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.

Let's Just Let EVERYONE Become an Attorney!

In case I didn't mention it before, the ABA is seriously, and I mean seriously, considering dropping the LSAT as a criteria for admission:

According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, the American Bar Association is currently looking at a proposal to make the oft-dreaded Law School Admission Test optional. If passed, this proposal would alter the system of law school admissions that has been in place since the first administration of the LSAT in 1948.

I'm tempted to go on a diatribe about how the ABA just doesn't fucking understand.  I think I will.  Like it or not, the LSAT is the great equalizer.  Everyone knows, or should know, that an "A" is easier to get at University of Phoenix than it is at Harvard.  But how can a law school determine who is the better candidate without some sort of equalizing criteria?  The LSAT, that's how.  The University of Phoenix Grad can perhaps usurp the Harvard grad's place with an awesome LSAT score of.... 179 or so.  I know, it's unlikely, but it can happen.

What the hell are law schools supposed to rely on, if not the LSATs?  Extra-curricular bullshit?  Maybe they will do interviews?  Charisma, charm, cleavage can be taken into account?

I can only think that the new plan is to inundate the market with flagrant idiots so that the costs of labor will be floor level and the PPP (Profits Per Partner) will be astronomical.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Anyone who has been a first year associate realizes that the work can be done by pygmy goats.  But that's not an indictment of the profession--once you get to a certain level, things are complicated.  Also, if you do real litigation in a mid-sized or small law firm, the work can be dizzying at times.  So, back to my point--they want to pay lawyers even less than Manmeat Patel in Bangladesh, so that the PPP can be astronomical.  So, part one of the plan: MORE and less competent people should go to law school.  Check!

Then, on the other side of the tunnel, à la the post about the indebted law school grad that can't pass the bar because of law school debt, they will prohibit people from passing the bar.  Then, part two of the plan.  I predict, the ABA will somehow say that bar passage is only required for attorneys that sign documents.  Ta-da!  Two class of lawyers, indentured slave servants who probably should not have gone to law school to begin with--and the Partners, the upper echelon of the legal profession.

That's my prediction.  What do you think?

The ABA can't possibly be considering the needs of lawyers as a whole when it considers dip shit moves like this one.  Since I know that they all took the LSATs and are moderately competent people, I can only assume that their goals for the legal industry are wholly divergent from ours.  The collect "ours" being that of recent, debt-laden grads who are without work or a loaf of bread upon which to spread Jiffy.  I know the LSAT sucks.  However, it's a test that you can master and you can distinguish yourself from the masses with that goddamn test.  In the article mentioned above, some  GT Hoya says:

"While I agree that the LSAT often discriminates against some students and that it may not be a fair assessment of a person's worth or talent, it is certainly the only measure we currently have to gage a student's ability to succeed in law school," Mehta said in an email. "Until a new, unbiased form of testing can be put into place, there is currently no better way to gauge a student's ability to perform in such a demanding profession."

I have to disagree with him wholeheartedly.  Once you get to a certain level, maybe 165, you're not more or less likely to do better than other students that score higher than you.  On the other hand, if you score <150, you have no business going to law school at all.  You don't have the aptitude for it... hell, maybe you had a bad day.  The point is, that law school will be bad day after bad day and you can't handle the pressure.  Stay home, cause you'll be living there after you complete law school anyway-your childhood home.  Let's end with what this idiot's quote regarding the "plus" side of eliminating the LSAT:

Evan Monod (COL '14), who is considering a career as an attorney, believes that the cost of the test itself, test preparation and the long hours of studying serve as a deterrent to students who might otherwise enter the legal profession.

"I would definitely support making it optional because I think it would increase the number of kids able to go to a good law school and participate in a profession that we desperately need bright people in," Monod said.

Exactly my point.  Lift the flood gates.  Where is Noah's ark when you need it?

Revenge is Sweet!

I hate to use this quote, because so many before me have, but it's so appropriate:
First they came for the law students and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a law student;
Then they came for the contract attorneys and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a contract attorney;
Then they came for the solo attorneys and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a solo.

