For those of you who missed it, the University of Baltimore School of Law was featured prominently today in a Wall Street Journal story about the U.S. News & World Report law school rankings. The magazine is thinking of revamping its ranking criteria to address the widespread practice of admitting inferior applicants as part-timers, since part-time students’ LSAT scores and undergraduate grades don’t count in the rankings.

Amir Efrati writes:

One of the top beneficiaries of the current U.S. News criteria is Phillip Closius, former dean of the University of Toledo’s law school. He led the school’s rise from the list’s fourth tier to its second tier within a few years. After he took the helm of the University of Baltimore law school last year, that school also quickly climbed the rankings, to 125 this year from 170 last year, he says. (Schools in the third and fourth tiers aren’t publicly ranked — instead they are grouped together — but deans can find out where they placed.)

Mr. Closius’s winning strategy in both places: Cut the number of full-time students accepted into the program to boost the median LSAT scores and GPAs, which together account for more than 20% of a school’s ranking. In their place, the schools add more part-time students, who can transfer to full-time the second year.

Closius says the strategy is good for weaker students because it lets them ease into law school. He also tied the improved rank to subsequent “multimillion-dollar grants and donations for a new building.”

The story also has a small chart showing how some schools’ ranks this year would have been different had part-timers been counted. According to that chart, the University of Maryland School of Law, which placed 42nd, would have been ranked a bit lower, in the mid- or high 40s.

Ron Miller over at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog posts about this story, too.

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

I will see Judge Roger W. Titus’ Johnny Cash analogy and raise him Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr.’s “Seinfeld” citation.

Harrell, writing for the Court of Appeals in its Clancy v. King decision released today, references dialogue from an episode titled “The Wig Master.” In one scene, Jerry unsuccessfully attempts to return a jacket he bought at a men’s store “for spite” because he does not like the salesman who sold it to him. (“Seinfeld” fans will know the salesman as the pony-tailed Craig, who keeps promising Elaine the new shipment of Nicole Miller dresses will be arriving soon.)

Calling Jerry an “unlikely legal illustrator,” Harrell found the incident “epitomized the duty of good faith in contract.” Jerry could only return the jacket if it did not fit or he did not like it, Harrell wrote in footnote 27.

“He may not return the jacket, however, for the sole purpose of denying to the other party the value of the contract,” the judge wrote.

No word yet, however, as to whether or not a handshake can be considered a pact and what penalty is appropriate for double-dippers.

DANNY JACOBS, Legal Affairs Writer

U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus is at it again.

Earlier this month, Titus seized upon the train theme in a case of alleged racial discrimination to narrate its procedural history.

Last week, the Greenbelt judge likened a Bethesda physical therapist’s allegations that she was sold a “mongrel” Mercedes Benz (PDF) — one pieced together from “leftover spare parts” — to the “Psycho-Billy Cadillac” in Johnny Cash’s ballad about a similar stitch-up job, “One Piece at a Time.”

While Cash’s character was tickled by the success of his caper, Dr. Pepi Schafler was not happy with her “abomination of a car.” In her multi-count complaint filed July 15 against the dealer and various other parties, she alleges the passenger seat’s manual controls “look to be 50 years old,” the dashboard controls are “pretend,” and the car doors are “odd and bizarre.”

After Titus dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of complete diversity two weeks later, Schafler, who claims to have earned a J.D., sought reconsideration, arguing the judge acted beyond his powers.

“However, Plaintiff’s version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like her car, is missing some crucial parts,” Titus wrote in a short opinion Wednesday, before pointing out recent revisions to that text.

But if Dr. Schafler’s past litigiousness is any indication, she’s no stranger to such legal wrangling, and I doubt we’ve heard the last from her. As long as the case file doesn’t end up weighing as much as the title paperwork for Cash’s car…

BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer