The ONLY Way to Make Law School Affordable.

Live on the streets. My jaw hit the floor when I read this article from gawker.  I am sure he'll continue to be homeless when he becomes a debt burdened attorney.  But seriously though, there's something to this guy's strategy.  Once, when I was on a temporary project, I sat next to a guy who clearly shat in his pants and was probably homeless.  I complained to the Associate who told him he should go home and clean up and come back, so he went to bathroom--scrubbed up and came back.  He still stunk.  He could learn a little something something from this anonymous law school student.  Apparently the key is to rent a locker at a sports club/gym--actually several.  Read on...

So I have one locker for running clothes and laundry, one for dress shirts, one for dress pants and one for miscellaneous things. And also each locker has a spot for shoes at the top so that's really good.
I had to really reduce the amount of stuff that I had. I had to get rid of everything that's nonessential. I only have, like, five dress shirts, five dress pants, some running clothes that are necessary and then obviously sweatshirts and stuff. Other than clothes I don't really have a lot of stuff, just stuff for shaving and brushing my teeth and books. I have a school locker too, so that helps.
I also have access to my school. Its open until midnight and then opens again at 8 a.m. so I nap there a lot. There's this one room in the library that has couches and I nap there during the day when I have breaks in between classes. At night I try and stay in there as late as possible so I can get the maximum amount of warmth. So I'll leave there at midnight and go find a spot and then NY Health and Racquet club opens at six. So I really only have six hours outside, so its not unbearable.

Awesome!  And this very realistic youth realizes that he might not have a job as an attorney when he's done.  So, he's already contemplating a change in careers.  He wants to become a homelessness consultant.  I think he's brilliant and my hero of the month!

What Unemployed Attorneys Resort To...

I received an anonymous tip that deserves some treatment.
When one is laid off from their law firm job or never finds one to begin with, there are very few options.  You could put out a shingle, like I did--but that requires experience.  If we know anything from the past couple years, law schools don't promise you that you will be able to actually practice when you graduate (nor a job or a prospect at getting one).  So, you're usually stuck living in your parents basement and racing to send your resume to various recruiters for temporary projects that pay $22 to $35 an hour with no overtime.  Even those are hard to come by.
Another little known option is per diem work.  Per diem work entails making court appearances for status conferences and defending depositions for little to no money.  The work can be sporadic and stressful as you're often given many conferences in different courtrooms in one county.  Imagine you have 4 conferences on in Kings County Supreme Court (all in different court rooms) and then another at Civil Court (a different building) at the same time.  It happens.  And for all of that running around, my tipster tells me that she gets $75 dollars for the first appearance and $35 for each additional conference, assuming that each conference is an hour.  Otherwise, your rate is discounted.  Sounds bad, but not horrible---right?

Well, apparently, there's a guy in New York by the name of D_______ V______ (I'm kinda afraid to use his real name, but the initials are intended as a warning for people seeking employment with him) that makes his per diem attorneys sign a contract that states that they can expect payment in three months--but never after three months.  If you make yourself available, he will send you to court every single day to do per diem work for many firms in New York.  And you are enticed to go because you could earn $500 a week at a minimum and the catch is that you have to wait to be paid.   But, get this, he won't pay you for at least 3 months. Then, when you ask for the money--he sends you about $300 or $400 dollars!  After three months of busting your hump for about $100 a day!  So, basically, he carries a balance of thousands of dollars with you and you have to hassle the shit out of him to get paid.
Here's the real kicker.  The excuses that he uses for non-payment, according to the tipster, he says that paypal is not working, he's sick, he had a death in the family, food poisoning, non-payment by the firms that contract with him, he's got bills too... the list goes on and on.  And every time he pays, you'll only get $300 a pop.  And if you stop working for him, God Forbid--you'll never get paid.
Scum of the scum.  And the REAL asshole move is his contract, which specifies that any fee disputes must be dealt with in arbitration.  It takes about $700 to file for arbitration.  So, you've worked hard for 3 months and you're not likely to get that money and you have no outlet to fight for it.
So, we're living in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for lawyers.  The capitalist pigs take advantage of poor underemployed lawyers and they sink deep into poverty.  Lawyers are poor.  It's sad. I've actually dropped off on posting because I feel like a broken record repeating the message that is now out there.  Law school is for suckers.  I still cringe when I hear people say that is what they are doing, but I can't fix stupid.
It's out there and it's on you if you think you're so special that you'll be different.  Our parents have raised us incorrectly. When I was a child, the star of the soccer team got a trophy.  About 15 years ago, I noticed that all children on the team get trophies.  We're not all winners.  Some people are the cream of the crop, and the rest of us are just trying to make it.  Get real, people.

Fucking Ridiculous: Tip of the Day, Decade, Lifetime.

If you are so poor that you need to go to a soup kitchen or a food pantry for meals, you probably shouldn't go to college just yet.

BIDER's Official UN-Endorsement of Herman Cain!

He lost me with these words:

“Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

How many of you are doing everything you can and still find that you are "not rich"?  For those of you that feel that the President should have some compassion for those less fortunate than himself, I implore you never to support this fucking joke of a candidate.

Listen here, token black man.  Don't forget where you came from and who you left behind, and stepped on to get where you are.

Barbara Boxer Challenges ABA Again!

What does the ABA need to come clean with law students?  A letter from President Obama? A letter from the Pope?

Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to the ABA with specific questions in the last year, and she does it again yesterday.  Apparently, she didn't write the letter just to appease constituents--she wants answers:

Defending Crooked Law Schools Pursuing Profit

"In my two previous letters to your predecessor, I indicated my strong belief that the ABA should ensure that post-graduation employment data provided to prospective law students is truthful and transparent," Boxer wrote. "His responses appeared to indicate a similar interest, but unfortunately it is difficult to square those previous statements with the section's recent decision." 

What decision? She's talking about the ABA's decision not collect data this year about the percentage of new graduates in jobs that require a J.D. and the percentage in part-time jobs.

