigating” her commenter?

  12. As I see it, from my vantage point of the side of the river that runs through it, a blog is like a sewer. All things solid and liquid get put into it and the sewer runs into the river and the river runs out to sea. As it floats by, an item might offend. But in time it floats out to sea. Civility should be practiced on a blog. The perp who is making fun of Leong should be run out to sea on a barrel. But, forget the law bar and all that. Because the defendant at the bar forum will post the photos which Leong put up for the sewer of Google for all to see and then ask if he is being sexist for saying she is hot to trot. If ya know what I mean, jelly bean.

  13. I am normally *almost* as strong on free speech as Prof Turley. However, false or intentionally misleading accusations (I won’t say defamatory without more specific information) from one lawyer against another are not (and should not be) immune from discipline. We expect more from lawyers, including not publicly defaming another lawyer or promoting sexual and racial harassment. As you note, Prof Leong is not filing a criminal charge, or even a civil action. Rather, she is asserting that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in false accusations against another lawyer, and suggesting sexual misconduct toward another law graduate (it is unclear from your blog whether she is a licensed lawyer as well). Many jurisdictions have “civility codes” under which lawyers can be disciplined for statements and conduct not actionable civilly or criminally. While some of the codes are too vague and broad for my taste, there is a point where conduct by a lawyer toward another lawyer is so far over the line, and so unjustified under any leeway afforded to free speech, that it is entirely proper to discipline that lawyer. It is not a stretch to believe that a lawyer who would engage in such improper and discriminatory conduct toward women and minorities, would do so (albeit in less public and obvious ways) while representing indigent women and minorities as a public defender.

  14. Firstly, one of the more shocking things to me is the alleged sexist, racist[Man do those words fly around like super balls] is a public defender. Every, let me repeat a word I seldom use, EVERY, PD I have known was quite liberal. I didn’t think liberals engaged in this type behavior. And, while this mat be sexist, I don’t va voom, she is drop dead gorgeous. She should be making big bucks doing trial work!

  15. Raff,

    This seems to be a waste of the discipline boards time…. But if she is so fair skinned maybe she should go to work for the DOJ…. They bury its detractos…..


    Morning to you…. I had some fairly good words to say about you today….

  16. I do not know which state is involved here, but I will tell you my experience joining the Virginia bar. Every new member of the bar is required to take a one day seminar on civility, and the need to treat fellow members of the bar, and the public, with respect. It is pointed out that lawyers are supposed to be held to a higher standard than members of the public.

    Dybbuk’s comments fell short of such a civility standard; yet even there Leong treated him with enough respect to reach out to him and try to talk it out. Dybbuk not only refused to talk with her, but accused her on his blog of being a crazy stalker for trying to contact another member of the bar and work out their differences. In these circumstances, I have absolutely no problem with someone filing a bar complaint. I doubt the bar is going to take dybbuk’s license away, but it would seem appropriate for them to have him attend a remedial civility class or two.

    I would have no problem if she outed him, either.

  17. I would have preferred that she do the complaint on someone else’s behalf.

    Even then, I have to agree with JT that this is not something for policing in officialdom.

    She should have done like JT and made a civility rule, given a warning, deleted maladjusted comments.

    If the commenter did not get the message, well there is banning.

  18. Ladies and Gentlemen;

    There are MANY points being missed here.

    1st of all – each and every one of U.S. should make a declare of – whether or not – one is involved in the legal profession.

    Bias is as bias does.


    2ndly – does the mens rea of this particular case matter.


    Next, the InterNet (believe it or not) is still in its infancy. There are going to be many (Very MANY) changes in the Codes & Rules of Law as pertains to such.

    If you are blessed (as I am not; but trying harder to get better at such) – at having a “thick” skin in the online realm; such does not give you the right to be over critical of those who aren’t.


    While I dream of the day that is returned to me; and I can pursue the premise of doing biz a whole new way (where people don’t have to drive to “the office”) – as a virtual office is created and pay is “task based” instead of hourly (freeing people up to work 3 jobs at once). The fact of the matter remains that our web worlds are going to go through many idiosyncratic (based on sovereign issues) and ubiquitous world wide treatises (akin to ICANN).



    Though (presently) there aren’t Professional Code of Conduct Rules concerning web based banter; to scoff at the idea of such materializing is ill conceived logic.

    Cyber crimes exist.

    Bullying by Cyber is established as culpable/accountable dynamics.

    Our POTUS was elected by social networking.

    There are many more complexities/issues to consider, than that of counsels simply circling their wagons in a “blue wall of silence” defensive; in order to justify bad form (possibly bad faith) behavior as an inalienable civil right.

    If this were your wife, mom, daughter and/or sister being abused so;
    would your thick skin be so paramount?

  19. “It was an anonymous forum and respect vulgar my free speech.” is the internet equievelant of wearing a trenchcoat and wig and expecting not to get arrested for mastrubating in public. Just my 2 cents there as an anonymous interwebber on a legal blog.

  20. Those who are have professions in which the public places trust in them, should be held to higher standards. If they violate the standards they have sworn or pledged to uphold they should be liable for the repercussions of their actions. This goes especially for healthcare providers, lawyers, law enforcement officers, investigators, public officials, etc.

    Free speech sometimes is tricky.

  21. When I was young there was a kid in the neighborhood we called confusus. He was always saying smart sounding things that most of the time we never understood.
    One of his most used wisdoms was “I’m rubber and your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and lands on you”. Everytime our gang tried to insult him, he would say this and smile. This really bugged us and eventually we stopped. We decided we were not glue and Confusus was not rubber. Surprisingly we all got along better when we stopped trying to insult him. If this lawyer had hung out in our neighborhood he’d be a better adult today.
    Ugly stupid senseless words have a tendency to stick to the speakers skin and clothe them in ugly.

  22. Creatures like this Leong shouldn’t be allowed to be attorneys, professors, or anything else that places them in position of authority. Nor should anyone give them the hand-out of allowing them “standing” to make a complaint about anything.

    Of course, the Feminists and others who make their living or feelings of worth will decry my comment…but they fall into the category of those not having the standing to be heard.

  23. RA;

    I concur in the sense that this is not a “cut & dry” case (as implied). Free speech is permitted; and yelling “FIRE” in a theatre has consequences.

    The lawn 1/2 mowed – is what keeps legal eagles – employed!



    Apples to orange compares aside; we are arguing “rights” here and this case is just as good a platform to ferret out the logic as any other.

    So people dream of being flashed; that doesn’t mean it is okay to do so!



    Concur – almost entirely!


    Hey AY;

    Normally, I’m so deprived of good faith banter and/or thoughts; I’d bug you earnestly, for the specifics. But this past week, we had over 1 million web views on the case and over 100,000 FB likes/shares. (and more stories are on the way).

    Unfortunately (today) my pursuits for qualitative attention, to (in turn) gather quantitative discussion and thereby compel justice; may have cost a good faith camera man his job of several years.

    That sucks.

    In the meantime, if you’d care to elaborate further, I’m still curious (laser dot haas @ yahoo).

    Hope all is well with you and yours in 2014!

  24. “There are over 6,000 tenured and tenure-track law professors in the United States have less practice experience than I do. Most of them have weaker publishing records than I do. Most of them have weaker teaching evaluations than I do. Almost all of them have been members of the legal academy longer than I have. Almost all of them have more power and prominence than I do. In light of these facts, it is difficult to think of a reasonable explanation for [dybbuk’s] obsessive attention to an untenured professor.”

    My read: Smart, cute, immature — and by her over-reaction proving just about everything her critic says about her to be at least plausible, if not true. Needs some seasoning and a skin thickener. Maybe a lesson in humility, too, judging by the statement written above. Funny how the kind of stuff written above always sounds better coming from other people.

  25. Laser, you are correct, it is precisely about rights! He is fully entitled to make these comments without legal repercussions. But he made these statements in a public place, hiding behind the presumption of anonymity. There would be no question that he should be sanctioned had he openly spoken something like this on radio or television. I see no reason why we should hold him to any lesser accountability or contempt when he voluntarily makes his private thoughts public, simply because he presumed he would remain anonymous.

  26. Strong women, beware. If you stand up for yourselves you will be branded. You may be painted as hysterical, thin skinned, too sexy, a harridan, and conceited.


  27. Annieofwi, what’s your opinion on Leong’s article: The Open Road and the Traffic Stop? Surely as a strong woman, you can understand that such an article deserves no place in legal scholarship.

  28. annieofwi:

    Nowhere in the Feminist Manifesto does it accord females the right to be selfish and disregard everything they have learned about the First Amendment. “Standing up” doesn’t mean tracking down, violating anonymity, and then trying to exact revenge by public or professional censure. “Strong” doesn’t connote whiny or boastful or anything besides putting on your pants (or dress as the case may be) and moving forward and not proving by your childish actions that you are in fact “hysterical, thin skinned, too sexy, a harridan, and conceited.”

  29. criticism is not bullying. The comments are childish and in some cases ridiculous. They undermine any criticism to which they may be attached; however, Criticism should not be the basis of an ethics complaint. Neither should being an adolescent fool. If that were so, there would be few members of the bar left.

  30. Mespo, cyber bullying has repercussions, those who are too cowardly to abuse under their own name risk being outed and retaliated against. Action / reaction, it’s natural law.

  31. annieofwi,

    Given your presumed – based solely upon your weighing in on this in the manner that you have – definition of “Strong women” and “standing up for yourself,” Yes! They’re very rightly be labeled as: hysterical, thin skinned, too sexy, a harridan, and conceited.

    This is because your definition more accurately equates to weak and in need of special protections. mostly from men.

    Tell you what – ameliorate your attitude and tone and you just might be able to get yourself a man to provide that protection. That’s our proper role in the world after all.

    Or…Act like a man more perfectly instead of trying to take from the best of both gender roles while carefully avoiding the worst of them.😆

  32. I mostly agree with the approach of the post, however I believe when someone post of a public web site, they are taking some risk their identity might the exposed by a person with enough motivation. I think this risk increases the more volatile their remarks. While I hope we receive reasonable enforcement of anonymity in those circumstance, I do not see it as absolute. For instance, if a web site or blog promises anonymity, that expectation should be enforced, however if a person with ingenuity can discern an identity by searching for someone’s anonymous moniker elsewhere, or other references, that might be prerogative.

    The question then turn to what to do with the identity. In the case where a person is in public service, or in a position to harm people or their rights in the professional position they occupy, and they have or likely have contact with people whom they clearly exhibit perforative sentiment or hate towards, then the question becomes more complicated.

    For simplicity, one might take the example of yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre when there is none. Free speech is not absolute, and one test is when it might create physical harm to others (whether in a medical context, violence or someone facing incarceration.) One might consider commenters anonymity falls into a similar context with this example in mind. If a prosecutor who has exhibited certain negative predispositions in personal comments might be reasonbly expected to use his professional power to incarcerate or overcharge someone or a group that he has exhibited animus or bigotry toward, a defense attorney who might be expected to fail to provide his best efforts to represent his client, or a medical doctor who due to their comments is reasonably feared to not properly treat a patient, then we are in territory where the free speech right might be justified to be eclipsed.