Then they came for me, THE TENURED PROFESSOR, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.
(in the fashion of Pastor Martin Niemöller)

Ha!  So, the ABA has its way with us regularly, all for the benefit of Biglaw and the For-Profit Law School Industrial Complex.  It was only a matter of time before they started to search for new victims.  And those victims are ironically the very professors that so inadequately prepare us for lawyerdom and the bar exam.
Brace yourself.

A special committee of the ABA last week released the latest version of proposed guidelines on academic freedom — just days before an ABA committee met Saturday to discuss (but not alter) the draft language. In the weeks before the draft was released, many faculty leaders had urged the ABA panel not to do the two key things its draft does:

• Remove language from the ABA standards that has been interpreted by faculty members as requiring law schools to have a tenure system. (The ABA panel that wrote the revisions now says that tenure was never a requirement and that it is removing references to tenure for reasons of clarity — although that interpretation of current policy is being met with skepticism.)

• Remove specific language requiring law schools with clinical professors and legal writing professors to offer them specific forms of job security short of tenure.

Hmmm.  It seems, however murky the language was, it was a perceived requirement that law schools maintain systems of tenure.  I cannot be certain of the ABA's motivations, but I suspect it has to do with lining the pockets of the Deans the law schools, and perhaps their Board of Trustees--many of whom are in BigLaw. It is a paid position, is it not?

Or maybe this is a way to punish Law Professors for the recent backlash against them for not doing a good job educating the next generation of lawyers:

Law professors seem to have it pretty good. They teach a few hours a week, host office hours for an hour a week, and spend the rest doing whatever else they do out of students’ sight — write law review articles and blogs, attend conferences, interview potential colleagues and, well, frankly, we’re not entirely sure.

But lazy? Is it fair to call them lazy just because they don’t sweat and toil in an office or cubicle like the rest of us nine-to-fivers?

Absolutely.

So, Professors have joined the other victims of the ABA's plan to separate the rich from the poor, and eliminate the middle class.
They are pissed as hell and not taking it sitting down.  Professors like Mr. Gorman are writing letters galore in protest:

Robert A. Gorman, an emeritus law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote to the committee that tenure was particularly needed for law schools.

"The research, scholarship and teaching of the law professoriate commonly deal with matters of public moment and controversy, more so than is the case in most other parts of the university; and the style of teaching is typically more challenging, argumentative and indeed on occasion confrontational," Gorman wrote. "Reliance on tenure as a buttress for academic freedom is thus particularly justified for law faculty."

That may be true of a handful of law professors.  Most are not that exciting.

The ABA claims that there is nothing in this change that will compel law schools to drop tenure, but they are simply not requiring it of Law Schools--in order for them to obtain/maintain accreditation:

The push started several years ago, and was led by David Van Zandt, the dean of Northwestern University's law school. Van Zandt said at the time that characterizing the changes as an assault on tenure was unfair. He said that it was wrong for the ABA as an accrediting group to require a tenure policy — and that institutions should decide such matters. "Sometimes some people portray this as an attack on tenure," he said in 2007. "The real issue is whether or not you're required to have tenure by an outside body such as the ABA. Not that we don't want to have that institution."

Well, that's not surprising.  Currently, the requirements for accreditation are heat, water, a fax machine,  bluebook and four walls.  Why would they require anything more?

The tenured professors are rightfully scared.  Why would law schools offer tenure if they didn't have to? Any big business would rather have employees that are "at-will."  You know, so they can treat them like shit and owe them nothing.

This will also have an adverse affect on professors who teach clinics, who are offered limited protections short of tenure.  Because they take on big and powerful industries, (i.e. Maryland Law v. Poultry Industry), they are likely to bring heat to the law school and get axed as a result.  By eliminating this "limited protection," it will have a silencing affect on clinical professors.  They aren't afforded tenure, as it is--but a little bit of protection.

