Michigan Football Copies & Pastes Legal Argument Directly From Fan Message Board
First stolen signals, now this?!?
The Michigan Wolverines are in the midst of a potential playoff season, absolutely rolling through celebrated football powerhouses like *checks notes* Rutgers and Indiana. The program is also embroiled in scandal after the world learned that a team staffer masterminded a complex sign-stealing operation that involved advanced filming of other teams and might have gone so far as the staffer putting on a disguise and just sneaking onto another team’s sideline.
Stealing signs isn’t illegal. Deploying university resources to spy on other teams can be. An excellent article in the Athletic spoke about the practice with an anonymous sign-stealer who described Michigan’s alleged scheme as “next-level s—” and “Oh, they’re f—ed.” ESPN commentators have echoed these conclusions, prompting Michigan fans to keep the whole affair in the proper perspective:
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
Totally rational! As the inimitable Spencer Hall put it, “Man you do you but if you try and tell an eight year old they’re getting Six Flags instead of Disney, I’m praying for you.”
But fans can get crazy. Nowhere is this brand of unhinged lunacy more pronounced than college sports message boards. No success is sufficient, no staff member deserves the money they make, and no one’s working hard enough. It’s a Biglaw partner meeting comprised of angry middle-aged divorced dads.
In other words, “a Biglaw partner meeting.”
So when the school’s athletic director sent a 10-page letter laying out the legal argument against Big Ten punishment for the scandal, he apparently turned to the boards for inspiration [UPDATE: I mixed up two distinct letters. This is about Jim Harbaugh’s letter and not the Athletic Director’s letter]:
Sponsored
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
Generative AI In Legal Work — What’s Fact And What’s Fiction?
Here’s the passage from the letter highlighted by Southpaw:
Meanwhile, here’s a selection from a 1600+ word post to Michigan fan site MGoBlog and that went up at 3 a.m. on a Tuesday… when only the most rational observations get shared.
Stealing legal arguments now? A little too on the nose when you’re trying to push back against pirating claims. Even if the argument is correct, invest a minute or two to into a rewrite. It’s enough to drive a Michigan fan to drink.
Sponsored
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
While this looks bad, Brian Floyd offers a possible alternative theory behind the plagiarism:
Michigan does have a law school. And the idea that a lawyer would just as much time and effort into researching and wordsmithing an internet post to a fan board as they would a letter with millions of dollars on the line is distressingly credible.
That said, the author of the post included this observation:
(Not-legal-advice, not-licensed-in-Michigan, only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts, and not-an-expert-in-sports-law disclaimers apply — this is just a take that is more informed than your average take if I am analyzing the correct rules.)
“Only-vaguely-familiar-with-the-facts” and “not-an-expert-in-sports-law” doesn’t sound like counsel to the university [a coach] in a high stakes showdown with the conference.
But I guess this admittedly non-expert take is just the defense they decided to go with based on the signals they’re seeing.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