    I’d like to add my concern that more and more newspaper sites and other news and discussion sources are requiring users to use their Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn and other public identifies, and forgo any ability for direct sign up for anonymity at all. While it is possible to create a false identity on these services, I purposely do not participate in those forums, because I think it is a negative and unthoughtful policy relating to the greater idea of perfecting and maintaining free speech in our society. I highly appreciate the ability to use anonymity, when I wish, and for certain do not want every comment I make exposed to everyone in my circle of relationships, or beyond, with many good reasons.

  33. VaBar Member:

    “In these circumstances, I have absolutely no problem with someone filing a bar complaint. I doubt the bar is going to take dybbuk’s license away, but it would seem appropriate for them to have him attend a remedial civility class or two.

    I would have no problem if she outed him, either.”


    You might want to take that con law part over again or maybe just read some good old Virginia history. You would also do well to recall that if Patrick Henry took the civility seminar before he passed the Virginia bar, he might well have stood up at St.John’s Church and declared “Give me liberty, or give me a pen to write a firm but polite letter to Geo. III.”

    Civility can be a bludgeon for power in striking down dissent. That’s why we have a First Amendment with not word one about “civility.” We’re a revolutionary government –or haven’t you heard — and it was the court of Geo. III who had the monopoly on “civility,” my dear chap.

  34. Mespo,

    That’d be too difficult for most to do. It’s beyond them. Simpler is to use one of their “tests.”

    Simply have them picture the same “abuse” coming from a woman or a racial minority (she mentioned racism (no suprise)) towards a White man and see if they’d support HIM trying to get the “abuser” reprimanded or disbarred.

    Of course that won’t work either because this females supporters want “equality” but with different standards applied based upon gender and race.

  35. Laser’ing in on the target issues

    “IF” the PD protected his anonymity in ironclad fashion; then there “may” be a cause of action for the breach of such.

    Be that as it may – that is a “counter” point/cause of action and has nothing to do with the primary issues at hand. For, as I’m able to discern (thus far) from the banter; is that one’s BAR Card should not be at risk for comments in the internet realm and/or any disciplinary reprecussions as a violation of the Professional Codes of Conduct.

    As for the banter on what the plaintiff is, was or does otherwise – is immaterial.

    Unless – of course – she is the wanton, desire to be sexually exploited hussy that the PD (purportedly anonymously) portrays her to be.


    As in “waiver” of A/C privilege, if plaintiff was able to ferret the identity out by the bad faith party’s disclosing such to another (other than an attorney at law)

    then he has NO claims of anonymity!

    N’est-ce pas!

  36. annieofwi:

    Natural law is survival of the fittest and no one is advocating ignoring real threats of harm. What we’re saying is that this professor is using an arm of the state government to silence a crude critic. That’s unconstitutional,un-American, and downright mean-spirited. She’s a lawyer and an adult and she should act like it when dealing with childish remarks. After all, she knows better. She taught at William & Mary and last time I looked she had to walk by a statue of merely one of the school’s most famous students, Thomas Jefferson, every day to teach her Constitutional Law class.

  37. janolan:

    “Of course that won’t work either because this females supporters want “equality” but with different standards applied based upon gender and race.”


    While we almost always disagree fundamentally, in this small space we don’t entirely. “All men are created equal” was never a literal statement of reality even to Jefferson. Natural equality is a canard since differences in intellect, physical strength, and other abilities make it as such. Absolute equality does not exist in nature or anywhere else. It exists only before the law because we deem it so and we so deem it by way of the Constitution. That means the “equality” is subject to the law even the part about having to deal with comments we don’t like to preserve the comments we do.

  38. I have followed this story a bit through LGM. This is not an issue of harassment vs. First Amendment, so much is as a story of a law professor making a fraudulent claim of harassment because she is upset about criticism of her substandard scholarship.

    Leong’s ethics complaint asserts that dybbuk make 70 comments about her. He claims 25.

    Leong claims that dybbuk wrote a play depicting Leong taking illegal drugs. But dybbuk’s short fictional vignette portrays two male law students taking drugs.

    Leong claims that dybbuk’s cruel use of the word comely constitutes “sexualized” commentary that made her fear for her safety. But Leong contacted dybbuk by phone and email, not the other way around.

  39. When I first started getting involved w/ blogs I just read. I think many folks are similar. I noticed the people who commented w/ their full names were, for the most part, less negative and rude than those w/ monikers. I then thought about my profession. I routinely dealt w/ anonymous sources, some reliable, many not. With an anonymous source, the first thing you have to determine is what motivates this anonymous source. Is it anger, jealousy, greed, etc. In rare instances it is righteous. They see a neighbor, co-worker, even family member committing fraud and they are outraged. Now, it’s never clear cut. Their motivation may be righteous but there’s almost always some dislike of the person on whom they’re snitching. If it were a surveillance, I would try and get the source to identify themselves so I could contact them. Often times, I got to know who they were via investigation, but you don’t tell them that, you lose them if you do. An upfront source is almost always more reliable than an anonymous one. That shouldn’t surprise anyone

    Using that experience, when I first started commenting on blogs I used my full name. I gave identifying information about myself. An open book. And, once I gave out my name and identifying information, I knew, better than most, that there is MUCH information someone could find on the internet about me. The genie is out of the bottle, and she ain’t going back in. The fact that so many people don’t understand, refuse, or are unwilling, to accept this very basic fact, astounds me.

  40. Buck up and stop being a bunch of wussies. With all that said and done, kick him of the blog and be done with it. You shouldn’t be able to sue or disbar someone for being an a**h*le. The blog master should have the right to kick anyone off the site.

    Now a Prosecutor, Judge or Attorney is a court room; that’s a different issue and one we she be really talking about.

  41. I respectfully disagree that this is a 1st amendment issue — it is one of professional ethics. For the privilege if earning one’s living as a licensed attorney, one agrees to abide by the licensing authority’s imposed code of conduct. One is bound to comply regardless whether one agrees with all of the particulars — failure to do so is a basis for a grievance. I’m not saying that in this instance a violation of the rules of ethics occurred, only that an anonymous breach is still a breach and still punishable if the identity is discovered.

    So, the issue may well become whether application of “the licensing authority’s imposed code of conduct” is unconstitutional?

    But i think a grievance, even if well-founded, is a mistake. One ought’n feed a troll, especially with a super-sized meal

  42. Nancy Leong is acting like a woman… emotional. [Ooops, did I just say that out loud?]

    Seriously, though, she is way off base to go after this guy like this. I agree with civil discourse. I have mixed feelings about anonymous posting.

    If anonymity is being used to allow someone to criticize policy through rational speaking without owning the speech, fine, but if anonymity is being used as a cloak to be uncivil, to defame and slander people, then I don’t agree with it.

    Leong should not go to the bar about the problem, and even if she does, the bar should do nothing. It is protected speech.

  43. Profound insight Nick;

    Most “attorney’s at law” are disciplined enough to refrain from making any remarks on the open realm. Like the Hollywood Rule that Joe Pesci violated (and halted his stellar rise); most counsels are aware todays remark on behalf of one client – may well cost you dozens to the contrary position in the future.

    Yours truly – too – suffers from breaking the “norm” rule; going by name (instead of moniker quaint). As my chosen “real” moniker (like others chose AJ instead of Andrew – or Dick instead of Richard) – is outside the norm as well, the slings & arrows of the petty/snide are often and hurtful.

    We are, in this modern day of social networking – What we Network Socially!

    Judges can surely spank counsel for being anonymously critical of a ruling vis-a-vis any forum. Especially that of a public realm.

    Hence, everything else is ‘case specific’!

  44. Philip S. Zivnuska:

    “Slander and/or libel based upon sexist predjudice is unethical.”


    That’s fine as far as it goes like most bumper sticker analysis, but the question is should the anon. poster be disciplined for his remarks. Spitting on a crowded sidewalk is likewise unethical. Should a lawyer be suspended for that too? What if he was a misogynist lawyer who did nothing more than spit when he knew a group of women would be happening by later? Off with his head?

    The question is did the unethical conduct bear on his fitness to represent his clients? In this case, I don’t see how. The Bar is not a nanny.

  45. davidm2575

    Nancy Leong is acting like a woman… emotional. [Ooops, did I just say that out loud?]


    Then folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Chris Christie all “act like women!” They must be sissy boys!

  46. To Mespo at 3:42::

    Here is the oath taken by Virginia lawyers. It says one would uphold the Constitution:

    Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will
    support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that you will faithfully, honestly, professionally, and courteously demean yourself in the practice of law and execute your office of attorney at law to the best of your ability, so help you God?”

    So if one were to try to overthrow the government established by the Constitution one could be disbarred, easily. So King George may have a point.

  47. I have to chuckle. I went over to Professor Leong’s blog[I hope that’s not improper or harassing]. Her posts get 2 or 3 comments. This is, “Much Ado About Nothing.”

  48. I have to chuckle. I went over to Professor Leong’s blog[I hope that’s not improper or harassing]. Her posts get 2 or 3 comments. This is, “Much Ado About Nothing.” or “Tempest in a Teapot.”

  49. I don’t see this as a first amendment issue. I see it as a case of cyber bullying. She certainly can block him from her blog but what of the other 5 he posts on?

    I see the men here think his sexist remarks are ok and she is too sensitive. The women see him as a sexist bully. Feminists still have a lot of work to do. Better yet, the men who “get it”, have a lot of work to do in calling their sexist brethren and letting them know that sexist bullying is unacceptable. It is important that men do so b/c it’s obvious that these bullies have no respect for women and certainly aren’t about to hear anything they say. Case in point: this bully refuses to even talk to the woman he bullies. What a wuss.

  50. Bettycath,

    From what I can easily tell we don’t even know the substance of his comments. We have only vague allegations from the self proclaimed victim.

    And, as for his refusal to respond to this woman – If I called you in the next few days – yes, I could find you; it’s part of what I do for a living…but I WON’T because it’s unethical – would you talk to me or would you instead actually consider contacting law enforcement?

    Finally, if your mind automatically decides criticism, even cruel criticism, is bullying, especially if that logical mis-jump is based on gender or race, you really need help, though I doubt that such help is available.

  51. bettykath, Do men who “get it” need to “Get the minds right” of those who don’t, as in Cool Hand Luke. Should we put these men, “In the box.” Prejudice will never be eliminated. Having what people think out in the open is better than keeping it in the closet. I think commenting and saying nasty, vile, things under an alias is horseshit. I think men who treat women badly are a-holes. But it is not my duty to get others “minds right.” As a father, coach, professional, etc. I need to treat women, and all people, w/ respect, model that behavior. As a libertarian, it is an anathema to me when you say I need to police what other men say or do. They have every right to be a pig. Pretty basic stuff here.

  52. OK, Laser,

    You make a lot of opinionated comments. If they offended someone, would you be OK with them tracking you down and trying to get you fired from your job?

    Also, if it the subject in question was a Black woman, would you be OK with a White man being offended by her online comments, tracking her down, and trying to cost her her job?