So, my prediction is that law school professors will become more like college professors. We will see more adjuncts and less tenured professors.  Frankly, there are many BIDER readers that would prefer adjuncts with real life experience to the painfully intellectual and reality detached professors of yesteryear.  But I'm certain that the profits margins for those in charge will increase drastically.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

1st Annual BIDER Art Contest - Submit Your Entries NOW!

image courtesy of Nando at Third Tier Reality

Looking for a creative outlet to express your anger at the ABA, the legal industry, or your First, Second, Third, or even Fourth Tier Toilet school? Here is the place! Angel and I are hosting our very first BIDER art contest. If this is successful, we'll make the contest a yearly event. Please spread the word to your friends and tell them to enter.

Submit your own work of art depicting your law school experience, law school, career services, doc review, shitlaw, paying off student loans, having to deal with your boss or law partner, being unemployed or anything else about the law that drives you insane. We're giving you free license to express yourself through practically any medium. Scan and send us a drawing, painting, photograph, or even video. We don't want to restrict anyone's artistry, but please refrain from icky pornographic images, mmkay?

The winner will receive two 10 oz. bags of ground coffee courtesy of New England Coffee. It's not a $100k grand prize to pay off your law school loans, but beggars can't be choosers. Lawyers and law students worldwide can enter, but only the winner with the most votes from the United States will be able to receive the coveted ground coffee prize.

Please submit your art to hardknockslaw(at)gmail(dot)com by August 2, 2010. You can enter as many times as you want. I will post all the submitted entries and readers will have a week to vote for their favorite. We will announce a winner by August 10, 2010. Good luck to everyone who enters and have fun!

Added Note: We will NEVER reveal your true identity unless you specifically tell us that you are okay with having your real name published.

Another Toilet to Add to Nando's Collection: Phoenix School of Law

Another month, another ABA accreditation. Let's face it: law school no longer has any value now that anyone with the money to invest in a building and a law library to entice a few hundred lemmings from the local for-profit school can call itself ABA accredited. The Phoenix School of Law was just accredited on June 11th:

The Phoenix School of Law has announced today that it has received full accreditation from the American Bar Association (ABA). The Law School, which received ABA provisional accreditation in June 2007, is only the fourth for-profit law school in the country to be granted full accreditation and in the shortest time frame possible – less than six years.

The press release goes on to name the other two accredited toilet schools that Phoenix School of Law will join in Arizona:

There are only three fully accredited law schools in Arizona: Phoenix School of Law, the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. PSL is Arizona’s only stand-alone law school – not affiliated with a university.

How did PSL become accredited? One reason, according to PSL propaganda, is the school has the highest Bar Exam passage rates in Arizona. I checked online and apparently PSL's bar passage rate for first timers is 83.3%.

The Phoenix School of Law demonstrated high benchmarks to win the approval of the ABA’s Accreditation Council, including achieving the highest Bar Exam passage rates in the State for February’s exam; a career placement rate of 97% within nine months of graduation; and receiving the Law School Admissions Council’s “2010 Diversity Matters Award” for its efforts to attract students from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in the legal profession.

However, in this Phoenix School of Law Official ABA Data document (PDF File), the numbers are even more far-fetched. The document states that 96.88% of Phoenix graduates pass the bar on the first try and that 88.2% find employment after 9 months -- 60% with law firms!

How much does this newly accredited law school cost?

Fall 10 - Spring 11 academic year, the ESTIMATED COA for Financial Aid purposes ONLY is as follows:

Full Time (13-16 credit hours each semester) Fall and Spring total

• Tuition: $34,396
• General Fee: $1,570
• SBA Dues: $70
• Books: $2,184
• Room and Board: $12,316
• Transportation: $4,116
• Personal/Misc: $7,664
• TOTAL: $62,316

Part Time (7-12 credit hours each semester) Fall and Spring total

• Tuition: $27,516
• General Fee: $1,570
• SBA Dues: $70
• Books: $1,300
• Room and Board: $12,316
• Transportation: $4,116
• Personal/Misc: $7,664
• TOTAL: $54,552

Anyone gullible enough to believe the official ABA data will also believe that attending Phoenix is worth spending a grand total of $186,948. Luckily, if you are reading this and other scam bloggers on a regular basis, you are smart enough to realize that the ABA data and The Phoenix School of Law statistics are make-believe and that taking out $190,000 in student loans to attend ANY law school right now is absolute self-destruction. Putting an ABA accreditation on a toilet is like putting lipstick on a pig -- it's still a pig --and Phoenix is still a toilet.

