When New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews used campaign funds to pay for a family trip to Scotland, an unusual compliance officer signed off: his wife.You may remember Dean Andrews and Rutgers-Camden from such emails and press releases as "many [of our 2011 graduates] accepted positions with firms paying in excess of $130,000," ["many" in this context turned out to be a term of art meaning "one"] and "we understated our graduates' debt levels by a factor of three while claiming to be one of the biggest bargains in legal education."
Camille Andrews, a lawyer and associate dean at the Rutgers-Camden law school, also oversees legal questions about Andrews' political spending.
So when the Democratic congressman decided in 2011 that the couple and their two daughters should fly to Edinburgh and stay in a five-star hotel for a wedding, he relied on her judgment that they could use campaign accounts to cover the $30,115 tab, according to statements in a recently unveiled ethics investigation.
Now Andrews has dusted off her Con Law casebook, and skimmed New York Times v. Sullivan, so she could bluster to the Philadelphia Inquirer that she's not kidding around about protecting her professional reputation, such as it is:
The wedding was for a onetime political operative Rob Andrews said he hoped to recruit to help in campaigns, so he has argued that the expenses were tied to his political work.
Details of Camille Andrews' role emerged in a 244-page report from the Office of Congressional Ethics, a nonpartisan board that reviews ethics complaints and sends potential violations to the House ethics committee.
Testimony in the report, released Aug. 31, offers a revealing glimpse of the 22-year congressman, highlighting his hopes to expand his influence in the House and his reliance on a small circle of advisers, including his wife.
I wonder what Camille Andrews teaches at Rutgers-Camden? Hmmm . . . let's see . . . ah yes.
The trip to Edinburgh, a bustling city that blends ancient spires and an imposing castle with modern shopping and restaurants, drew the most attention from the ethics board.
Andrews, 55, decides which events to attend, he told Office of Congressional Ethics investigators. His wife determines whether campaign funds can pay for them.
That pattern held for the Scotland trip. Andrews told investigators he was "perfectly comfortable and confident" in his wife's judgment.
"Camille serves as our compliance officer. . . . She is one of the three best lawyers I know - maybe five," he said in a 57-minute interview with the board March 6.
"I made an evaluation and decision that I thought it was an appropriate expenditure," Camille Andrews said in her meeting with the board.
She was referring to the $16,575 in flights to Scotland paid for by the congressman's leadership fund.
The rest came from Andrews' campaign account, which is used for a range of expenses as varied as $2.50 for cafeteria coffee to $1,123 in Tiffany's purchases. Rob Andrews told investigators that the Tiffany's items were not personal purchases and were likely gifts for a campaign donor or volunteer.
Other members of Congress have used spouses as compliance officers, said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.
"It is a conflict of interest, and it lacks all credibility," he said . . .
Camille Andrews wrote that her husband's responses to questions about this article "reflect my position."
"I am not a public figure," she wrote. "I will respond to any reports or comments that disparage me or portray me deliberately in a false professional light by pursuing appropriate legal recourse."
There are days when the jokes just write themselves.
Does anyone know or is there anyway we can find out the average numbers of employers that show up at OCI (at any given University). I requested this information from the University of Florida since there Web Site says that they have hundreds of employers show up on campus. I personally know that is not the case in recent years. They stated they kept records of the employers who attended but refuse to give this information out. Are all Law Schools deceiving their future students with this misleading information?ReplyDelete
Being a public institution, surely Florida has a FOIA system to get this information.Delete
Employers participating in on campus interviews are listed on NALP Directory, linked below.
Note, if a single employer, say DLA Piper, recruits for several of its offices, it will appear multiple times, so these numbers are overstated. These numbers should be considered in terms of each descrete employers.
Enjoy confirming what you'd suspected!