    What it comes down to is whether you believe that someone should be allowed to take punitive action against someone for what they say – in absence of an actual threat of course – and how far that punitive action should be allowed to go.

  53. “It triggered emotions relating to an experience confronting a person who abused me many years ago.”

    Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you likely know nothing about. Be kind.

  54. I didn’t notice the number of orange VW bugs on the road until i dated a girl who drove one . . . I didn’t notice the way Hispanic members of my church were constantly slighted by others until I married a Latina . . . i didn’t notice how dangerous the world is for young ladies until I raised two of them.

    And I didn’t notice that the professor’s efforts are about more than the sexist rantings of a jerk until I read the comments of Jill, anniefowo, Elaine, and Betty Kath (and I think I can guess the sentiments of Juliet and Lottakatz) as a whole.

    That women are raped and otherwise abused in other cultures and in our own military and own our own college campuses with little or no recourse has been often noted on this blog, Those sordid events find their genesis in every slight and deprecating remark visited upon females by men to the damage of both. What is sown will be reaped. Who is owned will be raped. It is part of all cultures primarily crafted by men.

    Misogynists should be called out and ridiculed at every turn. The failure to do so — especially by men — is nothing less than approbation of a environment dangerous to women. The failure to do so makes cowards of men.

    The professor’s action is her railing against a culture and system that refuses the value the full worth of a woman. And men find that objectionable because, well, it’s just easier to be a jerk if no one is railing against you.

    Good job, ladies.

  55. Hey – like the above – I’m an open book, utilizing my name (not an anon).

    My “opinionated” comments are thought through;
    and my campaign against Romney & Gang risks much more than a “firing”.

    (real poor choice of word[s])

    I’m not one for political correctness;thus your (1 out of a zillion) hypothetical’s doesn’t bode well for your point. As for the N word; yours truly was the only Caucasian male in a Kat Williams. They both are entitled to their free speech; but will suffer a Wrath of KONG if done in the wrong forum.

    What is at issue here – is the civil right to redress grievances.

    Those of the legal profession are biased in their “opinions” on this matter; because they feel threatened. That is because (whether you admit it or not) attorneys “at law” give up their right to free speech – as far as their Bar Card is concerned.

    You can assert your right to free speech;
    but you can NOT violate your oath to the BAR.

    Finally, as for your premise of taking “what it comes down to” – we do not agree as to the issues at hand. Everyone is socially responsible for their actions; and the Law is vetted through arduous processes, by great scholars, who try their best to define the absolute value of “a” – or “may” – or must”.

    In this case, there are many “possible” issues not yet presented in full.

    Obviously, the blogger “dybbuk” was on some sort of mission. To prove his virility, to vent his anti-woman’ness, had a bad day, month or year in the PD – and/or who the hell knows. What ever the reason, it will be vetted in a court of law; and the 1st adjudication upon the merits – is not likely to be the last. (We have appeals because judge’s think and speak errantly – too).


    In my particular case – which almost everyone here and the Professor himself are prudent enough to stay away from (because – in the real world {even when you are upon the right side of the issue} – there are penalties for stating your opinion publicly); there ARE 2 counsels upon the blog record who better hope & pray that I never get to depose my opponents.

    If just one of them stipulates they had conversations with the 2 parties in question; I’m going to do more than just yank their Bar Cards.

  56. Sorry for the confusion – I’m at Starbucks and a kid ran up and tapped the KB.

    The following errant paragraph

    I’m not one for political correctness;thus your (1 out of a zillion) hypothetical’s doesn’t bode well for your point. As for the N word; yours truly was the only Caucasian male in a Kat Williams. They both are entitled to their free speech; but will suffer a Wrath of KONG if done in the wrong forum.

    Should have read;

    I’m not one for political correctness;thus your (1 out of a zillion) hypothetical’s doesn’t bode well for your point. Take for example the banter about the N word; yours truly was the only Caucasian in a NYC High School during desegregation in the 70’s.

    Bill Cosby’s opinion has merits and Kat Williams does too.

    They both are entitled to their free speech; but will suffer a Wrath of KONG if done in the wrong forum; because – in the real world – there are public penalties for public displays of thoughts and actions.


    Maturity and discipline come to U.S. all; some in greater levels than others.

    Years ago, had yours truly met “dybbuk” and/or could readily reach out and touch him; I’d make him apologize for his bully behavior (even possibly being self – serving in trying to win the woman’s “to the rescue” smile).

    Now, I’m more disciplined than that.

    Prior to this year, my blood would boil at every legal eagle that would sling typed, web slings & arrows of disdain in perverted defense of criminal behavior (because it meant an attorney would pay a penalty); but – for the last year mostly – I’m less likely to get upset and more likely to take the high road.

    And Still have a LONG way to go upon the “better than that” journey.

    Meanwhile, I expect every word I’ve ever typed in web land –

    to wind up on my adversaries hit parade

    (most likely in a cut & paste – less than kosher fashion)

  57. The essential points of interest to me are the ethical standards of the local bar association and whether or not the comments violated those standards. Her complaint should be that in a public forum he denigrated her credentials using language that is sexist in nature. He said in essence that she had slight credentials but was trotted out (or trotted herself out) on stage to be lusted after in a manner that distracted her peers in the audience from noticing the insufficient legal theories.

    Along with his open fantasizing about sub/dom sex paints a picture of her that essentially reduces her to a sexual object and not to be taken seriously. Her peers, prospective employers, prospective clients, teachers etc. may (or have seen those postings. It is an image that will follow her and could have an impact on her career. He has not formulated an argument examining her scholarship but attacked her scholarship through her sex attributes. Has he written such things about men he takes issue with?

    I think a complaint to the bar was appropriate if the local association has an ethics rule against sexism, or denigrating peers and fellows outside of methods and means proscribed by the association.

    If the local association does not have such standards then making the sexist and objectionable behaviour public and showing “dubbuk” to be exactly what the definition of his web-name implies:

    Dybbuk definition in Wikipedia: (his name is obviously a play on the original name)
    “In Jewish mythology, a dybbuk (Yiddish: דיבוק, from Hebrew adhere or cling) is a malicious possessing spirit believed to be the dislocated soul of a dead person”

    Quotes from article:
    “I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.” He also criticized Leong, including her presentation in Hawaii on “racial capitalism,” stating “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train. Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”

  58. Thanks Oro Lee. It’s been a life long battle. To be a strong outspoken woman who defends herself makes one the target of yet more abuse, but women should stay strong and not be cowed.

    It IS all too easy to dismiss REAL abuse, because it’s not happening to YOU. All that sensitivity training in the universities didn’t seem to really make much of a difference if one judges men by what one reads here in this thread by the majority of male commenters. Cudos to Oro Lee and Laser and others who “get it”.

  59. Oro Lee both comments, Right and right. You know where the rubber meets the road. The First Amendment (speech and religion) is being whored out to cover and excuse acts that would otherwise howled down as (illegally) bigoted or infringing into Title VII territory. Like “politically correct” the First Amendment is now the shield for racists and bigots.

  60. VaBar member:

    “Here is the oath taken by Virginia lawyers. It says one would uphold the Constitution:”


    That’s my point and its the first thing we swear to do. All the rest, as Rabbi Hillel might say, is commentary. Nothing in the First Amendment about outing somebody for hurt feelings or enlisting the Bar in personal vendettas.

  61. Lottakatz;

    Your proffer of an item is germane;
    but I must object as to discussion of facts not in evidence.

    Please provide link and “excerpt”/blockquote?

    If true – I concur – that the poster (poser) has big issues…

  62. There will ALWAYS has been, and will be racists and bigots. What has grown exponentially in our PC culture the past few decades are people who throw those accusations around like baseballs @ Spring Training. They’re becoming meaningless. Maybe they need to have The Boy Who Cried Wolf Training along w/ sensitivity training. Oh, and resume civics class in 8th grade. The cluelessness of people regarding the First Amendment is mind boggling.

  63. Laser, Absolutely about minding your own pig sty. Libertarians have NO inclination about telling you how to run yours, as long as it does not intrude on me. But, do not try to tell us how to run ours. I believe you get it, and welcome to this blog. The more the merrier!

  64. I went on that blog. Boring. Why do we have a Feminist Blog? Perhaps the way to call attention to the blog is to waive the red flag against a sexist pig. And if he is or is not a sexist pig, she got the attention. She got attention here for hours. How many of you ever heard of that blog before today? Not many I would hazard. But I offer you this. Commenting on a blog can be hazardous. Unless you are a dog and few will take you seriously or try to take your dog license away for barking into a computer machine that translates your bark and growl into printed word.

    I think that Leong has thrown her boomerang and it wont come back. One shot is good for the whole career. If she taught con law at my school I would transfer. But I am not in school and I have taught con law to cons. Not talking RepubliCons here. Real honest cons. Those who learned to write their way outta a paper bag or a state pen.

  65. Ladies,

    You know how we members of the “weaker sex” are emotional, overly sensitive, irrational beings. Why should a professor who is a graduate of Stanford Law School and who is an accomplished member of her profession take offense when some cretin takes potshots at her anonymously in an attempt to besmirch her reputation? She should man up and take it like a rational, unemotional…male.

  66. Have any of you ever heard of locker room talk? The truth is that guys often talk MUCH WORSE to each other than this guy did to this girl. The Nixon tapes come to mind also with some of the choice words Nixon would use toward other men. I’m not even sure there is any sexism involved here in this case. Yeah, the speech is inappropriate. I certainly do not defend it, but a lot of guys are pigs all the way around. I have little doubt this guy has said much worse to other men.

    This is why there use to be an honor code among men, not to speak vulgar in front of ladies, not to hit a woman, and to give extra respect to a woman. Opening doors for women is one thing that comes to mind, helping her carry heavy objects is another. It is like the women today want to be feminists and equal with men without realizing what brutes many men really are. If men get the message to treat women equally, there will be a lot more of this kind of talk. I say bring the old fashion concepts of chivalry which taught men a code to treat women differently than men. By that I mean treat women more respectfully than men. No, this is not a call to subjugate women at all. I just think women would be happier if men had that personal moral code of not cussing in front of women, not making gross sexual jokes in front of women, not hitting with women, not arguing with women, etc.

    If this case has any merit, it is strictly on the professional ethics of acting professionally and respectfully toward other professionals. I don’t think sexism in this case can be proved.

  67. david;

    We are in a different age – than those of hallowed antiquity;
    with some who desire such and others who yell at you opening a door.

    And don’t you dare be so polite as to say Yes ma’am.

    Be that as it may – I concur with you on the sexism part (as such is “subjective”); and even concur more firmly on the Code of Conduct.

    Obviously this thread hit many nerves.

    Would someone be so kind as to provide the Code of Conduct Rule(s) at issue (or something more germane – say the “actual” complaint she purportedly filed)?