More Rankings from the ABA. Who Cares?

A fan of our blog sent along an email they received from the New York Bar Association. This is what - we'll call our fan, Unemployed, Esq - had to say:

I don't even know why I opened the below email since I usually delete anything from the NY Bar but I accidentally clicked this and was like WTF?!?!? Why do I care about the US News and World Report ranking law firms at the local, state, and national level. SERIOUSLY? This is the biggest concern right now? Why does this matter when nobody can even get a job? I stopped reading it after the second paragraph but I just had to share.

Thanks for sharing your outrage, Unemployed. I was about to write a rant for this but you pretty much said it all. The New York Bar Association clearly cares two shits about the thousands of laid off attorneys and unemployed law school graduates in their state. You said it, Unemployed. Who cares about rankings when we have an unemployment crisis to deal with?

Is this all the law school lemmings and the ABA really care about? Rankings at the local level?! Who needs that kind of information besides the law school lemmings who will brag about getting into the 2nd highest ranked law firm in Podunk? And what about pretending that they don't know why the law school rankings are flawed? As if the ABA and law schools are innocent of helping produce these rankings. This just looks like another opportunity for the ABA to work with USNWR and Best Lawyers to put out falsified information about employment statistics and earnings at law firms. The letter is posted below. Thoughts?

Office of the President

Dear Unemployed, Esq.:

I am writing to follow-up on an e-mail I sent you on February 17, 2010, to advise that the American Bar Association adopted a resolution sponsored by the New York State Bar Association directing the ABA to examine efforts to rank law firms and law schools. A number of people have said that they did not see the earlier e-mail so I am writing again. You can read the earlier e-mail by clicking on www.nysba.org/lawfirmlawschoolranking.

The resolution requiring the ABA to study law firm rankings arose out of the efforts by US News and World Report working with Best Lawyers to publish for the first time a ranking of law firms at the local, state and national level. The ranking would be like the current ranking done by US News for law schools with law firms being ranked as one, two and three on down in each community.

It continues to come to my attention that many of the law schools are concerned that there is a significant random error in law school rankings based upon a flawed methodology. Our concern is that if the same problems of validity, reliability and volatility in ranking law schools occur in the ranking of law firms, the reputations of law firms will be damaged in their community if they are unfairly ranked in relationship to others with the danger of present and future clients being misled.

The proposed rankings by US News and Best are based in part upon information to be provided by law firms at the request of US News including client lists, how partner compensation is calculated, how fees are calculated, the size of matters handled and other otherwise confidential or proprietary information.

Law firms can decide whether to provide information for ranking. We continue to urge caution in deciding whether to do so. There is a choice to be made. Law firms may choose not to submit information and advise their clients and the public that they are not participating in any ranking program until the completion of the ABA study. It is anticipated that the ABA will speak out and provide guidance on this issue based upon the Resolution referred to at the outset of this letter. The New York State Bar Association shall continue to encourage the ABA to do so expeditiously so that lawyers throughout the country can be guided by its findings. We anticipate that we will be joined by other State Bar Associations in this effort.

I take this opportunity to thank past State Bar President, A. Vincent Buzard, and other members of our Association who took part in our efforts to bring this before the American Bar Association and who continue to work with the ABA on this important matter.

Best regards,

Michael E. Getnick
President, New York State Bar Association
Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore, LLP

U.S. News Reports REAL NEWS: Consider the Return on Your Investment, or Lack Thereof, when Considering Law School!

Nothing makes a Thursday seem sweeter than a story on the real prospects of law school grads.  I am hoping some of these research whiz kids run into this article when deciding whether to proceed with taking the LSAT.


Of course, it covers NOTHING that my readers didn't already know.  But here are some gems:

The American Bar Association reports that from 2007 to 2008, average tuition rose 6 percent at private law schools, to $34,298, and 9 percent at in-state public schools, to $16,836. Add in living expenses and pricey books, and at least 80 percent of students now rely on student loans to fund their law education.