A law school dean at a public institution who is frequently quoted in the media, and serves as a compliance officer for her congressman hubby, thinks she is not a public person? That's delusional thinking right there.ReplyDelete
Camille Andrews' claim that she "is not a public figure" seems wrong; she's pretty clearly a limited-purpose public figure for purposes of legal education at Rutgers-Camden, having chosen to insert herself publicly into these various controversies and having taken advantage of the media in order to further her arguments.ReplyDelete
She's a public figure in the realm of law school admissions, not congressional politics. Check your facts.Delete
"... not congressional politics. Check your facts."Delete
Might want to check the facts yourself before spouting, Skippie.
Look her up on Wikipedia.
As the Inquirer story says, she has run for Congress as a placeholder for her husband while he ran for Senate.Delete
In other news:
What a fucking joke. Any chance we can get a current Rutgers law student to call her out in her class and post the video online?ReplyDelete
No. She is treasured on the campus, and a great asset to Rutgers Law.Delete
Asset? Does that mean female donkey?Delete
I think that's an "assette".Delete
According to Law School Numbers, a total of 91 total law firms participated in OCI at Camden for 2007-2008. Of this amount, only 5 New York firms took part in this ritual. That is beyond pathetic for a law school with that proximity. Furthermore, 5 DC firms and 4 California firms had presence. What a great in$TTiTTuTTion, huh?!?!
The majority of Rutgers-Camden students seek employment in Philadelphia (or New Jersey), not New York -- thus the decision to attend Rutgers-Camden as opposed to Rutgers-Newark. Check your facts.Delete
It's still not very far from New York. People commute to Manhattan from greater distances.Delete
LOL this is so funny. Another 1%er.ReplyDelete
Speaking of which I forced myself to watch some of the DNC speeches. Did anyone catch Elizabeth Warren? A Harvard law professor, married to another Harvard law professor (the marriage occurred before she got her job, hmm) ranting on and on about the evil rich. Oh the irony.
Actually, Bruce Mann (the husband) joined the HLS faculty in 2006. Warren has been there since 1995.Delete
She carried the hubby past the gates of Valhalla, not the other way around.
Warren is the candidate most likely to help law students so leave her alone.Delete
...gotta love them single-issue voters...Delete
Even though I agree with everything she says about Wall Street and she got screwed politically....I still have a major problem with someone who sits at the head of an industry who serves its students so poorly and directly profits from all the misery....and doesn't say one word about it. You can like her and still have a WTF reaction.Delete
Campaign manager ALONE is not a public figure.
Why are you citing a Massachusetts case?Delete
Hey, leave Britney alone! It's only like 200 miles as the crow flies. All them NE states looks alikes, anyways, ya'know?Delete
Newspapers used to welcome these suits to prove their news cred. I'm sure the Philly Inquirer is baiting her to bring it.ReplyDelete
Doubtful. Management/Editors would see this as lost profits.Delete
Complain all you want, you people are all just bitter you didn't have the chance to become a corrupt sleazeball like Camille Andrews or her husband.ReplyDelete
Let's face it, this is just another example of what happens when society has too many lawyers. They ensconce themselves in positions of power and then use their legal "skills" to abuse it. Enough of these people and then society just collapses. Thank God the number of lawyers is finally going to decrease.
So what, the law schools played around with figures a little to get you people to shell out some $$$. You'd all have done the same. You can't say you've been scammed when you think just like them.
Now get a real job and stop whining about how you didn't have a chance to make 160K a year defending investment banks from average Americans who want a fair shake.
A rather poignant response.Delete
What is your point again? We shouldn't object to fraud, dishonesty and unethical behavior because you think that we would do the same thing? You don't know how wrong you are. Heck, the majority of boomer lawyers are not unethical lying liars who lie. They benefited from a booming market, low tuition to salary ratio and the ability to easily repay debt. They are clueless about how things are today.Delete
They are not, in fact, patently and thoroughly unethical. The unethical people are limited to those involved with law school in any aspect.