    I’m just sayin…….. our banter is moot – unless we follow sue’t

  68. When a Guy is Bullied, He’s “Not a Man.” When a Female is Bullied, She’s “Just a Woman.”
    By Katy Waldman

    Does the United States have a culture of bullying? That was the thesis of an article by the New Republic’s Chris Wallace that came out Tuesday. Following in the footsteps of Dave Zirin, who argued last week in the Nation that the NFL’s pernicious “man code” reflected a broader American weakness for “sexism, violence against women…and physical domination of others,” Wallace examines how the “power politics of the locker room” unfold across the country. “There exists a rush to dominance, a pattern of bullying,” he writes, “in every walk of life…The hardest part about watching a football game for me now (aside from knowing now the real toll of the carnage-as-entertainment) is seeing its reflection in the world that brackets it.”

    Wallace was reacting to the high-profile NFL fiasco in which a white player for the Miami Dolphins, Richie Incognito, bullied a black teammate, Jonathan Martin, to the point of hospitalization. When Martin first reported the abuse, he was widely dismissed and insulted for tattling like a kid. What he’d done by going to the authorities—instead of taking his tormentor “to fist city”—was break the masculinity code. He failed to “step up and be a man,” according to Tennessee running back Chris Johnson. “I think Jonathan Martin is a weak person,” added an NFL personnel worker (who bravely insisted on anonymity). “There’s no other way to put it, other than him being soft.”

    Be a man. Soft. Weak. Got that? As my colleague Amanda Marcotte wrote, “As long as we imagine that there is ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ and these things are in opposition, then men are going to be under relentless pressure at all points in time to prove that they’re not somehow turning into women.”

    The same day Wallace published his cri de coeur, another corner of the Internet flared up with its own bullying narrative. A law professor named Nancy Leong published the first of four posts on web harassment. “I want to look closely at…the way that Internet harassers focus on identity rather than on ideas as a specific strategy for excluding women and people of color from online discourse,” she wrote. At which point anyone with any kind of acquaintance with “online discourse” knew to get ready for some repugnant examples. Leong chose hers from personal experience.

    “This over-employed pillar of mediocrity is an attractive young woman? Shocking, I wonder how this situation might have developed,” wrote one commenter on an article Leong had written.

    “She love someone leong time to get herself a law professor position at such a young age,” quipped someone else. (Clever!)

    Leong explains that these cracks exemplify a specific strategy cyber-bullies use to shut down minorities. Instead of engaging with the ideas presented, trolls zero in on the presenters. They hijack the conversation by fixating on the target’s lower status. Basically, they respond to notions they don’t like by telling authors: You’re just a [fill in the blank]. You’re qualified to [do whatever probably-degrading things are stereotypically associated with the type of blank you are], but not have opinions.

    Some of this deplorable identity-politicking also occurred in the NFL bullying scandal. Incognito allegedly harped on Martin’s race in a series of nasty texts and voicemails. But what’s striking to me, looking at Martin and Leong side by side, are not the similarities between these cases but the differences.

    Martin was bullied when the pro-football world told him he was not a man. Leong was bullied when commenters reminded her that she was a woman—specifically, only a woman, a sex object. The relevant words are NOT versus ONLY—Martin was NOT dominant, strong or tough enough, while Leong was reduced to ONLY a “pretty piece of ass” her colleagues could “undress with their eyes.” Martin was forced out of the prestigious box his gender would otherwise enable him to occupy, while Leong was chided, basically, to crawl back into her inferior box.

  69. The aim of a complaint to the Bar is to convince the regulatory powers to discipline an attorney for violation or the law or codes of professional conduct. Discipline can result in suspension of the right to practice for a period of time or outright disbarment. One of the alleged problems with the legal profession “dybbuk” seeks to highlight is the extreme difficulty attorneys have in making a living when they cannot get a job in the profession. “Dybbuk’s” accuser seeks to restrict his livelihood (apparently a serious issue for “Dybbuk”) based on anonymous postings which were claimed to be racist, sexist and harassing (the argument, I suppose, is that he seeking to stifle the professor’s expression of her thoughts and opinions on the Internet and elsewhere – though, I have not seen any comments attributed to “Dybbuk” that have made any general or specific threats, explicit implicit or interpreted on Professor Leong).

    Thus, the important question is whether an attorney should be prohibited (ethically or legally) from posting anonymously on Internet forums? If “Dybbuk” were to be sanctioned by the Bar for this activity, it would profoundly muffle a significant segment of the Bar on many important issues. There is a long tradition of anonymous speech (going back at least as far as Mrs. Silence Dogood) and the Bar should be very circumspect about how it addresses these issues.

    If bigotry and misogyny are serious enough problems perhaps there should be bright-line rules about the bounds of an attorney’s right to speak even anonymously.

    But, maybe, in the reality of today’s world, the “unidentified voice” has outgrown its usefulness. Would this be an issue if “Dybbuk” had posted under his real name? Regardless of whether “Dybbuk” would have been so candid, would Professor Leong submitted this claim in that world?

  70. LaserDLiquidator request for cites, It was an if-then construct. If the local association has rules against sexism (or any ism that may be appropriate) or denigrating other lawyers in the public, then dubyuk’s comments are fair game for investigation. I don’t know if the local bar association does.

  71. I don’t believe her story has merit. In my opinion it harks more of insult to her ego and she seeks to avenge it by a means she found available to her. If her adversary was Joe the Carpenter she would have complained to his union if she found it might cause him difficulty.

  72. David: “I don’t think sexism in this case can be proved.” Not if Dubyuk can pint to postings where he argued the professional quals of male peers by objectifying them as sex objects. If he can produce those postings and they predate the complaint them sexism will not be found to be valid. I especially want to read a posting of his wherein he fantasizes about spanking a young, handsome male with a wet slipper, yeah, I want to read those.

  73. Darren,

    From the ABA Journal:

    “Leong adds that dybbuk commented about her about 70 times on five different websites, starting several derogatory threads devoted exclusively to her. She tried to call and email him, but there was no reply.

    “In Leong’s request for an ethics probe, obtained by the ABA Journal from another source, Leong says dybbuk also wrote two lengthy plays that depicted her using illegal drugs. He wrote posts disparaging her scholarship that described her as “a comely young narcissist” and a “law professor hottie.” He has also disparaged other law professors, she says, and, as far as she knows, nearly every one is either a woman or a person of color or both.

    “Leong says in the letter of complaint that dybbuk’s “sexualized comments about my appearance and other disparaging remarks made me concerned for my safety.” She says she was relieved to learn he lived in a different state.”


    I wouldn’t dismiss this as just an insult to her ego. Sounds to me as if “dybbuk” may have some serious issues. I’d be pretty upset if someone in my profession did something similar to me. I’d be concerned too.

  74. Lottakatz;

    You stipulated the following caveat –

    He said in essence that she had slight credentials but was trotted out (or trotted herself out) on stage to be lusted after in a manner that distracted her peers in the audience from noticing the insufficient legal theories.

    and you concluded with “Quotes from article–”

    These items are telltale and the “article(s)” in question should’ve been cited.

    However, I did the leg work (keyboard work) and found the qualitative banter germane. And (as iterated above) “if” your (lottakatz) [re][in]ferences be “actual”; then “Dybbuk” be in a whole bunch of trouble.

    Making remarks – anon or not – in a public forum, concerning professionalism, whilst inferring abuse; could be tantamount to libel & slander. (Even if, arguendo, a defense would be that the female in question is a “public” speaker)

    Here’s a ‘What if’

    1 – If the teacher/gal came to your office and said she wanted to hire you to sue “Dybbuk” for “x,y or z” issues; would you be saying hell NO to the retainer dough? (Because you REALLY believed the court would spank you under Rule 11)?!?!?!?!

    And – please be silent – if you can’t be totally candid!

    NO – 2

    You are GC of IBM or AT&T – and this matter is brought to your attention as “if” Mr. “Dybbuk” were saying this about others in your various manage/worker ranks (and/or a competitor) etc.

    What would your advice on “risk” – be to your client (the corporate entity) – on exposures?

    Silence is golden if candor is banter!

  75. Finally (at least I hope so for today)

    Mr. “dybbuk”s remarks of Oct 18, 2011 – 11:27 pm

    is represented to be verbatim
    (lacking the requisite proof/link to actual)

    She is 28, an unemployed JD, and 100K in debt. However, unlike certain protestors, she is not “whining” or “demanding” or “complaining”. Rather, she is doing “odd jobs” and “freelance work”.

    She states that she is not “passing up chances to work by saying that certain jobs are beneath me”.


    Question 1 –
    How many of you are eager to hire “dybbuk” (even if he is Michael Jordan)?

    No 2 –
    If the victim of these “anon” assaults were your daughter, mother, sister or some held dear and precious to you; how insignificant would “dybbuk”s comments then be?


    No 3
    You decide to rally the wagons around “dybbuk” and the night before you go to trial, the entire team set out to prove how “inconsequential” the remarks of “dybbuk” are; by the 1/2 dozen others ganging up on the victim – all in their own babbling, banter manner – hurtful, mean and obtuse to the fact that what is really transpiring is that a “coward – behind a pseudo name – is making comments of abuse to someone that he would never dare do face to face” especially in front of yours truly.

    Then the whole team sits down in the defense chairs;
    while the judge recuses himself.

    Because – as His Honor was already prepared to disclose

    the gal in question is his adopted daughter!

    And your going to sit there and tell me the “behavior” is “inconsequential”.

    AND this poor guy, from the wrong side of the tracks;
    and chump whom Romney’s gang beat up on (via fed venality)

    is suppose to respect anything YOU have to say?


  76. @Francie. A voice of reason. Finally. While getting riled up is easier than staying in control, those who rant say more about themselves than those they rant about. Yes, everyone is packing a heavy load, and being kinder to others than necessary doesn’t take a whole lot of work. If we were all in a room and tossed our troubles into a pile in the center, chances are we would take our own back. The professor has a legitimate gripe, but the public memory is short and chances are most of her friends/acquaintances wouldn’t have known had she not brought it to public attention. Besides, I welcome another opportunity to state “What others think of you ain’t none of your business.”

  77. Attorneys have free speech rights just like everyone else. If it’s a statement that a lay person could get in trouble for making, so too can a lawyer. If it is one that a lay person would not get in trouble for, then neither can the attorney. You can’t use disciplinary rules to impose additional restrictions on attorneys because of their professional position. I quote from Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Gentile v. Nevada:

    “We have not in recent years accepted our colleagues’ apparent theory that the practice of law brings with it comprehensive restrictions, or that we will defer to professional bodies when those restrictions impinge upon First Amendment freedoms.”

    Most attorney free speech cases concern criticism of judges. Many state courts have, under the guise of protecting the public, sanctioned attorneys for judicial criticism they consider unfair, inaccurate and/or intemperate in tone. Those decisions fly in the face of several Supreme Court decisions. But even then that dubious justification for limits on attorney free speech isn’t present when you’re talking about criticism by an attorney of another attorney.

    Not that discipline of this sort doesn’t happen. An attorney in Florida was hit with a two year suspension for criticizing another attorney in correspondence to him. It’s a case that would have no chance of being upheld if the US Supreme Court accepted cert. It is inevitable that the Supremes will take an attorney free speech case and that the court by about a 9-0 margin will put a stop to these states that insist that attorneys can have their speech limited because they are, well, attorneys.

  78. Spot on once again Professor. I have a feeling this young lady is about to get more criticism than she can handle. Not by me though, she can say or believe whatever she wants as long as we still have a semi-free country. I could see why she would want to shame the guy but as a public defender he probably doesn’t have a lot of shame. This one should get thrown out right away.

  79. This is an important topic, but I sense that the thread has gotten bogged down a bit because we are discussing at least three distinct issues interchangeably.

    I prefer to start with what we can all agree upon. The gentleman in question is rude, condescending, juvenile, sexist and unimaginative. He may also have serious issues with anger and misogyny, but we don’t know that yet.

    I do not believe that Prof. Leong’s complaint states grounds for bar disciplinary action for the reasons Prof. Turley has already expressed. However, that need not be the end of the inquiry. If the number and content of the comments could be reasonably expected to cause Prof. Leong genuine fear for her safety, there may well be grounds for a criminal investigation under applicable cyber stalking laws. A stalking conviction in turn would provide a basis for bar discipline. And a civil action for trade defamation might also lie, although that would clearly be a tough case on both liability and damages. In any event, the approach taken by Prof. Leong suggests that she could benefit from advice from a disinterested lawyer.

    Having said all that, I confess to having mixed feelings about lawyers blogging anonymously. I’m not suggesting that it should, or could, be prohibited. But I believe that professionalism demands that a lawyer use some minimal level of restraint off duty. This guy qualifies as an internet slob at best and a poor excuse for a lawyer.

  80. LaserDLiquidator, I misunderstood your question. I should have said “Quotes from the Professor’s article”. Really, I’m sorry to have given you a non-answer.

  81. LaserDLiquidator, You other concerns, 1, I am not a lawyer and 2, it’s not an matter specific to a corporation. I think she’s probably in the right forum and that she has a case worth investigating to see what, if any, rules the local bar association has on such matters.

    That’s as candid as it gets.

  82. Mike;

    Concur in the fact(or’s) that there’s a juxtaposing of issues in the banter.

    Take issue with what Prof’s “complaint” may say (as far as I am aware – non of U.S. have eye witnessed the actual “complaint” {isn’t reveal of such verboten}).

    Do agree that “dybbuk” is acting distastefully.

    Super Concur that attorneys “at law” are responsible to a higher standard.



    The matters at hand should be addressed by the American Bar and Congress


    TO ALL;

    Having reviewed the Professor’s discussion on the “Feminist” website – I find that she is much more credible than most of you here upon have given her credit for. It strikes me that – more than likely – you are being loyal to the “at law” brotherhood 1st and humanity 2nd; and that does not bode well for the good order of society in any realm of discussion.

    Many of you – this day – have made me realize that (though you have gone a different path than I), your value system has not come to the same direction of pursuits that mine have.

    We are always taking 1 step forward; and trying super hard to take 2 steps back.

    Wish such weren’t so!

  83. The Le ong and short of it is that what we have here is someone running a blog who is not up to speed.
    Another thing. Demographics show that there are too many law students, which is caused by law schools having to support too many law professors. Too many lawyers out there and so there are too many students and of course way too many law professors. There is no way to curb this. Some law professors want to hang on by creating some niche for themselves. Here is her niche and she created one that by itself has armor. No one up above will want to deny tenure if she is head of the feminists. Mein Gott. How smart this niche is. We women are after all minorities and we need to stomp out these bigots who question anything.

  84. I’ve followed this matter for a whole, and my thoughts are as follows:
    1. Dybbuks complaints relate mainly to two things:
    A)leongs utter lack of experience in practicing the subject (criminal evidence) she presumes to teach, and
    B) a ridiculous, puerile, self indulgent paper she published, which is worth every bit of the scorn dybbuk heaped on it and then some
    2. Her claims of racism are without merit… In the offending post dybbuk is clearly ridiculing a Hawaiian conference she went on, rather than her background.
    3. In making the above claim, ms leong is probably being disingenuous
    4. Dybbuk DID make two, stupid, offensive sexist comments which he should apologise for.
    5. The rest of his comments are fair.
    6. Ms Leongs claims that she is afraid of dybbuk are clear nonsense. He appears to live over 1000 miles away from her and has never contacted her (she did repeatedly try to contact him, however).
    7 ms leong has a tenure track position. A high income and a light workload. Her position of whining victimhood is tiresome and absurd

  85. If this matter goes before a bar committee, and there is an attractive woman on the panel who rules against him, would it be appropriate to call her a “comely young narcissist” in his appeal papers? How about if he starts blogging anonymously about her incompetence, and throws in a bunch of sexist comments along the way.

    Of course, there is a right to free speech. There is also a responsibility of lawyers to behave appropriately and professionally. I think the latter trumps the former here.

  86. lottakatz wrote: “Not if Dubyuk can pint to postings where he argued the professional quals of male peers by objectifying them as sex objects.”

    Help me understand this “objectifying them as sex objects” thing. A lot of men make racial epithets at other men. President Nixon had a favorite word: c0cksuck3r. If a man calls another man this word, is he objectifying him as a sex object? From a legal standpoint, would it be different if a man referred to a a woman using the same word? It seems to me that sexual epithets made toward the opposite sex is labeled sexism and thereby made illegal. Isn’t there kind of a double standard here?

  87. It is time to end Police Correctness. It served its purpose but has grown to be as bad or worse than the problems it sought to end.

  88. I think all the incivility that hate-mongers bring to any medium merely exposes themselves as the sociopaths they are and that decent people, even those who share varying socio-political views, will always condemn the actions like those of dybbuk’s and be empathetic with those they attack. They garner no real support outside their own circle of troglodytes.

  89. With everything that everybody has stated above…. I waited this one… The guy is a public defender…. If he treats women this way anonymously….. How does he treat his various clients….

    Ditto Mike A on the cyber stalking law and a poor excuse for the profession…..

  90. It is a known tactic of law professors to find some niche and take possession of it so as to solidify the position on a school faculty. There is no doubt that this professor is a female and like half the population has the credential to spout on a weblog about feminism. There was a guy who was accused of claiming American Indian heritage so as to garner his niche in a law school. I think he was related to Winston Churchill because that was his last name. Winston claimed that his mom’s side of the aisle was American Indian, so this guy had a last name and a story. This particular guy was an expert in Indian Treaty law and published some good stuff. The current Senator from some state up East is said to have claimed Indian heritage and then used that to keep her job at a law school. And from that niche she is now a Senator.

    So, law professors, find your niche, it will help gain you tenure. Once you gain tenure you can say what you want.

  91. Davidm said: “Help me understand this “objectifying them as sex objects” thing. A lot of men make racial epithets at other men. President Nixon had a favorite word: c0cksuck3r. If a man calls another man this word, is he objectifying him as a sex object?”

    Let’s see. I’ll quote an excerpt from Jonathan’s post:

    “I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.”

    Let’s change the pronoun “she” to “he” and the gender in the above. excerpt:

    I think HE has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the BOY dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank HIM with a wet slipper.


    Let’s look at another excerpt from the post:

    “Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”

    Now…I’ll change a couple of words:

    Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Davidm yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing HIM with their eyes.”


    Did dybbuk objectify Leong/women as sex objects. Gee, I dunno. Let me think for a millisecond…YES!!!!!

  92. Elaine,

    And so freaking what? How is any of that actionable to extent of trying to get someone disbarred?

    If we removed every sexist and racist from the employment pool we’d have to first get rid of the worst offenders, the Feminists – who’s entire basis is sexist in nature – and every minority activist – – who’s entire basis is racist in nature.

    Or are White Men to be held to different, higher standard because we, for “some reason” expect better from them?

  93. jonolan, All porn is “objectifying” a person as a sex object. Remember, it was feminists and Christian Conservatives who were unholy allies in wanting to ban porn. And since those days, porn has grown exponentially. How did that work out for those ideologues?

  94. Elaine M:

    Ol’ Davidm is always so amazed by the language whenever it suits him yet so infinitely understanding otherwise. Anyone not understanding that Dubyuk’s posting did objectify women certainly needs an English refresher course or maybe a dictionary.

  95. Porn has always been and always will be; just in different “art forms” (soon there will be “Holograms” (Holygram’s) – and I remember when a Reverend was sending out copies of a Playboy film to all churches, deacons etc., – so they could “see” what they wanted to fight for everyone else Not to See.

    Readership of Playboy skyrocketed (as did profits for Playboy films)


    Back to the core issues at hand – you people are defending a position that is untenable; and have gone upon the web doing so.

    Good luck with getting the next Holy Crusade Church as a client!

    We ALL have our faults; but backing/defending the actions of “dybbuk” – simply because your attorney “at law” hair is getting miff – is an UGLY position.

    Lacks nobility, character and sound logic.

    Including the disingenuous banter that “dybbuk” said nothing wrong!


  96. Elaine M wrote: “Did dybbuk objectify Leong/women as sex objects. Gee, I dunno. Let me think for a millisecond…YES!!!!!”

    That’s not the crux of my query. You pointed out how it works if a male or if I was the object of those statements. The thing is, if I was the object of this man’s statements, I would have no recourse in regards to any ethic rules about sexism because I am the same sex.

    So the rationale of the law is not equally applied. It is based upon the victim of the gender. Ultimately, at the root of these sexist laws is that women respond differently than men do about this kind of inappropriate behavior. It would be interesting to see how many legal cases like this are brought where the man is the victim and the perpetrator is a woman.

  97. davidm,

    It is not based upon the gender of the victim. I apologize if I didn’t make my point more clearly. It would be the same if a woman PD made sexist statements about a male law professor akin to those made by “dybbuk” regarding Leong and other women. It would be “objectifying” that person with regard to sex. It works both ways. In our world, however, males aren’t objectified anywhere near as frequently as women. In our world, girls and women who have been raped are often victimized again by society when their rapists receive community support and they are accused of being sluts or having “led the boys on.”

    BTW, I’m a modern woman. I–like many other women–don’t need men to treat me with kid gloves. I don’t accept being condescended to or treated as an inferior because I and other women are stereotyped as overly emotional and overly sensitive due to our gender.

  98. Elaine M wrote: “It works both ways. In our world, however, males aren’t objectified anywhere near as frequently as women.”

    Seriously, I am not tracking with you. I would not file a complaint if Nancy Leong wrote about pretending to listen while undressing me with her eyes as I spoke at a convention. What man would have a problem with that?

    It would be an interesting vote to see how many men on this blog would file a complaint of sexism over it. Some men might actually be pleased and excited by such a statement from her.

  99. There’s a reason, Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus was a bestseller. Obviously, not enough people read it. On a fundamental level, there are biological and anthropological differences between the sexes. Laws, political correctness, etc. will not change that. What has helped more feminists from the 70’s[my wife included] understand this basic difference is having a son.

  100. There’s a reason, Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus was a bestseller. Obviously, not enough people read it. On a fundamental level, there are biological and anthropological differences between the sexes. Laws, political correctness, etc. will not change that. What has helped more feminists from the 70’s[my wife included] understand this basic difference is having a son. Then the truth is realized.