It may seem out of touch for law schools to be raising prices in a lousy economy, but it's a reflection of supply and demand. Indeed, an increasing number of people appear willing to take on six-figure debt to get a law degree. In 2009, the number of people who took the Law School Admission Test hit a decade high, up 6.4 percent from the year before. "As long as people keep applying to law schools in record numbers, (a) there's no incentive at all for the universities to charge less for the law schools that are already established, and (b) there's every incentive for other universities to open new law schools," says Elie Mystal, editor of the popular legal blog Above the Law.


Tuition raises have become necessary at many universities, especially top ones competing for higher rankings, according to the Government Accountability Office. The heated competition induces schools to ramp up their programs by hiring better faculty, reducing class sizes, providing enhanced student services, and offering more practical coursework.


Many do not research the real economic costs and benefits of a law degree, says Prof. Herwig Schlunk of Vanderbilt University. "It's kind of blindly accepted that education in general, and legal education in particular, is always worth the money," says Schlunk. "[But] there's a lot of kids who do go to law school who really have no business, at least not as an investment matter, in going."


"In their mind's eye, [law students are] thinking of hitting the lottery and getting one of these $160,000-a-year jobs, and it is a fiction," ... "By and large, it's just like the lottery. You're spending a huge amount of money in the hopes of hitting the jackpot, and there's relatively small chances, and the chances have gotten a lot smaller."


Of course, Lamm the Liar makes an appearance with some bullshit that the deferred associates are getting hired, so the market is improving.  Whatever.  The article also goes into some rant about networking and focusing on the skills you had BEFORE law school when finding a job.  Which begs the question, why did you go to law school to focus on skills you had before law school?


The facts remain, and  there are too many attorneys and it's harder to be a big fish in the ocean than it is in a pond.  However, that colloquialism goes.  I still maintain that I'm lucky with far less than a hundred grand of debt.  The biggest problem with graduating today is the debt load which precludes you from taking whatever salary you'd like.  And ignoring your debt load can severely compromise your future--because you won't be able to buy a house or a car with shitty credit.  

But hats off to U.S. News for its attempt at journalism.  Great job!

I Borrowed this from Another Scam-Blogger...

But it is SO IMPORTANT that we all write in.

Read below:
"YOUR COMMENTS SOUGHT
MAY 7, 2010 DEADLINE

The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 is studying the ethical and professional regulatory implications of legal process outsourcing in a domestic and international context. The Commission is reviewing the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, existing ethics opinions and other literature and studies about this topic. The Commission is also interested in gathering information about domestic and international legal process outsourcing from lawyers, law firms, clients and outsourcing providers, and developed the following questions to do so. We look forward to hearing from you. Please do not feel constrained to limit your responses to the information sought by these questions. We are interested in receiving whatever information you feel is relevant. Please e-mail your responses by May 7, 2010 to Senior Research Paralegal Natalia Vera at veran@staff.abanet.org"

http://www.abanet.org/ethics2020/


I suggest you send the following email to Ms. Vera today (feel free to paraphrase):


Dearest Ms. Vera,

Your organization has ruined my life. By allowing Big Law to ship attorney jobs overseas, you have essentially destroyed the legal industry. It is illogical that a lawyer in India who has not attended an ABA accredited law school or taken the Bar Exam or the MPRE, can practice law in New York more easily than an Alabama Lawyer. In my opinion, your organization is playing with fire. It's a matter of time before a foreign attorney who is not subject to the laws of the U.S. engages in insider trading or likewise nefarious conduct. At this point, I am not sure whose interests you are out to protect. As an attorney, I am certain you don't think of my interests when you pass laws giving jobs to foreigners. Your relationship with me ends with ABA membership and a magazine subscription. There are legions of unemployed attorneys out there that should be doing this work, not third party nationals. When will you help them. It's your fault they are unemployed and unemployable. I am praying for the collapse of the ABA.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Your Name

The ABA Doing a Whole Lot of Nothing about Law School Rankings...