She sees through your bullshit, suckers!  Answer her, and Senator Grassley's dag gone questions.  I posted Grassley's questions--and it seems that he and Sen. Boxer and tag teaming these bitches, but I will recap here:

1. Does the American Bar Association compile data on the number of schools which offer scholarships to more students than can statistically retain those scholarships?

2. If so, how many schools, and how many total scholarships are affected?

3. Does the American Bar Association take these “bait and switch” allegations into account in the accreditation process?

4. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships offered each year?

5. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

6. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships that are revoked after the offeree‟s first year of law school?

7. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

8. Does the American Bar Association publish data on the amount of first-year merit based scholarships in comparison to the amount of non-first-year merit based scholarships?

9. Does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

10. Has the American Bar Association raised concerns with law schools about the practice of awarding more first-year merit based scholarships than they plan to renew?

11. If so, how has the American Bar Association raised this concern?

12. Does the American Bar Association have any education programs that aid students in assessing whether or not they are borrowing more than they can reasonably expect to repay?

13. Does the American Bar Association have a program to ensure borrowers do not-default on their federally-backed student loans?

14. How many law schools has the American Bar Association provisionally accredited during the last 20 years?

15. Does the American Bar Association maintain this information in a publicly accessible database?

16. How many law schools has the American Bar Association fully accredited during the last 20 years?

17. Has the American Bar Association ever revoked provisional or full accreditation during the last 20 years?

18. If so, how many law schools lost their provisional or full accreditation?

19. From 1990 to the present, has the American Bar Association ever placed a law school on probation?

20. If so, which law schools were placed on probation? 23. Did any of these law schools regain full accreditation? 24. If so, within what time period?

21. When examining candidates for membership on the accreditation committee, what efforts does the American Bar Association make to ensure that membership is balanced between legal practitioners and academics?

22. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of its committee membership?

23. If so, how does the professional background of committee membership break down in percentage format on committees related to the accreditation of law schools?

24. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of committee membership?

25. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of the officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation?

26. If so, how does the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation break down in percentage format?

27. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation.

No wonder they are avoiding the questions.  Obviously, they have to plead the 5th or incriminate themselves.

Enough fucking around.  Let's call for an investigation of the ABA for their complicity in RICO,  their anti-trust violations, consumer fraud, etc.  Heads need to roll before they come clean with their scam to fool our youth into pursuing the empty dream of a fruitful  adequate career as an attorney.

Email Senator Boxer to express your appreciation for her inquiry and to encourage her to keep on keeping on until she gets the answers that we all need to hear.

Law $chool: a Complete Waste of Time and Money

Abraham Lincoln, John Marshall and Strom Thurmond.  What do these great lawyers have in common?   They all became first rate, cream of the crop attorneys without stepping foot in a law school.  They made their place in history by using their legal skills and careers as a foundation for becoming President, a Supreme Court Justice and a United States Senator.  Impressive, right?  How would one become a lawyer without going to law school?  All three apprenticed with other, more experienced lawyers (also called "Reading Law") to become a lawyer.  So, long story short, the best way to fix law school is by eliminating it as a requirement to sit for the bar, and harkening back to those days when working as an apprentice attorney was enough.

I'm not saying that we must close all law schools down. What I propose is that we allow people to apprentice for a few years, even without pay, then sit for the bar exam.  If they pass, spectacular.  If they don't, they may have suffered without pay for three years--but at least they didn't pay for thee years of tuition to do it.

And for those students of the law who suffer from delayed adolescence (a/k/a "fear of the real world"), the law schools should be available to "prepare" you for the bar exam.  And to that point, the law schools will have to reform vastly to do this very basic task.  Currently, you attend law school for 3 years for $120K, then you must pay an additional $3525.00 for a review course or you won't pass on what you learned in law school alone.  Oh,  you weren't aware?  The law review class that you take after law school better prepares you for the bar exam than any of the classes you took in law school.  And this is coming from someone who strictly took "bar" classes.   I'm sure that you have run across people who "studied by themselves."  From what I've seen, those people fail more often than not.  So, under my model, to stay open--law schools will have to more closely resemble Barbri. Or even better, you can skip law school all together and just take Barbri and apprentice with someone.

Am I being harsh?  I don't think so.  When it comes down to it, you're not paying law schools to prepare you for the bar exam--Barbri does that.  You aren't paying law schools to help you find a job--they certainly don't do that.  You're paying for the experience--which is extremely grueling by the way.  I certainly didn't have any fun.  Did you?  So, that leaves us with paying a law school large sums of money so that you don't have to go out into the world and earn money.  My guess is, if capitalism were allowed to reign free, the schools who don't provide the sought after service, a career in the law, will either come down in price or close.  The others will improve their programs and produce better attorneys than any apprenticeship program can.

So, if you're so inclined (i.e. idiotic) to pay for law school under my new-if-Angel-ruled-the-world-model, feel free.

In case you were wondering, the "Reading Law" way to becoming an attorney is still available in a handful of states:  California, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington.  Let's reverse the trend of eliminating it as an option and bring it back as the primary way of becoming an attorney.

I have been accused of being a liberal many times.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. I believe that there should be as many options as possible for citizens.  I believe that the government should not subsidize or provide assistance to students seeking student loans.  I believe that the inflation in tuition is a direct result of government programs designed to educate Americans.  I believe that banks should bear the risk in lending money to students who choose worthless degrees.  And when they loan  money to someone with a worthwhile degree, they should charge a substantial amount of interest.  Lastly, I believe that all Americans should be entitled to bankruptcy--as it's just as much the creditor's fault as it is the debtors.  Both parties should live with the consequences of their foolhardy decisions.

Lastly, I very strongly hold that college education should not be a requirement to finding a professional job, and that college has become the new high school--since high school so ill prepares our youth to enter the work force.