  101. davidm,

    I don’t know. Some men might have a problem with having such things said about them in a public forum in conjunction with dozens of other comments made about their being narcissists and questioning the scholarship of their legal articles–in an effort objectify and denigrate them and destroy their professional reputations. It wasn’t just one or two comments. It was an ongoing assault by dybbuk. I think Leong got fed up and wanted it to stop.

  102. There are laws that can make some things more equitable. Title 9 is a good example. It took sports away from some young men, but there are limited resources in this real world. UW was the only Big Ten school w/o a baseball team in order to fund a women’s softball team. That was tough for those young men. “Life is tough, wear a helmet.” And, like the creation of the EPA and the ADA, Title 9 was signed by a Republican president.

  103. Men and women are different…so it’s okay to objectify women and to do what dybbuk did to Leong? And if a woman stands up for herself or other women when such things happen–then she just doesn’t have a clue because she never had a male child. OY! my head hurts.

  104. You asked to do role reversal. As DavidM pointed out, and as science shows us, in many instances involving issues between the sexes, that doesn’t work. I use Ibuprofen for headaches.

  105. Elaine M:

    I think we all agree that dybbuk is a cad. That’s the not the issue. Likewise, the question is not Leong’s right to “stand up” for herself. It’s merely the method she using to do so. Would you feel son sanguine if she called his office every day and cussed him out in retribution. That’s standing up for yourself to some.

    We have every right to criticize her methods which, quite frankly, trash the very subject she’s teaching young lawyers. There are other ways to fight back besides going to the state to disbar a cad.

  106. “Seriously, I am not tracking with you. I would not file a complaint if Nancy Leong wrote about pretending to listen while undressing me with her eyes as I spoke at a convention. What man would have a problem with that?”

    I agree you are not tracking.

    The point is not whether you or any male would file a complaint. The point is whether the protection is available to you should such attention interfere with your job or other aspects of your life.

  107. Elaine, I’ve never heard of anything like that remark about having a son makes a woman “understand”. I have a son and I don’t understand why some men feel they can engage in sexism and harassment and get away with it under the guise of free speech. This jerk was trying to hurt her professionally, obviously now that she is reciprocating it’s wrong ?

  108. Mespo,

    She has a right to be offended…. As you stated it’s not the proper venue to use to scold the attorney….

  109. The flow of the conversation went from the specifics of this incident to men/women differences in general. And, you learn something new every day. Just pass it on, although you’ll be surprised to hear many women say the same. My wife and I have had many conversations of women our age who had the same experience. One relates a funny story. She had 3 boys who all became hockey players! She was a bra burning, liberal, feminist who when they were young had a no gun rule. No real guns, no toy funs, no watching TV shows w/ guns, no movies w/ guns, etc. Her sons would steal her clothespins and make guns and go into the woods. Men hunt, women nest.

  110. Mespo at 2:50 — Actually, Professor Leong’s blog goes through the various ways to fight back. What methods would you suggest would be better after this had gone on for 14 months, given that she tried confronting him — only led to more harassment. Should she have outed him instead? Called his employer or his wife (if he has one)? Started blogging about him using his real name? Ignored it until he started harassing the next woman?

    When you consider the other options, there is not, in my opinion, any one obvious answer.

  111. Yes, she could have called his wife, for most normal men this would nip it in the bid. But then there are the exceptions.

  112. The ability to both fully appreciate and accept the extreme differences between men and women is something that our society needs to work on. Even the differences within the same sex are extreme. There should be mandatory classes given on both sexes in high school. Could you imagine a group of 50 year old guys teaching a group of 18 year old female high schoolers and vice versa? And then have a group of 50 year old females teach a group of 18 year old females and vice versa. I wonder if we could even agree on a curriculum? and would it be politically correct or the truth?

  113. hsk, Good observations. A HUGE difference between people is the introvert/extrovert spectrum. In many respects, I have more similarities w/ an introvert women than I do w/ an extrovert man. I hate loud, slap you on the back, never shut up, men.

  114. mespo,

    I wasn’t addressing her method for dealing with the “dybbuk” problem. I was responding to some of the sexist comments that posters have written on this thread. You can criticize her methods all you want. I’ll take to criticizing sexist comments and attitudes toward women.

  115. bigfatmike; – Concur greatly – the issue is redress of grievance – and a jury or judge can resolve the issues.



    I find the gal professor much more professional than the snide upon this realm would give her credit for; and plan to research her links on how to deal with the anxieties of social naysayer’s


    annieofwi; I find the fact she didn’t pull the “I’ll call his–” a plus for the prof…

  116. Annie,

    My husband is a male. He respects women. He doesn’t objectify women. There are many men who don’t behave in the stereotypical “boys will be boys” fashion.

  117. Yes Elaine, there are many good men, my husband was one of them too. I know that if this would’ve happened our daughter who is an attorney and someone was trying to ruin her career, he would’ve probably had to have been restrained from harming the harrasser.

    My daughter knows how to use big guns, she qualified with the Marines before leaving for Afghanistan.

  118. knows how to use big guns;

    Now I’m having thoughts that will get me slapped.

    Sheessshhh = had lunch with Ed O’Neill just 2 tables away a day ago; and thought how he could play me in the film.

    So how long is your daughter staying in Afghan???

  119. I live in a hunting state. I taught and coached female hunters, I LOVE tomboys, tough, athletic, meat eating, beer drinking, farting w/ frankness, women. The “Men hunt, women nest” is an anthropological sound bite. And, I know of NO MEN who are scared of women hunters. I do know many hunters, male and female, “scared” of drunk hunters. I’m sure there are some. But, that’s a stereotype that comes from blue, little or non hunting, states; like the Bay State, or my home state of Ct. Women hunting in the real world of Wi., the great Midwest, is a nonissue. So, there’s that.

  120. I wasn’t referring to women who actually go hunting with guns. I meant the take-charge, capable, independent women who are successful in the working world, can support themselves, and aren’t dependent upon nor subservient to men.

  121. annie,
    I am glad your daughter is back in country! When my son had his tour in Afghanistan, those 7 months were the hardest of my life.

  122. Exactly Elaine. That was my goal in raising my three daughters and I’m glad to report that all three are just as you describe. Their husbands like ’em that way too.:)

    My son is great too, thought I had better mention him lest I be caused of favoring the girls.😉

  123. Well yeah – go ahead – make my day; women with guns don’t scare me.

    They are – Blam Blam Blam

    End of Romney’s Laser Haas problem by former Vet asserting women’s right to shoot too!

  124. Rafflaw, she was actually there a full year with the 1st MLG, Camp Leatherneck. I am thrilled she is back in country, she was here during the attack on Camp Bastion, just down the road from it actually. We heard about it from our Navy Moms group and durin the lock down, we moms and dads were on pins and needles. All of our kids came home safe.

  125. Christie gets elected as POTUS and pardons the Gal
    making her co-head of his Secret Service unit.

    Meanwhile, VP Romney sells Michigan to Bain and Sankaty pockets the China Loan commission in his off shore accounts.

    and USAG Sheldon Adelson is found not guilty by Boehner’s Justice Committee for partnering up with Goldman Sachs on naked shorting of America & the Fed.

  126. Before you all go saying that I’m totally off my gourd;
    did you know that George Romney, Secretary of H.U.D. under Nixon

    and that – George

    was the first to propose Mortgage Backed Securities?

    ……………. I’m just sayin……..

  127. I think it would be interesting to see if it was the derivatives that really got us into such tremendous troubles. Mortgage backed securities worked for many years and works find as long as inflation is null or very mild. Deficit spending and fractional lending are both very bad policies that cause inflation. Go figure that the Fed Reserve Bank didn’t stabilize the markets after all. No, you mean the central banksters were lying to us.

  128. ” Mortgage backed securities worked for many years and works find as long as inflation is null or very mild. ”

    What seems to be a defense of MBS is in fact a devastating criticism. One main use of MBS is to provide a tool for the most sophisticate investors to hedge economic and business risk.

    I could be wrong, But I think inflation measured by CPI from 2000 through 2008, roughly the beginning of the last recession, was about 3% a year. I would call that mild. In any case, eyeballing the chart, inflation seemed very uniform from month to month, during that time period. So whether you consider 3% high or low there was little unexpected, in regard to inflation, during that time period.

    If the most sophisticated investors in the economy, under almost ideal inflation conditions, cannot use MBS to enhance stability then perhaps we should give serious consideration to regulating that market to prevent additional occurrences that do so much economic damage.

    “Deficit spending and fractional lending are both very bad policies that cause inflation.”

    Under certain, specific economic conditions they do lead to inflation. Under other economic conditions they do not. Deficit spending is a tool for economic policy. Like most tools, there are appropriate places to use it and there are inappropriate applications as well.

    The important point is to understand the implications of economic conditions and not get locked into one rote answer.

  129. Elaine,
    Spot on about strong women. I like strong women, and have always had strong, capable women in my life. Love it…and them. Some men are intimidated by such women, and never miss a chance to snipe at them. My youngest is a master of the slapdown for guys who can’t handle her independence.

    When she was only eleven, she handed a NASCAR Winston Cup winner his ass. I think he expected her to do the fan thing; want to shake hands or get an autograph. Instead, she stuck her nose in the air and walked past him. After we got in the car, I asked her why she responded to him that way. She said, “I don’t like him because he is rude.”

  130. Good for her, Otteray. You’ve raised her right.

    On the other hand, Leong and her supporters seem to indicate that your daughter should have instead filed a complaint with NASCAR or the driver’s sponsors.

  131. awh – come one jonalan… REALLY!

    Hey – Otteray;

    I just had a mental pic of you in leather, being whipped on by Hillary with a cat-o-9, chasing the brewski barrel to bury your head in.

    Just cause I’m being silly with glee today – and want to get my mind off all this..

  132. “Good for her, Otteray. You’ve raised her right.

    “On the other hand, Leong and her supporters seem to indicate that your daughter should have instead filed a complaint with NASCAR or the driver’s sponsors.”


    How did “Leong’s supporters” indicate that?????

  133. That’s what I say Elaine – WAY too much leap in abject logic there.

    Otteray is one cool dude.

    His life’s work should be in a book
    (and IF I get back what Romney’s Gang stole – I’ll try to make that happen)

  134. Elaine,

    Leong’s supporters here, at least, condoned her methodology in “being strong.” It seems logical that they would endorse functionally similar tactics for Otteray’s daughters.

    Let me see… this Annie for OK approves of: stalking him, getting him fired, and contacting his wife (Hoping for a divorce with the requisite confiscation of hid property?) is he has one…because she wasn’t fond of his online comments, the body of which I still haven’t found so can’t even begin to judge.

    From this Annie’s comments I think she should talk to her daughter. As a vet I can tell you she wouldn’t have been taught to act in the manner her mother endorses. We go up the chain only when it is truly needful…because, man or woman, we’re taught strength and self-reliance.

  135. Jonolon, baloney put on artisan bread and smothered in gourmet mayo with all the fixings is still baloney. I endorse that Leong has options that she can employ in response to someone who was trying to destroy her career and she’s smart enough to do just that. You sound like someone I hope my daughter never had to serve with, a misogynist.

  136. Is there a cause of action for someone who tries to discredit another person using unethical or devious means? Is ratfcuking against the law? Insincere demeaning of another people? They could claim it’s sincere. Should using logical fallacies be against the law?