@9:02, do this blog a favor and get a clue. Not all of us wanted, or currently want, to make $160k a year defending investment banks. Had you attended law school, you would realize that a lame, generalized opinion has no place in an intelligent argument. Mull that over while you are on break from your "real job."Delete
I did go to law school and was employed in many different sectors of our illustrious vocation and some of what the OP states is true. Most students were either vicious little twerps who would be doing what the OP says given the chance and the other half were hypocritical clueless do-gooders concerned with the underclass while Rome burned under their noses.Delete
Does anyone deserve to go through a lifetime of debt to pay for their sins? No. But there is a reason that even the supposed bleeding heart liberal profs turn their heads away from all the suffering they profit from. This vocation is filled with snakes and is a stinkhole, top to bottom.
Ok Rutgers Camden students. You're on the clock. Borrow a page from the Boomer playbook and protest Camille's ass off campus. Then protest your school into closing and secure a transfer to a better school (or else drop out).ReplyDelete
"Then protest your school into closing and secure a transfer to a better school"Delete
Strike that. Reverse it.
She's not a public figure, but she did win a primary?ReplyDelete
Camille Andrews won the Democratic primary for her husband's seat in the House, but Rob Andrews was beaten by Lautenberg in the Senate primary. After losing to Lautenberg, Rob Andrews decided to run for re-election to his House seat; Camille withdrew her candidacy on September 3, and Rob Andrews announced that on September 4 that he would take her place as the Democratic candidate. He maintained that his wife had not been merely a placeholder candidate and said that he had only decided to run for re-election a week before he announced it; according to Andrews, his change of heart was a result of personal reflection.
So she ran for office, could run for office in future, but is not a public figure?Delete
I went to Rutgers Camden. When I was there, Andrews was teaching Evidence. From what I heard, her class was a joke. One professor, in front of all 40 students in my Admin. class, said he "didn't even want to think about" what went on in Andrews's class.ReplyDelete
And I don't care if she sues me for writing this; I'm a Rutgers grad, so I'm obviously broke.
will she waive the GMAT if i show her my SAT scores?ReplyDelete
Will she waive the SAT requirement if I show her my Iowa test score from 7th grade?Delete
Excluding all of the questionable things that have occurred, I'm wondering whether as a society it's still "ok" to hire your spouse as an advisor?ReplyDelete
We have come along way, today I don't the President's brother could be the attorney general? (how great the nepotism was in the 1960s)
Oh, that's just fine at my law school, where about roughly a third of the professors are spouses, parents, or children of other professors.Delete
Such nepotism neatly recapitulates the classism of the admissions office. Not to mention every goddamn firm that comes for OCIs.
Yeah, the US has come a long way. It's not like the son of a ex-president gets the first look-in at the presidency, or the wife of an ex-president automatically gets a major office of state any more.Delete
Funny that Congressman Andrews tries to brazen it out by describing wifey as among the top three to five lawyers he has known. He is too modest on her behalf. He ought to describe her as the best damn compliance officer he has ever slept with.ReplyDelete
Free or funded vacations--it makes me think about the summer stipend/ academic conference racket, the loss of which is currently the source of much whining by the spoiled rotten faculty at St. Louis University Law School.
Is it the dean who gets to oversee the distribution of stipends for purposes of faculty attendance and presentations at summer"roundtables," "symposiums,""colloquiums"
and annual meetings of the Society for Law and Nonesuch? Maybe that is where Camille honed her compliance skills.
If I were a law professor, I would be upset if I never got a funded trip to Scotland. Take the sad case of this long-suffering young prodigy, Sturm Professor Nancy Leong, JD 2006, (co-author of real honest-to-god amicus briefs!), who has been forced to ply her intellectual wares in such venues as Honolulu, Hilton Head, and Amelia Island.
I'd prefer to see him describe her publicly as the third best compliance officer he has slept with.Delete
Maybe she'd appreciate the compliment.
Interesting CV. Following LS, spends:Delete
- 1 year as a federal court clerk
- 1 year as a "fellow" for "Americans United for Separation Of Church & State" (wonder what the heck that job actually was?)
- then right back to academia for a year as visiting scholar at GULC and thence a year each at American, W&M, and on to UDenver.