In short, our unique blend of capitalism with socialist infusions of government guaranteed money is more evil and more detrimental than capitalism or socialism, or even communism, alone.  All that we have achieved is plenty of welfare for the rich, and nothing comparable for the poor.  We will all be masters or wage slaves at the end of the day, choose your path wisely.  And try walking your path with a crowd.  Makes the trip a bit easier.  See you out there for the big protest on October 6, 2011!

Watch live streaming video from globalrevolution at livestream.com

Media Coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been Piss Poor.

I am so frustrated with the Media's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street Protests.  If you're a normal dope-- you watch evening news for a few minutes, read the free paper on the subway and you're in the dark as to what these people want... these tattooed, bridge blocking, hippies...
The news commentary has been horrid.  The liberals are like the tea party, but without leadership. There's no clear list of demands.  We're not certain if this will become a political party or not.  Bullocks!  It's clear as day what they want.  And if I see one more of my Facebook book soon-to-be-ex-friends postamessage about how those "occupy wall street losers need to quit it," I will go postal.  EVERYONE I KNOW HAS STUDENT LOAN DEBT.  We're all losers in varying degrees and these hippies (and I've seen them, they're so not) are sticking their heads and necks out for us.
Remember that petition I wanted you to sign?  That's part of this movement. They want Educated Indentured Servitude dealt with because it's one of the many symptoms of Corporate Greed.

So, stop looking down on these people and take up a sign and join them. I did last week and it was invigorating.  Here's a small blurb on the issue.  You really need to know what this is about and if you don't hear it from me, you'd go to the grave engulfed in your ignorant, holier than though bliss. 
Please report back if you grew a set of balls and decided to fight for you own cause rather than leaving it to others far more brave than you.

Troy Davis: An American Portrait of Justice Gone Awry

So, yesterday, I was on an emotional roller coaster because of the Troy Davis story.  At 7:00 I hear that the Supreme Court had stayed the execution.  By 11:08, the Supreme Court refused to block the decision of the lower court and he was dead.

For those of you who don't know, Troy Davis was a wayward son of Georgia, that was convicted killing  Mark MacPhail, a police officer, on the eye witness testimony of 10 witnesses.  Most people who took Crim Pro know that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  To make things worse, one of the witnesses was a former suspect in the murder.  Seven of the witnesses recanted their testimony claiming that they were pressured by the police to make a faulty id, which is conceivable considering that this was a fallen brother.  I'm presuming that his attorney appealed the decision because of the new exculpatory evidence and went on up the line until the Supreme Court, reviewing only procedural error or errors in the applicability of the law, said "too bad."

And this morning I heard the commentary.  The talking heads went into how our Supreme Court is different than that of countries like Italy where Foxy Knoxy is receiving a whole new trial because the lower court didn't do it right.  Here, we only look to procedure and we give great deference to the jury/judge in their fact finding.  The fact-finder is the be all, end all.  So, we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court.

BULL!

Any Higher Court can upset the decision of a lower court if they committed errors of law, fact, and or procedure.  Failure to consider exculpatory evidence, even if it's after the conclusion of the trial, is an egregious error. I am sure that a motion was brought before the lower court, the one that convicted Troy Davis, asking the court to reconsider the sentence or the verdict on the basis of subsequent exculpatory evidence.  That was an error.  It's the same error that has freed hundreds of convicted murders when DNA samples are later tested and determined to NOT be the defendant.  This is really no different.  Except that the lower court refused to consider the recanting witnesses and the appellate level and the supreme court refused to consider that error as well.  Then, finally, the Supreme Court rubber stamped the three or four courts below it when they also rubber stamped the lower court's refusal to consider very important and pertinent information that could have freed Troy.  Clearly, Jim Crow still lives in Georgia.  This man was convicted and killed without regard to the actual evidence because he was a "bad dude" and his death would be no big loss to the state of Georgia.  And many men and women in robes refused to do the right thing.

Relating it back to the Innocence Project, a hypothetical man convicted based on eye witness testimony, direct and circumstantial evidence, propensity to commit a crime and failure to have an alibi, are FREED because DNA proved all of the evidence wrong.  One scientific fact disproved all of the other evidence that the jury heard.  In Troy's case, he was convicted primarily on (conflicting) eye witness testimony, and 7 of 10 witnesses recant with credible reasons for perjuring themselves, with risk of being convicted of perjury--and that's insufficient to commute a man's sentence to life?  Could that have been done just in case?  Isn't that an error?  What about the error that he was convicted on conflicting eye witness testimony?  Is that not an error???

Here is a very impressive article from Slate about what was wrong with the testimony that put a lethal injection in Troy's arm.  Here's a sample of (some) of what went wrong in Georgia's race to kill Troy:

...a perfect storm of botched eyewitness-identification procedures. Police did show photo arrays to most of the eyewitnesses—eventually. Although police made up a five-photo array with Davis' picture in it, they waited five to 10 days before using it to test the memories of any eyewitnesses. Why wait? Eyewitness memory decays rapidly. But in the meantime, police plastered wanted photos with Troy Davis' image—the same photo they put in the photo array—all around the neighborhood, and it ran widely on all of the local media outlets. Witnesses did not miss those wanted postings. Witnesses also described feeling pressure to identify Troy Davis. For example, one testified at trial about being told that "if I don't cooperate with them, that I'm gonna be in prison for ten to twelve years."

What do you think?  Does that sound fair to you?

From where I sit, as a trial lawyer, I believe the appellate process to be extremely flawed.  I have no trust, no faith, in the lower court--nor the higher courts.  Certainly not the Supreme Court, where political motivations may taint the decisions of the Supremes (Death Penalty, Pro-Life, Gun Rights, etc.).

Just last week, a decision that I appealed came down and it was so... so .... so wrong.

The lower court erred in it's application of the law.  There wasn't a credibility determination made or anything.  The appeal was simply about the lower court's error in its application of the law.
The law was statutory.  There wasn't a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.  It really seemed like a slam dunk.  What did the appellate court do?