    Isn’t that what we are debating here?

  137. annie,

    Why do you think Leong should have options for dealing with someone who is trying to destroy her career? She’s just a self-absorbed narcissist who can’t abide criticism. Let her take it like a man and move on with her life.


  138. Annie,

    If you think I’m a misogynist I can’t change that. Your definitions of such and, apparently, most everything else involving gender are too different to be is our views on appropriate responses to things.


    You say it with the normal sarcasm and disparagement of normative behavior Americans have come to expect from Feminists, but what you just wrote is actually 100% correct. If women want to function as equal to men then they have to be equal to men.


    As I doubt that either of you would hold the same opinion if the genders were reversed, your opinions have little or no prima facie validity. In specific point of fact if a supposedly aggrieved man tracked down a woman who offended him online and made contact with her you’d likely be calling for criminal charges against him.

    You can’t have it both ways. Be women or be men. One or the other. Or…except that one standard – which will need shifting – needs to apply to both.

  139. jonolan,

    Disparagement? Women are often disparaged for not being more like men. What do you mean when you say that if women want to function “as equal to men” then they have to be equal to men? In what ways do you think that men are superior to women? How do you recommend we women change our ways? How do you define the word feminist?

  140. jonolan, This is some advice. But, I realize advice can be like buttholes, everyone’s got one and nobody wants to hear about it. But, you’re new and may not know some history here. We just came through a shit storm. Some folks stormed off, some stayed and have chips on their shoulders. Because of the shit storm, Mr. Turley laid down the law. I believe it righteous, others disagree. Nonetheless, it is the law no matter anyone’s individual thoughts. Being an iconoclast, and new, some folks would love to see you banned for breaking these rules, knowing you may be an easy target. All that said, I think you have been within the rules to date. But, be wary. I and others want a full range of views. Some do not and would love to see a “misogynist” scalp on their belt. Don’t end up on anyone’s belt, brother.

  141. Well, for one thing, the antagonist is getting more blog space and occupying more people’s minds than anyone I can remember in this group. If publicity of his gripes with the professor and to put himself out there is his goal, he has succeeded magically. There sure is a lot of wind associated with this tempest in this particular teapot.

  142. nick,

    FYI: Jonolan isn’t new to the Turley blog. In fact, jonolan has been around longer than I have. Check out the comments on the following posts:


    It appears that you have taken it upon yourself on many occasions to warn newcomers about some of the “elitists” and others you dislike that they may encounter on Jonathan’s blog. Has our host asked to take on that responsibility?

  143. What I’ve been seeing is a class of men who have become “victims”. Men who feel threatened by feminists and cry like little boys that feminists have taken something from them. Men who don’t have anything worth stealing by any feminist. Jonolon, I don’t know you, but you remind me of such a man. When a woman is truly victimized by a man who systematically attempts to destroy her career such as Leong, who defends herself, she becomes the aggressor in the upside land of male victimology.

  144. Elaine, I am actually blown away by what I’ve read on this thread. It appears that women should not become complacent and think we have made great strides and can rest now. I think there is still much work to be done.

  145. annie,

    Some of us are castigated/criticized/called elitists/accused of having chips on our shoulders because we dare disagree with the views of a certain individual who comments frequently on this blog.

  146. Lawyer Chuck, “There is no such thing as bad publicity except for your own obituary.” As others have said, this woman had almost no traffic prior to creating this drama. The nastiest politics are often intramural college professor politics. She is just tapping into that. It might work for a short period. But fear and anger only motivate in the short run, it’s negative energy and runs out of gas quickly.

  147. lottakatz? How many? And I could swear your picture is a dead-ringer for a guy I met in Albuquerque last year filming the “Lone Ranger.” Tutu, Tonto – something like that. All hail the Black Pearl!

  148. Brian Leiter’s Law School Reports

    ABA Journal on Professor Leong’s complaint
    Here; an excerpt:

    “James Grogan, chief counsel for the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, told the ABA Journal that state supreme court rules bar him from confirming or denying that a probe request was filed. Speaking generally, he said Illinois and a few other jurisdictions have initiated cyberstalking investigations of lawyers in the past.”

    It’s been curious to see dybbuk’s various defenders (including some posting at the ABA site) claim that Professor Leong’s allegations aren’t accurate, yet they are all documented with screen shots of the postings in the complaint. And it appears to be true, and easily verifiable with search engines, that dybbuk’s most extended ridicule and abuse of tenure-track law faculty, in particular of their scholarship, has been directed at seven individuals, two minority men, and five women, three of them also minorities (this includes Prof. Leong). Dybbuk has, to be sure, occasionally delivered passing insults aimed at white men (even me, but no surprise there!), but none of them that I have seen (and I have seen a lot) have been subjected to the extended cyber-harassment dybbuk visited on these others, all of whom are women and/or minorities, as Professor Leong claimed. Why the scholarship of female and minority law faculty warrants special abuse by this dybbuk character is a question that perhaps the Bar investigation, if there is one, will illuminate. It could simply be coincidental, and not a matter of gendered or racial animus. Or perhaps it will turn out that he is more of an equal opportunity harasser of law professors than the evidence so far suggests?

    In any case, it’s good to know that the Illinois Bar does sometimes investigate these kinds of cases.

  149. Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet
    By Amanda Hess
    January 06, 2014

    “Ignore the barrage of violent threats and harassing messages that confront you online every day.” That’s what women are told. But these relentless messages are an assault on women’s careers, their psychological bandwidth, and their freedom to live online. We have been thinking about Internet harassment all wrong…

    A woman doesn’t even need to occupy a professional writing perch at a prominent platform to become a target. According to a 2005 report by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since 2000, but the vilest communications are still disproportionately lobbed at women. We are more likely to report being stalked and harassed on the Internet—of the 3,787 people who reported harassing incidents from 2000 to 2012 to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse, 72.5 percent were female. Sometimes, the abuse can get physical: A Pew survey reported that five percent of women who used the Internet said “something happened online” that led them into “physical danger.” And it starts young: Teenage girls are significantly more likely to be cyberbullied than boys. Just appearing as a woman online, it seems, can be enough to inspire abuse. In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.

  150. Homo Sapiens have evolved over billions of years. Laws, politics, political correctness, will not change a visceral characteristic of homo sapiens. Males in our species are the predators. It manifests itself in many dark ways. Cyberbullying is one of the more benign manifestations of this predatory instinct. It is wrong. But, in comparison to abusers of woman and children, serial rapists, serial killers, child rapists, etc. it is a much lower priority. So, if the point is that men are more predatory. Men are more aggressive. Men commit more crimes[a lot more, but the gap is closing] well then..DUH!

  151. Elaine M. – Now you have some sort of idea, how disheartening it is, to have a group of bloggers use all sort of nefarious means to discredit some ones or others social ideology. In that situation, I didn’t see you sticking up for the other side.

    As long as I have the opportunity to point out their tactics and argue the merits of my position, I do not see a potential means of stopping such activities unless the blog master is willing to look and arbitrate the matter. To me getting kicked off the site is the only real and best method but that would require a very honest blog administrator.

    Believe it or not I got kicked off the local libertarian site, for arguing valid points. They said I was disrupting the blog. A group that supposedly supports free speech and protection of individual rights. Go figure.

    I was arguing the merits of using political activism vs. judicial activism, favoring judicial as the only real means of obtaining significant socio-economic change. The Libertarian Party has now been in about ten Presidential elections and the only change I can remember, is influencing the use of Charter Schools, during the 1992 elections. Of course the right wing Republicans tried to throw parochial schools into the mix, causing the constitutional issue of the 1st amendment breech and the Dems threw in various regulatory features which many believe limited the schools ability to improve, so the real benefits of charter schools has not been realized.

  152. hskiprob

    Elaine M. – Now you have some sort of idea, how disheartening it is, to have a group of bloggers use all sort of nefarious means to discredit some ones or others social ideology. In that situation, I didn’t see you sticking up for the other side.


    Were you attacked by anonymous individuals on a number of different sites? Did they objectify and make sexist comments about you? What were the nefarious means that they used to discredit you?

  153. Elaine M wrote: “…the vilest communications are still disproportionately lobbed at women. We are more likely to report being stalked and harassed on the Internet…”

    I don’t doubt these statistics in the least. When are you going to admit that men and women are different from each other? Just look at the disproportionately higher ratio of men to women in prison. No kind of law is going to change human nature. You can try to pass laws to make the equal amount of men and women in prison, but it will not work because such laws are fighting nature. This is why I object to anti-discrimination laws that use gender equality as their basis. These laws are contrary to natural law.

    The feminists have argued for years that they are being held back by men and that there is some kind of injustice going on. They ASSUME without evidence that men and women are basically the same. I can readily agree to let women choose to step up to the plate in all areas of life, but when they enter a fight with a man and get a bloody nose because of that stepping up, they are expected to do the same thing any self respecting man is expected to do. That is not go home whining to your mother, or go to government to act as your surrogate mom, but clean yourself up and pick your fights a little better next time. After you clean yourself up, take some boxing or martial arts lessons so that the next time you step up to a fight, maybe you will win and send your opponent home with a bloody nose. This is the MALE mentality. You can try to make laws to make this male mentality illegal, but the nature of the male is still driving him toward this perspective. Law should be in accordance with nature and not contrary to it.

    The one thing I agree about is the concept of civility in all of this. The same good effect of law can be realized without resorting to sexism and other forms of anti-discrimination which have a faulty foundation of gender equality. Men and women should learn to temper their speech and actions in a way that leads to civility. Part of that is men realizing how they need to be especially courteous and respectful toward women, above and beyond the way they treat other men. At one time we magnified this concept as chivalry. Women at one time loved chivalry. The feminists have robbed us of this concept.

  154. Elaine M wrote: “Not all males are predators.”

    Many times I have seen you use this exception fallacy to be dismissive of the point of another person. Statistics address a population of data that often has overlap with another population of data that is being considered. For example, I can say that men are taller than women. This is an assumed generality based upon sampling data and finding that on the average, men are taller than women. Can you find a male who is shorter than a woman? Yes. But that does not dismiss the generalized statement that men are taller than women.

    I do not see the statement that men are predators as being an excuse of bullying. It is presenting a rational observation that explains statistics from a perspective of nature instead of from the idea that an injustice exists based upon the fallacious notion that men and women are equal.

    The bullying is still wrong. We just expect based upon nature that a man is more likely to be a bully than a woman, and this happens because of their biological nature, not because of deficient anti-discrimination laws or because of the failure of feminism to get their message out there.

  155. skip,
    The charter schools have failed on their own without any regulatory help from either side of the aisle. They have failed even though they can pick and choose who their students are, which the public schools cannot do.
    chivalry isn’t dead, it just can no longer be used as an excuse for demeaning and sexist comments and actions.

  156. Assaulting upon the web isn’t only a race, sex, age discriminatory practice.

    It is an issue of bullying by indy’s and mobs; usually with bad faith agendas.

    Absolutism (classifying issues and persons in an “ipso facto” – suit the desired results – fashion) serves no good purpose. The professor is doing what she desires to do, no more and no less.

    Complaints are allegations; and merits are issues of trial.

    It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have, what you can prove (and of this I’m an expert – armed with confessions); it only matters how the court conducts itself – and such is subject to many dynamics.

    This guy “dybbuk” – no matter what his “problems” are – is an out of control person acting in extreme bad faith. He must be arrested from his behavior – lest it be encouraged and spread.

    I’m leaving the subject alone now;
    but i wish we would all ask ourselves what is the point!

    What do you want to prove?

  157. davidm,

    Do you think that it’s part of most men’s nature to bully and harass women and treat and talk about them as if they are little more than sex objects?

  158. A male colleague, who has a habit of corresponding with authors of articles that he reads, once complained to me that female journalists never replied, but more than half of the males always did. Getting ignored, after spending maybe half an hour composing an email that went nowhere, made him mad enough to send flame mail to both genders ignoring him. It was rare for a male to respond to his flame mail, however, more than half of the females always did — and never to apologize for ignoring him but instead to go on the offensive. “Don’t publish your email address if you’re going to ignore me,” he said. People make their own beds.

  159. rafflaw, – They cannot have failed any worse that public education. Funny how some charter schools have very good rating. You wrote “Charter Schools have failed on their owned without any regulatory help from either side of the aisle.”

    That is the typical misleading nonsense out of you. I’m sure that their are some pretty crappy Charter Schools, but there are some pretty crappy Public Schools as well. There are also some pretty good Public and Charter Schools.

    Two: There is a Department of Education at all three levels of government, Federal, State and County. If they are not providing regulatory oversight, what in the heck are the doing?

    Is that really what you meant to say?

  160. rafflaw wrote: “The charter schools have failed on their own without any regulatory help from either side of the aisle. They have failed even though they can pick and choose who their students are, which the public schools cannot do.”

    Why do you say charter schools have failed? It seems strange to me that you speak of regulatory help not being involved when their entire existence is basically using federal regulation to let failing students get out of failing schools.

    I appreciate magnet schools here in Florida. Two of my high school children chose to apply to one in another district. They were required to be interviewed before the school accepted them. This school has programs in art, music, and drama that provide a much better educational experience. My children love school much more than they did before. It has made me a believer in school choice.

  161. Women and men are different physiologically and psychologically. Men and women are EQUALLY human. That is about as basic as I can make it. The continued attempt to portray women as claiming they are the SAME as men is old and tired already. Women seek equal opportunity, equal respect, to be seen and treated as equally human in all things, women are not seeking “sameness”. Get it?

    Why is it that the numbers of women who are being cyber stalked and harassed is so much larger than men, in the article that Jill, upstream and Elaine downstream, posted here? If it is excused as the nature of men, that is a poor excuse. Abusers don’t get a pass.

  162. annieofwi,

    When did we women who have been commenting on this thread say that we thiought that men and women weren’t different? Sometimes words are put in our mouths in order to divert away from the argument that women want to be treated as equals and not as sex objects or inferior beings. It’s been said we need to act as equal to men if we want to be treated as equals. What the heck does that mean?

  163. Elaine, I guess it must mean THEY want to turn us into MEN, ha! All that talk of women wanting to be the “same”, now it appears that it may be men who want women to act like men. How about we all act like human beings?

    It’s a good thing that women are not so easily distracted.

  164. annie,

    I know most of the people commenting here feel that Leong took the wrong approach in order to deal with her cyber harasser. I’d like someone to provide a suggestion/some suggestions for how she should have dealt with “dybbuk.”

  165. “I’d like someone to provide a suggestion/some suggestions for how she should have dealt with “dybbuk.”

    I think that is a very good question and I don’t have any good answer only questions.

    I can’t resist pointing out that if she were behaving like some guys she might post his pictures on a revenge porn site, and his address and phone on Craig’s list.

    But she is an attorney so I think we can assume she would choose actions more in the establishment.

    My recollection is that some of his activity took place on her blog (or did I get that wrong). She could bar him from her site.

    It does appear he was stalking her from site to site and harassing her. Did his actions rise to the level they violated some law regarding harassment? Could she file some kind of charge against him?

    Could she get a court order for him to cease? Would a civil suit have a reasonable chance for success? Did his actions violate terms of service on the sites he used to harass her? Maybe she could get him barred from those sites as well.

    Is it possible his actions reflect on his work? She might have a chance getting his employer to take action against him.

    Finally, living well is the best revenge – unless you have an uncle Murray in Chicago who could break his legs. That is not a threat – I don’t have an uncle Murray living Chicago.

  166. DavidM, You understand the very fundamental point about men being the predators in our species and explained it superbly. You gave a great analogy. I think there is nothing else to say except, “We tried.”

  167. From the time they are little babies, they understand and are told how cute they are etc. and start feeding off of saying “no” and whining to get attention and their way. As soon as they go through puberty, a new and miraculous personality appears out of somewhere deep in satan’s dynansty. The once sweet little girls, starts swishing their bottoms, padding their bras, taking enormous amount of time to figure out what to wear, how to cut their hair, how to sneak out of the house, while breaking hearts along the way.

    A couple of years later they are analyzing, with their moms and girlfriends, the potential wealth of the boys and how much money their parents have. Some of the wealthier boys, despite being less physical and mentally attractive, somehow find their way to the clichest parties and dating the more attractive females, except for the lead varsity cheerleader, who gets fooled by the promises of the varsity quarterback, but later dumps him for a college grad as she gets her degree in psychology, english or the arts.

    Women bring us the softer side of life and I truly thank them for that, but it does not come with a bowl of cherries as Mom was waning me about. From the time I went through puberty, there was not many time that I would go longer than 10 minutes without thinking about being intimate with one or more of them, often times, to an annoyance. To say that a man’s sexual drive is strong is an understatement, that I thing women can’t possibly understand and thank God, as I have gotten older, it is slowing down a bit.

    I’ve had four serious girlfriends and a wife over my sixty-one years, and they still amaze me in “numerous” ways. They are surely sensual creatures from a unknown galaxy far, far way, but I do not care where they came from, because without them, our world would be crap.

  168. annie,

    Double OY! Hand me the extra-strength Excedrin!

    It’s interesting to see how some of the men who have commented on this thread perceive/feel about women.

  169. Annie – Absolutely, but I do have a daughter and a grand daughter. I also happened to go to a high school where there was very rich and very poor so some of the generalities where perceptions that many guys think.

    Don’t get me wrong, many of the things mentioned apply to men equally.

    I wrote it in jest, so you shouldn’t have to take a pill.

  170. LOL, it’s actually getting humorous. Now he says he wrote that comment in jest, bwhahahaha. Sorry, couldn’t help myself, it’s female hysterics.😉

  171. I think the discussion of sexism and to a lesser extent racism is interesting. But it occurs to me those issues are really tangents. I think we have ample evidence to demonstrate that Leong was stalked and harassed. In that sense it matters not at all whether the tool used was sexism or any other form of attack.

    We may not have all the information. But there seems to be enough to conclude the dybbuk was trying to damage Leong professionally and perhaps in other areas of her life as well.

    Leong’s situation shows how few are the resources for people to protect themselves from stalkers and harassers. Unless the harasser actually commits an crime against their body or property there is little protection against a determined enemy.

    Telling a persuasive story to a judge may result in a stay away order. But even that is useless till served and may not deter a determined harasser.

    Threat of a law suit may deter a pillar of the community. But what if a harasser is suit proof, or so determined they are not deterred by the threat of financial ruin.

    I agree dybbuk used sexism. I also think he used it because it was convenient and in his mind damaging. But does anyone think all would have been well if we lived in some ideal society where sexism had no power. I don’t think so. I think dybbuk would have found other accusations and found other ways to ridicule and harass Leong.

    The real issue here is stalking, harassment and the lack of effective tools that offer protection to those who just want to get on with their lives free of interference and intimidation.

  172. annie,

    You know how all us gals swish and sway our lady parts to snare wealthy fellas. Oh, if only I were young and nubile again and could use my naughty bits to win “The Donald” away from his third wife.


  173. I agree bigfatmike, but the blatant sexism dybbuk used as the accelerant to the fire he used in an attempt to burn up her career is very disturbing.

  174. Any post which begins with “all men” or “all women” I ignore. As for how I feel about woman lawyers, I don’t. They are here to stay and my only interest is if they are professional women who know they are women, or unprofessional women who act like jerks because they see men act that way and think that is the way of power. Sigh. It is undeniable, however, that some judges show preference to attractive women lawyers and I can’t do anything about that. It is undeniable that some men judges don’t like women and some women judges don’t like men. It is an imperfect world, Master/Mistress Jack/Jill. But keep the conversation going as sexism of any kind is unacceptable and we are the ones who can reduce the incidents. As a child of the ’60’s, there isn’t a lot I don’t know about feminism and women’s rights. Those who taught me are still around, and would gladly lynch me if they caught me being a chauvinistic pig. Women have come a long way in recent years, and it is our obligation to assist them the rest of the way in any way we can. That’s what real men do.

  175. @Nick

    I’m not new. I’ve been here off and on for years, often raging back and forth with Mespo and few others. In fact, that’s been such a long-running thing that Mespo even had to comment on the oddity of our being on the same side…though our reasons for our positions are only tangentially related.

  176. @bigfatmike: Personally, I don’t think this event would have garnered anything close to the responses in this blog if she had just ignored him to begin with. Unless he threatened her with some kind of bodily harm, he’s just another jerk with too much time on his hands. However, feel free to call me if you need me. Uncle Murray.

  177. jonolan, Thanks for the history. You have a pretty unique avatar and I just don’t remember seeing it previously. I’ve been here a couple years or so and know little predating that. Although, I do @ times read the archives just to try and understand the history of this forum.

  178. Nick,
    😆 Somehow you missed me and my freakish avatar, though I’m unsure of how. I know this because we’ve been on the same post before.

    Unfortunately, this thread has gotten so long and busy that I’m losing track of it and the various conversations within it. I’m probably going to bow out of it. I didn’t really have anything more to say anyway.

  179. Some folks get lucky…. It wasn’t pretty…. But… It is proof positive that the professor will ban someone for rule infringement….. I see some are still skating….

  180. A.Y. and Elaine,

    I’m betting if you wrote JT and asked him what happened with Patty C. he would explain that to you. Alternatively, if you look at old entries, that would reveal accurate information as well. However, I believe JT would tell you both what actually happened.

  181. rafflaw or Elaine, would you please retrieve a post I just put here? Thanks.

    It showed that it posted, now it doesn’t.

  182. Jill,

    If I recall its in September of 09…., but it started getting unhinged in May….. Of that year…. There was a guy by the name of Buddha that was getting his chops chopped…. As well as you, me…. Anyone who posted…. She was one of the original 7 turleys she would remind everyone…. So is mespo…. He was getting his kitchen remodeled that year…. Raff, I recall was here….. Byron….. You….eniobob, Bob esq….Mike S…. I am unsure if Mike A was around or Vince T….. There were lots of solid comments…. Then well…. You know what else happened…..

Comments are closed.