They try to drill it into you in elementary school: No copying other people’s homework. But apparently a federal judge in western Pennsylvania didn’t get the message.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out a ruling issued last year by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab after ruling that the judge had copied his opinion, nearly word-for-word, from a memorandum written by one of the attorneys in the case.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Schwab made only two substantive changes to the memo, other than minor changes for grammar and style, then signed it as his own opinion.
In doing so, the court said, Schwab failed to show that he put the necessary thought and jurisprudence into the ruling.
They try to drill it into you in elementary school: No copying other people’s homework. But apparently a federal judge in western Pennsylvania didn’t get the message.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out a ruling issued last year by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab after ruling that the judge had copied his opinion, nearly word-for-word, from a memorandum written by one of the attorneys in the case.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Schwab made only two substantive changes to the memo, other than minor changes for grammar and style, then signed it as his own opinion.
In doing so, the court said, Schwab failed to show that he put the necessary thought and jurisprudence into the ruling.
They try to drill it into you in elementary school: No copying other people’s homework. But apparently a federal judge in western Pennsylvania didn’t get the message.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out a ruling issued last year by U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab after ruling that the judge had copied his opinion, nearly word-for-word, from a memorandum written by one of the attorneys in the case.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Schwab made only two substantive changes to the memo, other than minor changes for grammar and style, then signed it as his own opinion.
In doing so, the court said, Schwab failed to show that he put the necessary thought and jurisprudence into the ruling.
The Court wrote:
We have held that the adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law supplied by prevailing parties after a bench trial, although disapproved of, is not in and of itself reason for reversal. . . . Here, however, we are not dealing with findings of fact. Instead, we are confronted with a District Court opinion that is essentially a verbatim copy of the appellees� proposed opinion. . . . When a court adopts a party�s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions. We, therefore, cannot condone the practice . . . .
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. The AP’s report is here via Findlaw.com. Or you can read the Third Circuit’s Opinion. (via el rita)
UPDATE: The Legal Intelligencer is now reporting: 3rd Circuit Sees Through ‘Ghostwritten’ Opinion.
Join the conversation!