Their decision read like a list of "what not to do" in appeals:
They considered documents outside of the record.
They made an initial assessment of credibility.
They argued a point of law in the Respondent's favor that was never preserved on the record.  Wait a sec, never asserted by the Respondent, never cited as a reason for the lower court's decision... NEVER BROUGHT UP.  Not even at the oral argument before the appellate court.
They based their denial of the appeal on inaccurate facts that were not part of the record--material facts.

As lawyers, which I presume that most of you are, you understand why the appellate court's decision was not only wrong--but fucked up.

So, I have no faith in our wonderful justice system.

One of the abuses I endured this week was a verbal lashing out from one of my divorce clients.  She said, "Do you think that you have a noble career?  What you do isn't noble, it's bullshit!"

I concur.

University of Illinois: Lying Scumbags

They posted inaccurate information to look like hot shit on a pile of shit.   

Here's the info off of their website:

The accurate, independently verified data for the class of 2014’s Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores and grade point averages (GPA) are as follows:  median LSAT, 163; median GPA, 3.70.  Information originally posted on the College of Law website last month inaccurately listed the median LSAT score as 168 and the median GPA as 3.81.

This is a curious development.  For a while now, as the economy has tanked, the law schools' GPA/LSAT stats have increased as the lemmings have flooded in with nothing better to do.  I always took this trend to mean that students who would be better served entering the work force cannot find jobs, thereby artificially inflating the stats of law schools. Let's be frank, when I went to law school, a 160 was a golden ticket to most law schools.  I received a scholarship with that LSAT score and a 3.767 GPA (but a 4.0 in my major, toot!). Today, I don't think I could get into my alma mater, let alone score a scholarship.   You really don't need more to pass the bar--which I did on my first try.  Now, with this lie, I'm thinking the lemmings--the smartest in the bunch--have heeded the warnings and decided to stay away.  Therefore, the stats have gone down.

What do you think about this?  

Sign this Petition NOW!

I don't actually believe that student loans should be forgive. I do believe they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.  However, this is close enough.  What could stimulate the economy more than freeing up large amounts of former student's incomes to .... well, realistically, pay rent and buy food. But hypothetically, to spend on consumer bull shit.
I'm actually in this predicament right now.  I have a 40 inch old fashioned TV.  It's as wide as it big and takes up 1/3 of my small New York apartment.  I decided that I should invest $99 bucks in an Apple TV so I can cancel cable. I didn't even realize, that to save money, I need to buy a fucking new TV. It's hopeless!  I could buy a really nice TV with the $600 I fork over to Access monthly.  You can't even save money without spending money I don't have.

Aside from that, for an update. My practice is busy, thank GOD.  My hourly rate is shit though. But that's how you get the clients.  But I'm doing lots of family where I'm constantly subjected to abuse by my clients, judges and opposing counsel.  JOY!  I'm trying really hard and I know I do a good job, but I may burn out soon. I am one of the lucky ones.  I would do Real Estate closings except I lost lots of money on closings that didn't go through because the buyers failed to get funding.  As we all know, you have to mold your practice to the work that's available.  I count my blessings I have any work at all and pray that I can pay my bills from month to month.

Sign this petition now and make a difference!  I hope the deadline didn't pass.  Sign it anyway!

Finally, a State Representative and a Senator That Get It!

Totally hijacked this story from Crynn, but this is a case where more exposure is better.  He says, "Forgive Student Loans!"  No joke!  Call him and voice your support!  (202-225-2261)  I just left him a 5 to 10 minute rambling message about how I'll move to Michigan to show support... or something. I'm drunk.  So, who knows what it sounded like.  I think I was nice and appreciative.


Here is another video where he elaborates on his plan and insists that we cut up our credit cards.  Consumer debt is killing us.... I tend to agree.


Then, Senator Grassley, God Bless his Lovely Soul, put the ABA on the spot with a crazy long and detailed letter where he asked HARD questions about why they are totally fucked up (i.e. accredit law schools at the rate that bees germinate pansies).  LOVE HIM.    Here are the questions from the letter:

1. Does the American Bar Association compile data on the number of schools which offer scholarships to more students than can statistically retain those scholarships?

2. If so, how many schools, and how many total scholarships are affected?

3. Does the American Bar Association take these “bait and switch” allegations into account in the accreditation process?

4. If so, how?

5. If not, why not?

6. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships offered each year?

7. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

8. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships that are revoked after the offeree‟s first year of law school?

9. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

10. Does the American Bar Association publish data on the amount of first-year merit based scholarships in comparison to the amount of non-first-year merit based scholarships?

11. Does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

12. Has the American Bar Association raised concerns with law schools about the practice of awarding more first-year merit based scholarships than they plan to renew?

13. If so, how has the American Bar Association raised this concern?

14. Does the American Bar Association have any education programs that aid students in assessing whether or not they are borrowing more than they can reasonably expect to repay?

15. Does the American Bar Association have a program to ensure borrowers do not-default on their federally-backed student loans?

16. How many law schools has the American Bar Association provisionally accredited during the last 20 years?

17. Does the American Bar Association maintain this information in a publicly accessible database?

18. How many law schools has the American Bar Association fully accredited during the last 20 years?

19. Has the American Bar Association ever revoked provisional or full accreditation during the last 20 years?

20. If so, how many law schools lost their provisional or full accreditation?

21. From 1990 to the present, has the American Bar Association ever placed a law school on probation?

22. If so, which law schools were placed on probation? 23. Did any of these law schools regain full accreditation? 24. If so, within what time period?

25. When examining candidates for membership on the accreditation committee, what efforts does the American Bar Association make to ensure that membership is balanced between legal practitioners and academics?

26. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of its committee membership?

27. If so, how does the professional background of committee membership break down in percentage format on committees related to the accreditation of law schools?

28. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of committee membership?

29. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of the officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation?

30. If so, how does the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation break down in percentage format?

31. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation

Whoa, I'd hate to be on the receiving end of that letter!  In other news, ABA Pres. Zach responded, blah blah blah--bullshit.  If you're really concerned with the extent of the lying, here's that shit response.  He didn't respond to a single question. NOT ONE.

Contact Senator Grassley and tell him how much you love him.

We have to thank these guys or they will forget that we matter. If you think you matter, and if your life could be made better with people like this looking out for you, then make it your business to CALL or EMAIL THEM TODAY!

Stop it with the apathy. It's very ugly on you!

NYLS: Slammed!

David Segal of the New York Times sliced and diced law schools over the weekend, with particular attention to my fave local school to hate:  New York Law School.  His scathing indictment of law schools generally, and Dean Matasar's hypocrisy was as refreshing as a cold Mike's Hard Lemonade on a New York Shitty 95 degree summer day.  Honestly, if he had thrown in the words "commode," "toilets," "steaming pile of cow dung," etc. I would have to think that Nando of Third Tier Reality doubled as a reporter for the esteemed New York Time.  Please read what Mr. Segal, my new crush, had to say about Dean Matasar's schizophrenic attitude towards law school reform:

For a sense, take a look at the strange case of New York Law School and its dean, Richard A. Matasar. For more than a decade, Mr. Matasar has been one of the legal academy’s most dogged and scolding critics, and he has repeatedly urged professors and fellow deans to rethink the basics of the law school business model and put the interests of students first.
“What I’ve said to people in giving talks like this in the past is, we should be ashamed of ourselves,” Mr. Matasar said at a 2009 meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. He ended with a challenge: If a law school can’t help its students achieve their goals, “we should shut the damn place down.”

Given his scathing critiques, you might expect that during Mr. Matasar’s 11 years as dean, he has reshaped New York Law School to conform with his reformist agenda. But he hasn’t. Instead, the school seems to be benefiting from many of legal education’s assorted perversities.

N.Y.L.S. is ranked in the bottom third of all law schools in the country, but with tuition and fees now set at $47,800 a year, it charges more than Harvard. It increased the size of the class that arrived in the fall of 2009 by an astounding 30 percent, even as hiring in the legal profession imploded. It reported in the most recent US News & World Report rankings that the median starting salary of its graduates was the same as for those of the best schools in the nation — even though most of its graduates, in fact, find work at less than half that amount.

Pitter, patter--my heart.  Oh, be still.
Wouldn't you think this bit of common sense, no nonsense would come from a scamblogger?  Dare I say it, is our opinion becoming common place? 

Of course, the rest of the article is quite good as well.  It's what needs to be said.  Law school is a no-lose proposition for the capitalist pigs in higher education.

At this point, with mainstream media covering the law school scam in such a matter-of-fact manner, who is still considering law school?  Can you just imagine the rag-a-tag group of people that are piling into the halls of NYLS next month.
I am presuming that one must be able to read to go to most law schools.  I presume, in the age of the Internet, one should also be able to research.  So, who would still go to law school with the flood of information available on the web?  If you type "law school" into Google, and press "News"--this is what appears:

Add "law school" section to my Google News homepage


Search Results The Times 'Unearths' The Law School Scam, But Still Can't Explain It‎You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Above the Law - Elie Mystal - 1 hour ago

Over the weekend, you may have noticed that the New York Times suddenly figured out that law schools are cash cows despite offering dubious ...

Blog: Law school tuition, in graphic form‎ Minneapolis Star Tribune (blog)
New York Law School Law Dean Hits Legal Ed, But Hikes Class Size 30%‎ ABA Journal
all 3 news articles »

►Pistons' Wallace headed to law school?‎
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Yahoo! Sports - Mark J. Miller - 4 hours ago
For now, Wallace is at his home in Virginia researching law schools, the Detroit News reports. "The thought has been brewing for years, and he even spoke to ...

Highly Cited: Pistons' Ben Wallace has a future in, not on, court‎ The Detroit News

all 6 news articles »

Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!‎
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
New York Times - David Segal - 1 day ago
Legal diplomas have such allure that law schools have been able to jack up tuition four times faster than the soaring cost of college. And many law schools ...
Law Schools Pump Up Classes and Tuition, Though Jobs Remain Scarce‎ Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) (blog)

all 10 news articles »

Cooley Law School sues over online postings‎
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Lansing State Journal - Matthew Miller - 1 day ago
LANSING - The first post on a blog called The Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam billed itself as a public service for anyone who might have thought about ...
Highly Cited: Thomas Cooley Law School Sues Kurzon Strauss Law Firm Over Job ...‎ Bloomberg
Blog: Law School Sues New York Law Firm For Defamation‎ Wall Street Journal (blog)
Cooley Lawsuit Update: One Of The 'Cooley Four' Responds To The ...‎ Above the Law
The National Law Journal - Inside Higher Ed


A standard no longer applicable to most law students.

 all 26 news articles »

Hmmm. Issue spotting anyone?  The emphasis is all mine.  To an average schmo--shouldn't the first few articles that come up on Google cause a tiny bit of concern?  Law schools are suing for defamation?  Tuitions have increased 4 times faster than college tuitions? Class sizes increase by 30%??? Dubious and Law School in the same thought???! 

So, are we left to think that these students that the class of 2014 are idiots?  Or illiterate or neophytes? 

Well, I have the special privilege of passing by New York Law School at least once a week on my way to Court.  I always take note of who is grabbing a ciggy outside of their newly built, state-of-the-art building and who is loitering in the lobby.  Actually, last week, when I walked in front of it--some construction workers were out front with a banner that read "New York Law School is Bad for New York City."  I flashed them a thumbs up for an entirely different reason than they stood for--but the premise is the same.  So, what's my impression of the students that I see there?  I guess... I would have to say they look like rich kids.  I'm certain they aren't actually rich though--but they are just arrogant enough to think they will be rich one day and spend accordingly.  I pass by their school with the same Kenneth Cole canvas brief case I've carried since 2002 and the girls at NYLS role up to Civ Pro with a Louis Vuitton tote.  Some of the boys appear to be hipster types. Not really sure how that goes down in the courtroom.  In any event, arrogance abounds when I pass this school and make eyes with a few of the students. 

I think they look down their noses at me as a lawyer who is running to Court--rather than cabbing it.  Sometimes I stop and bum a ciggy from one of them.  In any event, it must take a really arrogant bastard to see all the news regarding the future of lawyers in this Country and somehow think that it won't apply to you--because you're special and you'll be the one to make it.  You're better than everyone else.
 
Well, there's one thing the scambloggers cannot do.  We can't change stupid. 

Tom Cooley Sues..... Me?

Below is an email that Pres. LeDuc of Tom Cooley sent to students. Is he gonna sue me?  I'm a little scared.  But I won't let his threats affect my speech.  Doesn't Tom Cooley fall into some sort of "public figure" exception?  Ha. If I wrote bad things about Walmart, could they sue me too?  

Sounds like a load of horse shit, i.e. Motion to Dismiss GRANTED.  Good to know they are educating lawyers over there.  And they should solicit students to join the lawsuit on the side of Cooley.  I imagine it will strengthen their case as every Tom Cooley grad claims to have suffered from T. Cooley's insufferable reputation.  I imagine the students would join too, so long as they are promised immunity from prosecution when they graduate and "defame" Tom Cooley on their scamblogs.

Life is stranger than fiction.


Update:  They're not suing me!  Happy Day.  Check out the complaint right here.

To: Students 

From: President LeDuc 

Re: Litigation 

Date: July 14, 2011 

 Cooley filed two lawsuits in Ingham County today.   

The first lawsuit is against a small New York law firm.  Our suit contends that the 

firm has defamed us and tortiously interfered with our student relationships, and that the 

firm and two of its lawyers have been unethically soliciting former and present Cooley 

students to join in a class action lawsuit against us.  At our insistence, the firm previously 

retracted blatantly false online statements about Cooley, but only days later the firm 

moved their focus to Craigslist and Facebook, where they began circulating a draft 

complaint filled with more false and damaging statements about Cooley.  

The second lawsuit is against four John Doe defendants.  As with the law firm 

defendants, we contend the Doe defendants are defaming Cooley online and tortiously 

interfering with our student relationships through a series of false, damaging, and often 

vulgar statements in Internet blogs and comments to those blogs and other sites. 

Two main falsities run through the defendants' online statements.  

First, the bloggers state that Cooley is engaged in student loan fraud and stealing 

tuition money.  They say we are secretly employed as bankers, not professors, who are 

engaged in the fraudulent sale of student loans.  We are called criminals and said to be 

under investigation by two federal agencies. 

Second, the law firm defendants falsely state that we are fraudulently hiding a 

preposterous 41% student loan default rate and fraudulently reporting and 

misrepresenting our post-graduation employment and salary numbers, misleading 

students into attending law school. 

 The actual facts are as follows.  

Default rates—Student loan default rates are calculated by the U.S. Department 

of Education’s Default Prevention and Management Office. We are not involved in their  

calculation.  Cooley’s most recent default rate was 2.2%.  While the rate is slightly higher 

than in the previous four years, it is the same as it was in 2001, and is lower than our 

default rate in the mid-to-late 1990s, during the last recession. The most recent national 

average default rate was 7.0%. 

The past five years Cooley had overall default rates of 1.5%, 0.8%, 0.8%, 0.7%,  

and 2.2%.  The rates for Cooley graduates during the same years were 0.6%, 0.1%, 0.1%, 

0.1%, and 0.6%.  As you can see from above, even at the most recent 2.2%, Cooley’s 

default rate is very low compared to the national default rate. 

The defaulters are predominantly students who did not graduate.  

In the past five yea

rs, only 16 graduates entered into default.  The other 55 defaulters in that time did not 

graduate, and are likely to have lower student loan debt totals in default.  Not all of our 

students have loans, but of the current graduates who do, the average indebtedness is 

approximately $105,000. 

The defendants' statements about manipulation of students to obtain loans, selling 

loans, or having employees who are really bankers are just bizarre.  We have never been 

investigated regarding irregularities in our loan program by any governmental agency.   

Employment data—We have reported our employment data exactly as required 

by the American Bar Association and the National Association for Law Placement.   

The reported figure we use publicly is the number that the ABA publishes in its 

Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools. We are required to submit this 

information in a specific format that includes the number and percentage of graduates 

employed among those whose status is known.  In the 2011 Official Guide, Cooley’s 

reported employment rate was 78.8%. 

We have never manipulated the data or attempted to mislead anyone.  No school I 

know of, Cooley included, makes any promise or commitment about jobs for graduates, 

other than to say it provides placement counseling and assistance to graduates seeking to 

get jobs.  And, of course, all who pass the bar are equipped with the necessary skills to 

begin a solo practice, in which they may work as lawyers if they are willing to make the 

effort required to be successful.  In that sense, law students graduate with the means to 

begin working for themselves almost immediately -- something that cannot be said for 

most other professions. 

The entire conversation about employment in the law and legal occupations is 

almost entirely wrong: 

 1. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the unemployment rate 

among lawyers in 2010 was 1.5%, for those in all legal occupations it was 2.7%, and for 

all occupations it was 9.6%, which drops to 8.9% when those who have never been in the 

labor market or are returning from military service are excluded. 

 2. The 2.7% unemployment rate for legal occupations, including lawyers, was 

better than the rate for all other occupations in the BLS category of management, 

professional, and related occupations except for health care practitioners and technician 

occupations (2.5%). This data shows that becoming a lawyer is a better choice for those 

considering a career, not a worse choice.   

 3. According to the National Association of Law Placement (NALP), the 

preliminary unemployment rate for the 2010 graduates of the 192 ABA-approved law 

schools that reported data to NALP was 6.2%, about the same as it was in 2002. 

 4. Cooley’s unemployment rate for 2010 was 17.05%, slightly higher than it was 

in 2002.  Like the national rate, Cooley’s rate fell during the decade until the recession, 

when it bumped up.  This reflects unemployment among the graduating class in 2010 and 

includes those who did not pass the bar on the first try and those who did not attempt a 

bar examination.  

Summary  

While it would not be appropriate for me to publicly discuss our entire legal 

strategy, rest assured that we have given much consideration to these actions, and our 

Board has agreed that legal action is necessary to protect and defend the school's 

reputation and the value of your degree.  We could have done nothing, but then we risk 

being sued by the defendant law firm, and the media would then report only the false and 

defamatory hyperbole stated in the draft complaint that the firm has been circulating on 

Facebook and advertising on Craigslist. 

We are not suing anyone for expressing a negative opinion about Cooley online, 

and we are not attempting to police the Internet.  We believe these particular defendants 

have crossed the line both legally and ethically, calling us criminals who deceive our 

students and steal their tuition money, and ascribing to us fraudulent student loan 

activities and default rates that, if true, would cause either the Department of Education 

or Department of Justice to shut us down immediately. 

In short, we've determined that we need to protect Cooley's reputation and stand 

up for our students and more than 15,000 graduates.  And we continue to look at ways to 

counter the negative comments with positive comments about us, including online. 

From time to time, we will post updates about the litigation on the Portal. 

Thanks for your support

WSJ FAIL: Salaries Falling for Recent Grads!

What about the rest of us?  I'm sure you've heard that the Wall Street Journal has decided to write an incomplete and half-ass story about salaries falling for recent grads.  By writing a story such as this, you're feeding the lemmings with hope that this condition will somehow change once you're not a recent grad.  Read on:

Even for the lucky members of the law school class of 2010 who found jobs, their average salaries were 10 percent lower than those of their predecessors, a new report reveals.

The numbers, to be released later today as part of the National Association for Law Placement’s report on legal employment and salaries, indicate that more graduates found jobs at smaller law firms with typically lower starting salaries than large ones. In fact, the median starting salaries for those working in private practice declined 20 percent, given that more than half of the jobs taken up by last year’s law school class were at firms with at most 50 attorneys.

Even so, the national median salary for newbie lawyers – at least for those with full-time work – still stands at $63,000, according to the report. That doesn’t sound so bad, except for the fact that only about 64% of law school graduates found full-time employment in a job requiring bar passage. The rest found non-legal or part-time work, and more than a quarter reported biding their time in temporary jobs.

Is it any wonder why the public hates us?  Oh, pansy lawyers are complaining that their salaries have gone down by 10%.  Poor them.  At least 100% of lawyers are employed--even if it's non-legal or part-time work!  Right?
Wrong, WSJ!

Here's some comments to illustrate my point:

Adolf Cheney wrote:

Undergrad degree $100,000. Law school degree 200,000. total cost about 300k. Return on investment will be 300k/60 after about 5 years. Considering most people work for 30 years, law school will be profitable after the 5th year of working. 60k still is alot higher than what these people would earn without a law degree working at a restaurant or taxi driver. (My PV calculation is utter garbage)

Okay, that was slightly tongue in cheek.  But still, I imagine many others read this article and believe that this is true.

The real story is that many of these newbie lawyers are waiting tables, stripping and working at coffee shops.  The REAL story is that lawyers who are 10 years out are doing the same.  Way to go, WSJ!  Why do they even bother with this weak ass stories that deal with the tip of the iceberg.  It's like writing a story about the people that died on the plane in 9/11--but not mentioning the people who died in the WTC.  There's so much more to this.  Here's another comment to illustrate my point:

Do not go to law school. wrote:

I have been a practicing attorney for 21 years and currently underemployed/unemployed. I have networked and sent out hundreds of resumes. My US Senator told me that for each federal attorney job, they receive over 4,000 applications. i was told that on average, that local open attorney positions receive between 400-1200 applicants for each local position. Even when you do network, guys refuse to help because they don’t want the competition. I know guys who a much more skilled and attended top ten schools will barely make $40K this year.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy for any attention whatsoever.  But stories like this wreak of hope and optimism.  I find it offensive.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the media is paid off to NOT tell the real story.  The truth must be bad for business.

Are We Unprofessional? Do You Give a Shit?

In arguing a point, when statistics and logic are not on your side, what do you resort to?  An ad hominem attack.   Many people may disagree with my points, and the points that are made by other scam bloggers.  But very few, if any, have resorted to attacking the scam bloggers as people.  Not if they have any sense.  After all, none of our readers have a clue as to how we compose ourselves in our personal and professional lives.  Most realize that this is our outlet, but we don't appear rabid in person.  I'm telling you right now, I'm not frothing at the mouth.  Now, one little lemming, has resorted to the lowly last resort in arguing that we, the scambloggers, should shut the hell up.  He states:

The main problem I have with scam blogging lies in their decorum.  These scam bloggers are future lawyers.  When the economy picks up, they will be drafting wills and contracts and complaints, arguing about truth and justice to judges and juries, and advising individuals and businesses on how to comply with a multi-faceted legal system.  It reflects poorly on future lawyers—members of a profession that prides itself for critical thinking and searching below the surface for the truth—that they would so quickly say that even they, the next generation or lawyers, would be so easily fooled by employment statistics.  And when many of the legal profession’s future caretakers can be seen in public on the Internet throwing tantrums about their job prospects and debt, however valid those concerns are in their own right, what does that say about the future of the legal profession as a whole?  What of the legal community’s sense of exceptionalism?  Of being special?  Of being held to a higher standard?

Of being professionals?

Let me get this straight, by calling attention to the fact that so many lawyers are idiots (in the financial, cost-benefit analysis sense, of course) we are making lawyers look like idiots?  Oh, so we have to make sure to maintain the pristine image of lawyers among laypeople by not pointing out the scam.  Gimme a break!  The "sense of exceptionalism,"  i.e. elitism, went out the window when 200+ law schools opened up and started churning out attorneys like widgets.  There is no exceptionalism, or "being special" in the law.  I will not stop blogging until people are flatly unimpressed with my profession.  It's not impressive.  Frankly, it was easy to become a lawyer.  The hard part starts when you begin paying for it.  As for our sense of decorum, we would not have been as successful as we have been in drawing attention to the white elephant sitting in the middle of the room without blogs like Nando's Third Tier Reality.  How many people would take the time to read his shocking facts and stats if not for the picture of steaming shit in toilets?  His writing style, more so than my own, is of the "shock jock" type--which has been widely successful in drawing the victims in--as well as significant media attention.  This is what Andrew Spillane, i.e. Marquette Lemming, has to say about the content of the scam blogs:

These blogs are dripping with anger and vitriol.  Some are littered with curse words.  One website even refers to law schools not as schools but with various names for toilets, restrooms, and garbage cans and will even post piles of fecal matter and vomit to begin a rage-fueled rant about a particular legal academic institution.  And what of professionalism? Not for us, says one scam blogger, for that is a concept imposed by the elites in the legal profession upon the rest of the bar.

The "anger and vitriol" may be penned by Nando, myself and other scambloggers--but we are just reflecting the general consensus of our readers.  If you read the comments on many of the scamblog posts, they can be more dirty and "low" than the original post.  More than once, I've taken a comment and made it a post--because it was just that good (or bad, according to Spillane).  We are bringing the feelings of the community to the forefront.  Why should attorneys, victims of a Ponzi scheme, feel alone in their victimization?

Let's go back to the day that I started blogging.  I want you to know how I felt.  I lost my big law job.  I felt like a loser.  I did everything that one is supposed to do to succeed in life and as an attorney (I know some of you disagree, but no one would have pictured me so down and out).  I was a failure and I felt like a bigger loser because I didn't know anyone else who felt scammed by my profession.  I started the blog in the hopes that someone would reassure me that I wasn't alone.  I may have been an idiot for going to a Tier 1 law school on a partial scholarship, but I wasn't alone in that my efforts didn't lead to the intended result.  As it turns out, there are thousands of others who regret their decision as much as I.  So, whether I was unprofessional in whining about it, or calling attention to the scam, or reaching out to others who are similarly situated--I don't care.  My alleged unprofessionalism does not extend to my courtroom behavior or to my decorum with clients.  I am still an excellent lawyer--but this is not an excellent or exceptional career.

We are trying to clean house from the basement up.  Maybe being a lawyer will be exceptional one day--but not until being a lawyer is an exception to the rule--and not the natural fall back option for all of the college grads in the country.

Here's a pic of vomit for shits and giggles.

  If you find it offense, there are a couple of arrows at the top of the screen that you can use to navigate away from this page.

How About a Hook Up?

You'd think that the Dean of your law school or your favorite Professor could hook you up with a sweet student loan deal if he runs a student loan company.... No?  I'm being naive obviously.
We spend lots of time in law school discussing ethics and avoiding pitfalls in the practice of the law or the appearance of impropriety.  But what about moral pitfalls of charging students an arm, a leg and a first born child for law school--and then reaping the benefits of the same via paycheck from Access Group?  Seems like a moral dilemma to me.  Who are your loyalties to?

A tipster alerted me to the make-up of the Board of Directors of Access Group and it reads like a who's who of the law school scam artists:


Hannah R. Arterian
Dean and Professor of Law
Syracuse University School of Law

Janice C. Eberly
(Board Vice Chair)
John L. and Helen Kellogg
Distinguished Professor of Finance
Kellogg School of Management
Northwestern University

E. Lynn Hampton, CPA
President and Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

Joseph D. Harbaugh
Professor and Former Dean
Shepard Broad Law Center
Nova Southeastern University

Rondy E. Jennings
Managing Director, Public Sector and Infrastructure
Goldman Sachs & Co.

W.H. Knight, Jr.
Professor of Law
Seattle University School of Law

Leo P. Martinez
Professor of Law
University of California
Hastings College of the Law

Richard A. Matasar
(Board Chair)
Dean and President
New York Law School

Pauline A. Schneider
Partner
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

Kent D. Syverud
Dean and Ethan A.H. Shepley University Professor
Washington University School of Law

Susan E. Woodward
Founder and President
Sand Hill Econometrics

I'm sorry, but what qualifies these bastards to serve on the Board of a financial institution???  Don't you have to know finance?  I can only think that they are serving on the Board because they can herd the  sheep towards Access Group.  I wonder who else is in on this?  At my school, the financial loan office were like drug dealers, pushing Access down our throats.  At the time, I was not aware there were other options.... Hmmmm. I don't see my old Dean on here, but he may have served on the Board back then.

Anyone have any insight on why this isn't considered a problem or a conflict of interest?

I know that we throw the word "scam" around a bit much.  But how else is one to view information such as this?  I knew about Dean Matasar of New York Law Shit, but I was not aware that the vast majority of the Board Members were Deans or Professors.  I don't think that it's right.  This is akin to the Director of Acorn serving on the Board of Country Wide Mortgage.  I can't that flying and I know Fox News would have eaten that up. Why is this any different?  UGH.  The  more you know, the less you wish you knew.  Ignorance is such bliss.  To be a lemming... life must be grand when you think the world is fair.

The tipster followed up by sending me pics of these fat cats.  If you see one crossing the street.... well.... do what you think is appropriate.

Joseph D. Harbaugh

Leo P. Martinez

Richard A. Matasar

Kent D. Syverud

W.H. Knight, Jr.

Hannah R. Arterian