Sorry, I'm 4:17 above. My comment was about the last prof mentioned, Mz. Leong.Delete
Nancy Leong's practice experience is limited to one year of federal judicial clerking, plus a short spell co-authoring amicus briefs for a do-gooder organization. Nonetheless, this comely young narcissist has a very inflated opinion of the impact on our profession produced by her own scholarship and the scholarship of her fellow junior faculty at Sturm. Nancy says:
"[O]ur scholarly work has been cited by multiple district and circuit courts; it has prompted practicing lawyers to contact us for input and assistance; it has caused journalists to consult with us in writing pieces for general audiences; it has informed amicus briefs; it has provoked novel legal arguments in state and federal court; it has been cited in treatises and excerpted in casebooks; it has been included in materials for CLE classes; it has shaped the practices of admission committees at multiple law schools; and it has influenced the policies of student-edited law reviews."
The pronoun "our" generally includes the declarant, does it not? However, your scholarly work, Nancy Leong, has never been cited in any published district or circuit court decision. Moreover, the vast majority of practicing lawyers have never contacted a law professor for assistance, let alone for "novel arguments." Law is a learn-by-doing profession and it is a sad fact that many law professors have meager practice experience or none at all, and would not know a courtroom from a faculty lounge. You can be proud of your amicus briefs, if you wish, but your clerkship should have taught you this: reviewing courts consider "amicus" to be latin for "please deposit in the nearest recycle bin."
Just something to think about lawyer ethics:ReplyDelete
A (Baby Boomer) partner of my Engineering Firm was talking to us about an town approval meeting he had with a client. He made the following comment - "...their lawyer didn't seem disappointed. I feel like lawyers root for the town to delay the meeting - We [Engineers] have a piece in it [our design that got shot down/delayed], Lawyers on the other hand get to bill another $275/hr for more preparation and meetings"
Just an anecdote on how Lawyers are viewed by other professional services. Besides, this partner of my firm only bills at $200/hr, and my time as a Project Engineer [Associate] is only $75/hr.
Thats great man...and religious conservatives think that homosexuals are evil flawed individuals. Most of us aren't those attorneys...and the industry itself and its billing practices create the situation.Delete
Look, she's pretty. So, like, the rules don't apply to her...ReplyDelete
Let that be a lesson. Being attractive is really important and can help to get more things accomplished with a wider range of people more quickly. Most people do not have time to read anything a Lawyer writes anyway.Delete
Hit the gym, eat more fruits and vegetables. Save your money for plastic surgery later in life.
And I'll bet being attractive makes "networking" so much easier and more productive!!Delete
" ...being attractive makes "networking" so much easier and more productive!!"Delete
I'm sure you intended to write, "reproductive".
Now get with the programme.
@10:33 "The unethical people are limited to those involved with law school in any aspect" Well, gee that's really convenient. All the ambulance chasers in the world are decent moral people. All the wall street lawyers are decent moral people who deservedly make millions. The only bad people out there are those who prevented you from becoming one of them. What a crock.ReplyDelete
@11:33 No, not all of you. But most of you wanted to make tons of money in a way whose societal benefits are, to put it charitably, unclear. Because after all, that's what you'd have to do to pay off your debts. Yeah, and I only did that because the Fuhrer ordered me to. I didn't mean to, I had to.
You could have not gone to law school and gotten a normal job. But no, you got greedy, and some other greedy people outgreeded you and you lost. That's what happens when you enter that kind of world.
@11:43 You have obvious bitterness towards lawyers. I have a suspicion that you:Delete
1. Paid your divorce lawyer way too much money but didn't get everything you wanted in the property agreement; or
2. Testified in your criminal trial (after your defense lawyer told you it was a bad idea) and, as a result, you ended up doing jail time; or
3. Applied to law school but scored too low on the LSAT to be accepted anywhere.
If any or all of the above happen to be correct, it's time for you to accept some responsibility and get over it.