Let me start off by saying that I absolutely hate the ABA and everything it does and doesn't stand for.  What angers me more than its mere existence, are stories published by the ABA that almost fool me into believing that the ABA is concerned about lawyers--only to find out that they are hiding the ace.  The primary concern always comes back to BigLaw.  Sorry, I don't do card analogies--but you catch my drift.

Ran into this story put out by the ABA. Apparently, the ABA is thinking about... getting to the point where... they may want to study how Law Schools and Law Firms are ranked. It's called: ABA to Study How Law Firms & Schools Are Ranked.  Notice the strategic placing of "Law School" first.

Let me give you the background.  U.S. News & World Report [hereinafter USN&WR] has decided to rank Law Firms in the same manner that they have always ranked Law Schools.  Well, this isn't going to happen until the ABA takes a good long look at their methods.  The ABA was alerted to the fact that rankings could be detrimental, because of its affect on the Law School Community:

“[The U.S. News] rankings have a profound impact on the law schools. The deans hate it,” said past New York bar President Vincent Buzard to the NLJ. “It seemed to us that the ABA should look into the methodology of these rankings and ensure that they are reliable and aren’t based on inadequate data.”

(As a side note, the ADA does NOT allow USN&WR to rank Dental Schools.--I need the source, but I know that to be true from my dealings with the dental community.)

 Apparently, the debate about Resolution 10A was FIERCE. But they voted in favor of the resolution stating "that the American Bar Association examine efforts to publish a national, state, territorial and local ranking of law firms and law schools." And this resolution passed by a narrow margin. This resolution is filled with empty language, promises and inaction, it's almost a non-resolution.  However, contrary to my sixth sense which told me that the ABA is a lying, cheating, scumbag, I felt my heart rate go up at the idea that the resolution might have some bearing on the Law School Industrial Complex.  But then I read on to see that the ABA's primary concern was 'whether “law firms will be induced to change their methods of operations and drive up the cost of legal services to the public in the same way that the cost of legal education has been distorted” based on LAW FIRM rankings. 

So, this isn't about Law Schools at all.  Rather, it's about Law Firms.  But implicit in that statement is acknowledgement that Law Schools have fraudulently driven up the cost of legal education based on rankings.  I have to sort this out in my head. They know about the effects that rankings have on the cost of Law School tuition and they are concerned that Law Firm rankings might have the same effect on the cost of Big Law to Big Business?  Let's solve the problem by dealing with Rankings as it relates to both Law Schools and Law Firms. So, the ABA stands for "American Business Association"???????  Or, are the ABA cronies working as partners in firms that may not make the First Tier Law Firm cut?  Would they still be entitled to T14 law grads--when they start hiring again in a few years?  I frankly don't understand (a) why they are feigning concern about rankings and Law School tuition on this late date and (b) why they are so against ranking Big Law.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander in my opinion.

"In a report accompanying the resolution, the measure’s sponsor—the New York State Bar Association—said “we know, based upon the experience of the U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of law schools, that there will be significant issues regarding the validity of the rankings.”"

Never mind the fact that I don't agree that the rankings propel Law School tuition into the sky.  These guys really need to get off the LSD. Even fourth year toilets are outrageously expensive.  Rankings are based on fraudulent data and even the lowest of the law/low, (i.e. Tom M. Cooley School of Law or Charlotte School of Law) seem to be a good option for law students.  After all, not one law school comes out and says, "30% of our last graduating class found employment.  But of that, 15% are waiting tables, driving cabs, baby-sitting, homeless panhandling."  Fraud... Like this "rankings" section of the Tom M. Cooley where it ranks #12 in the Nation.  I can't even make heads or tails of that Ranking Chart.  Can you?  And don't be fooled by Charlotte's cheap tuition.   They list the tuition per semester.  Is that fraud? I think so. 
 
And when it gets to self-reporting and the USN&WR, it's even worse. 
 
So, although the ABA article was entitled: ABA to Study How Law Firms & Schools Are Ranked--It should have been entitled: "ABA PUTS GAVEL DOWN AT RANKING LAW FIRMS AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE SYSTEM OF RANKING LAW SCHOOLS IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD."