'Penn Law' Keeps Its Name—For Now
Under pressure from unhappy students and alumni, the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law on Monday announced a return to the "Penn Law" nickname, but only until 2022.
November 18, 2019 at 03:44 PM
3 minute read
|
"Penn Law" is back. Sort of.
The University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law will continue to be known, informally, as Penn Law until the start of the 2022 academic year, Dean Ted Ruger informed students and alumni Monday. After that, the school's official shorthand will be "Penn Carey Law."
The announcement follows more than a week of pressure from students and alumni unhappy about the switch to the official shorthand of "Carey Law"—a result of a $125 million donation from the W.P. Carey Foundation, which was announced Nov. 8 and which sparked a formal rebranding of the school. That donation and the subsequent move to "Carey Law" has prompted both positive and critical reactions, Ruger wrote, but also some concern over the school's future.
"Much of the conversation has centered on concerns over the short-form name, instead of a focus on how the Carey Foundation gift will be used," reads Ruger's message to the law school community. "We have heard you. Like all of you, my colleagues and I care deeply about the Law School's history, tradition, and reputation in the academy, profession, and across the globe."
The compromise will allow all current students to graduate while "Penn Law" is still in use as the school's formal shorthand. But the short form of "Penn Carey Law" will be in use by the time next fall's entering class is in its third year.
It remains to be seen whether the compromise will appease those angry about the move toward "Carey." Kristen DeWilde, a Penn law student who has been organizing students and alumni in support of a return to "Penn Law" called Monday's decision a "bittersweet victory." The law school's communication with those who oppose the "Carey Law" shortform was lacking, she said.
"Yes, the Penn Law administration heard the petition and the countless emails and calls delivered to them, but they did not communicate with students and alumni for ten days about what was happening despite repeated requests in a variety of forums for more information not only about the name change but also about the agreement, the money, and it's intended purposes," DeWilde wrote in an email. "Students and alumni are important stakeholders and should be treated as such. This means not only hearing us, but also communicating with us."
Backlash against the previously planned "Carey Law" nickname was swift. Within days of the name change announcement, more than 1,000 students and alumni had signed a petition calling for a return to "Penn Law." That name carries both tradition and the name recognition that "Carey Law" lacks, the petition argued. Additionally, the Carey moniker is already in use within legal education. The W.P. Carey Foundation gave $30 million to the University of Maryland's law school and it became the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in 2012.
"I am extremely disappointed in both the outcome and the process," said Penn Law alum and Pepper Hamilton partner M. Kelly Tillery after the new shorthand was announced. "The latter is an awful 'compromise' and the former insulting to the various constituencies such as students, alumni, faculty, etc."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1California Implements New Law Banning Medical Debt From Credit Reports
- 2Trump Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers For Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
- 3Climate Groups Demonstrate Outside A&O Shearman and Akin Offices
- 4Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: It's Bonus Time
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250