Right, like working a coveted government job, "making tons of money."Delete
Option 4 (and I think a likely one) is that you're a law professor. Now that your scam is being exposed and you have no substantive arguments to make in favor or modern legal education, you turn to blaming the victims of your fraud. Scam salesmen make similar arguments all of the time.
Option 3 seems unlikely. Even a salamander could score well enough to get into the Cooley Jefferson Western Appalachian Bumblefuck Skule of Law.Delete
"You could have not gone to law school and gotten a normal job. But no, you got greedy, and some other greedy people outgreeded you and you lost."Delete
That, sadly, is absolutely true. It happened to me in 2000, despite how much I tell myself that I wasn't doing it for the money.
And it damn well happened to 99.9% of the people on this board. They saw law as a way to make good money, but they were outgreeded by people higher up the bullshit law food chain (by virtue of bullshit stats, bullshit promises from law schools, bullshit student loans etc.)
Yes, most of us were conned by the law school system. But let's not ever forget that were it not for our own personal greed, we would have never been in that situation in the first place. We would have never been marks.
Oh, you were the 0.01% who went into law school because you "loved the law"?
Fuck off you were.
"It happened to me in 2000 [going to LS for money], despite how much I tell myself that I wasn't doing it for the money."Delete
I never even bothered lying to myself. Anyone who asked me, "WTF do you want to go to LS for??", my answer was always:
"To make more money, faster."
Hey I'm 10:33. I have a biglaw job and no debt. I am not a bitter loser.Delete
No one at my V5 firm would do or condone unethical practices. You may not realize this but the zealous representation of your client is a tenet of ethics that biglaw lawyers follow.
Why do you feel this need to label everyone with some negative connotation? You sound very angry.
What exactly are you trying to achieve with your comments? Please explain. I'm willing to give you a benefit of the doubt but you seem like a bitter troll who just hates everyone.
You had me up to:Delete
"You could have not gone to law school and gotten a normal job. But no, you got greedy, and some other greedy people outgreeded you and you lost."
You clearly have no idea about the world of law - thats not really how it works...hell, it sounds like you have no idea whats going on in the world at all. Have you heard of the recession?
Let her know your thoughts.ReplyDelete
Camille Spinello Andrews
Associate Dean of Enrollment and Projects
Law Office: 302
V: (856) 225-6550
F: (856) 225-6537
This reminds me of a recent story Nando posted on his blog about the (former) dean at Akron, who also taught professional responsibility, sitting on the board of a "multilevel marketing" legal services company:ReplyDelete
Why is it that the worst ones always teach PR?
Those who can't do teach. Those who can't teach teach PR.Delete
E.g. Jack Marshall.Delete
I just finished reading that blog entry on Dean Martin Belsky and the comments section. If there was ever a doubt about how corrupt this "noble profession" is, you should read that entry, which exposes the marriage between a quasi-Ponzi scheme and a law school dean who teaches ethics. I wonder if this Dean thought it was ethical to engage in a clear conflict of interest between being a Dean of a law school on one hand and on the other being a director of a pre-paid legal services scheme which undercuts and works against the interests of recent law grads.ReplyDelete
And I saw all at once that Camille's eyes were not dark. They were blue, but a blue so deep that I can only compare it to the color of the night sky in autumn when the weather is clear and there is no moon and the stars have just well come out. And I had not known how large they were. I remember saying to myself with perfect clearness, "I had not known how large they were,' several times, slowly, like a man marvelling.ReplyDelete
"I had not know how large they were. I had not known how large they were. I..had..not known...how...LARGE THEY WERE."Delete
The above comment was brought to you by Jean-Luc Goddard.Delete
OT- At this week's Il State Bar Solo and Small Firm conference there is a presentation on the coming catastrophe of work being stolen from solo and small firms by baby boomers using Legal Zoom, Rocket Lawyer, et al.ReplyDelete
Someone here had previously remarked about this phenomenon taking away work for small law practitioners and how this contributes to the loss of work for recent(and not so recent) JDs.
If anyone attends the presentation, maybe give an update here?
FASHION LAW IS REALLY BOOMING THESE DAYS.
No doubt in my mind that ad-story was bought and paid for....
This is 11:43 here. I'm having trouble with the reply button on my browser, so I'll answer here. No, I'm not any of the options you people listed. I'm just someone who has dealt with lawyers, and seen the trail of ooze they leave wherever they go. They freely admit they'll try to win lawsuits and cases whenever they can, without regard to whether they're in the right or not. They use excuses like "everyone deserves representation" and so on.ReplyDelete
I'm sure given the job search desperation you see here most of you would take anything you can get. Defending a child molester? Not a problem if it would help you pay back your student loans. Hell, I bet if your law schools decided to offer you well-paying jobs in their legal division you'd stop your whining and complaining and say Yes! I'm here!
@5:01 "What exactly are you trying to achieve with your comments? Please explain. I'm willing to give you a benefit of the doubt but you seem like a bitter troll who just hates everyone." I might be a troll, but I'm not particularly bitter. I just don't like lawyers. And I think you people should stop blaming the law schools for acting like lawyers. What did you expect?
Just go into the IBR thing and get another career, that would be my suggestion. Make yourselves useful.
"And I think you people should stop blaming the law schools for acting like lawyers. What did you expect?"Delete
For law schools and those that run them to act like the *ethical* lawyers they purport to be and train their students to be. Everything you write seems to essentially say "so what if law schools [blatantly lie, commit fraud, steal money from taxpayers, etc.] - that's what lawyers do!" Well, maybe it is what some lawyers do, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad to see this profession rapidly shrinking and modern legal education derailing. But if you really think this is all just the way it goes and that's the end of it and everyone should stop talking about, you're as ethically reprehensible as the scum attorneys you despise.
Also, 5:01 said s/he works in biglaw and has no debt, so IBR is unecessary. Some of us "won" the law school gamble and pay our loans in full instead of handing them off to taxpayers, but still want to see this scam exposed for what it is and ended.
11:43/7:49 the above leaves me with a couple of questions for you:Delete
- Should everyone who is screwed over by lawyers (might include you considering how you talk about them) stop their whining and complaining?
- Should law grads with jobs who are contributing something also shut up about the law school scam?
I don't understand why someone who hates lawyers the way that you do wants everyone to keep quiet and let lawyers just do what they do.
"Make yourselves useful."Delete
By all means, after you.
Perhaps you might benefit from a superficial reading of the US constitution. We have things like the right to a trial by jury, right to confront witnesses, etc.Delete
Perhaps you would like to see those rights taken away?
You do realize that being accused of a crime is a far way from being guilty of one.
Why hasn't this woman been disbarred? Why hasn't her Congressman husband been disbarred? William OckhamReplyDelete
What is this now, the National Enquirer?ReplyDelete
Actually, Robert Penn WarrenReplyDelete
@9:52 No, not everyone who is screwed by lawyers, just those who enjoy screwing others over. And so few of the whiners are actually contributing anything it doesn't really matter if that very small group stops whining about the "scam" or not.ReplyDelete
@4:48AM Well, then why don't you take that attitude towards the law schools. This whole blog is basically one big attack on the law schools which doesn't really give them a chance to defend themselves. 100 of you vs whoever occasionally puts in a comment in their defense. Clearly you've convicted the law schools without a trial, the charge being fraud based on employment statistics on a website, and the desired penalty being death.
Awww the poor wittle law schools.Delete
Campos you are such a big bad bully!
Speaking of people contributing nothing, you are very obviously a law professor. In your warped mind, law grads should keep quiet about being screwed over by law schools, because law grads are lawyers who enjoy screwing people over. Yet apparently it's an injustice that law schools don't have a large enough voice to combat law grads, even though law schools are made up of lawyers who enjoy screwing people over.Delete
Law schools have all the opportunity they like to defend themselves, here or elsewhere. But they don't because they can't, and law professors have resolved to anonymously trolling a few blogs, repeating the same drivel over and over.
But OMG this blog is so mean and unfair to them!!
Good informative blog.ReplyDelete