But I Did Everything Right!

The BEST Lawyer Billboard EVER!

2012-03-28T22:27:00.000-04:00

Driving to Federal Court in Newark, New Jersey, I ran across this billboard and I had to smile:

I don't know if you can tell, but this is Brooke Barnett's law firm staff (and her) dressed like gangsters. What a way to appeal to your clientele! I think it's brilliant! Or it just goes to show what one must do to get a client, or two. But if she does criminal law in Newark, she's in the right place, with the right zoot suit. You go Brooke!

The End of the the Contract Attorney Era: By Court Mandate

2012-02-16T23:30:00.000-05:00

We have discussed Robo Lawyers in the past and how e-discovery conducted by computers will impact the market place for contract attorneys (a.k.a. document review attorneys). It's my feeling and perhaps the general consensus that contract attorney jobs will dissipate gradually with the ebb and flow of the free market. Attorneys in India are cheaper than our lawyers, who are heavily laden with the burden of student loan debt. Then, once clients get the memo that much of contract monkey work can be done by computers, sans attorneys altogether, document review "opportunities" will eventually disappear altogether. However, although covered in 2011, the change did not seem imminent. After all, it takes a long while for the legal market place to catch up to technology, or so I thought.

Welcome to tomorrow. Judge Peck of the the Southern District of New York court mandated robo-attorneys for document review--because it's cheaper. I have practiced in Federal Court and this type of "innovative" idea could catch like wildfire--and spread from one Judge's chambers to the other. Let's determine how many jobs this type of case would have created. Apparently, the issue in the case is as follows:

Whether Publicis Groupe compensated female employees less than similarly situated males via salary, bonuses, or perks; precluded or delayed the selection and promotion of females into higher level jobs held by male employees; and carried out terminations or reassignments when the company was reorganized in 2008 that disproportionately impacted female employees.

I'm thinking this type of case would have provided work for 25 or so contract attorneys. So, thanks for putting 25 young, starving and possibly homeless contract attorneys out of work, Judge Peck. I know, it's not his responsibility to make sure that young attorneys are working. But it's also not his responsibility to make watch the litigants' pockets. Next he'll be looking at the attorney's bills and deciding whether the work is administrative or legal in nature before the check is cut. Unless, of course, the legal fees are awarded to the Plaintiff---which could actually be the case here. Then that does fall within his duties as a judge. Whatever. That's not the point.

Litigation is pricey and that is part of what makes the machinery of the legal system turn as it does. To usurp that premise by dictating methods of discovery is... should I say... reversible error?

Let's see what happens. Run, don't walk, away from contract work. It's no place to be when the ground splits open beneath your feet.

Moral of the Story: The government always finds a way to intervene, i.e. ruin, the free market.

Guest Post from a Recent Graduate

2012-01-25T16:43:00.000-05:00

To the class of 2011:

It was not so long ago that you and I were among the over 40,000 graduates of the class of 2011. In fact it has been about 9 months and I, like most of you, recently received an email from my CSO office asking me to complete the post graduate employment survey. I remembered back to a presentation my CSO director gave first year stating our school's median graduate salary was $63,000 and that we boasted an impressive 86% rate of employment upon graduation. During the presentation, I noticed a footnote on the bottom of the Power Point stating the stats were based on a 35% response rate. I raised my hands, pointed it out, was brushed off and the footnote was removed from the document in the Symplicity library.

This was my first indication something was wrong. Soon, I discovered blogs like this one and began to spread the word to other law students and 0L's. As I read this blog and others, I learned that the rosy picture law schools paint about employment is affected by the low response rate to the graduate employment surveys and the fact that the "winners" of the law school game are more likely to report their salaries. (according to Law School Transparency, my schools response rate looks to be under 20% last year) Also, since there are few winners, CSO may contact them more aggressively then the grads tending bar and serving lattes.

What if we all, bad, worse and ugly, reported our employment situation in detail to our CSO offices?

If you are a graduate of 2011 or know one, please ask them to complete the survey below and email it to their career services offices IMMEDIATELY!

Are you employed
Where?
How many hours per week?
How much money do you bring home in a month?
What are your monthly student loan payments?
What payment plan are you on? (standard, extended, graduated, IBR)
Are your loans in deferment, forbearance or default? (If yes Which)
Is your job temporary or permanent? (If temporary when will it end)
Does your job provide health insurance?
Does your job require a J.D?
What do you actually do for work? (i.e. Skadden litigator or sandwich artist)

Best of luck to you all, I know as you do that it's rough out there.

RedJ.D.

****************
I'd like to run my own little tally of where May 2011 grads are today. Drop a note as to what you are doing currently in the comments section. Other scambloggers are doing the same, maybe we can come up with our own sample survey results. Make sure to answer the above questions and post anonymously!
Thanks,
Angel

LegalMatch: Grease Trap for Solos

2012-01-22T23:41:00.000-05:00

I received a great tip on a scam that all solos should be aware of--LegalMatch. Apparently, according to my tipster, he was contacted by Merrill with an offer of client referrals about 2 years ago. Now, all attorneys know that you're not supposed to pay a referral fee--but lawyers do. Generally it's a percentage of what you earn after you receive it, or the referral agency collects the money from the client and takes their cut off the top before they pay you. So, when he was contacted by LegalMatch because they had a need for real estate attorneys in New York. He was sent the following email:

Your inquiry was sent over to me for reply. You expressed some interest in our attorney-client matching organization. In order for us to consider any attorney in any given area, we must first have a sufficient number of clients for them to serve in their area. This is done by first getting the answers to the following:
So if you would please answer the following I can determine whether such factors exist and move forward with you from there.
1) What are the main areas of law you handle? (list in order of preference);
2) What states are you licensed to practice in?
3) Do you limit the counties that you take clients from? (If so list counties);
4) Do you practice full or part time?
5) Are you solo or partnered firm?

Sounds harmless, right? After sending in his answers, he was then set up with a test. Yes, they sent him a test. The email was as follows:

I spoke with Director ___________ and he has not as yet decided to select any attorney out of the several he has interviewed over the past few weeks for the New York Area. And so he authorized me to give you access to our Real Estate Litigation clients to determine whether it will be worthwhile to schedule you to for a teleconference with him. I've included New Jersey as well.

Would you please evaluate at least twenty (20) of the these clients. This will be done by way of having you log on to an Evaluation account. You would have to speak with the Director to determine whether he could present you for more practice areas.
The evaluation account is where you review cases that we have in your area. Our model is to limit the number of attorneys in each area so we do not overwhelm clients with too many choices and can ensure the success of those attorneys who are selected by our Attorney Review Committee to represent those clients. In order to review our current clients please follow the instructions infra:

Please go to legalmatch.com and on the right hand side, below the Supreme Court pillars, click on "Member Attorney Log In" then type in lower case one word "___________" for user name and password "clients"

Get your pen and paper and write 3 columns: Yes, No and ?

Once you log in you well see client cases on the left side. Click on Family Law and this shall give a listing of all cases we have in your region. Next: then click on the first case at the top of the list. This shall open up the description of the case. from there evaluate the case and answer the question "would I be inclined or disinclined to engage this case?" If yes, place a mark in the Yes column, if not inclined, place a mark in the No column. Once you complete review click Next at the upper center then review the next nineteen (19) cases while keeping track of how many you would be inclined versus disinclined to engage.
This will determine whether it would be worth while for me to schedule a teleconference with my Director.

NOTE: Some clients may make the mistake of entering their contact info into the body of the facts. They are expecting a LegalMatch lawyer, so please do not call them if you see such.

Thank you.

So, he proceeded to evaluate the cases, which took lots of time. After doing that he was told that he was under consideration for becoming part of LegalMatch, but he needed to go through a selection process and be considered by their selection committee. He started to get really excited. Hell, he'd gladly fork over a third for all of the guaranteed business. He was even directed to a website that showed how much traffic LegalMatch gets verses other referral services.

He then had no less than 5 conference calls with a Director as part of the selection process. Each time, he was told that the pool was slimming down and he was still in the running. Several of these calls took longer than a half hour and he was salivating at the mouth for this unique opportunity.

FINALLY, he heard from the Director with the good news. He was being made an offer. He was selected as THE CANDIDATE for their opening in Real Estate Litigation in New York. He thought it was the answer to his dreams.... after all, getting clients in the door is the number one challenge in running a solo practice. Well, first you have to know what you're doing. But it is the second hardest thing. Then he received the following email to confirm his offer:

Candidate Membership Application—Confirmation Email

Membership Applicant Name: ________________, Esq.
Area(s) of Practice/Client Type: Real Estate
Geographical/Client Region: State of New York. The attorney, shall have access to all Real Estate client matters coming to LegalMatch only from within the specified client allocation areas, and seek to engage those who he deems appropriate for Practice’s goals and objectives.

Membership Term and Fee: Three (3) year Membership for $73,795 per year, only if The Committee selects attorney.

Upon Committee Approval Fee Shall Be Paid As Follows: If attorney is selected by LegalMatch’s Attorney Review Committee, membership shall be extended and $6149 shall be paid followed by membership orientation, creation of home page and the scheduling of attorney to commence review of client matters and sending responses thereto, followed by thirty-five (35) subsequent installments of $6149.

§1 Reply to this email by typing in §2 infra: “I confirm the details infra/above” in the body of your e-mail reply. Once I receive your reply, we will overnight to you your Applicant Packet which includes a sample profile, Attorney Membership Agreement, and other helpful membership tools for you. By confirming this email you agree to have the $500 Application Fee charged via the billing method you provided and move forward in the application process. If you are not approved for Membership, your $500 Application Fee will be refunded in its entirety. I understand that an Attorney Membership Agreement will be forthcoming for my review and that this understanding of parameters above does not constitute a formal offer of membership with LegalMatch. LegalMatch reserves the right to accept, or reject, my application based on their strict eligibility requirements.

Wow and wow. Here's the real kicker: they don't guarantee you any business at all! He nearly vomited in his mouth (I'm using artistic license of course) and never wanted to hear from them again. To pay that amount of money up front is insanity!

To add insult to injury, he got an email this week with the subject line "Attorney Needed":

I am assisting a group of potential clients that have completed an intake and are ready to retain an attorney. I realize your time is limited. Are you available this week for a 10-15 minute conference call?
Please advise.

Yep, LegalMatch again.

Don't waste your time with their nonsense. If you have $75K to hand over to this grease trap then you probably don't need the business.

The ONLY Way to Make Law School Affordable.

2011-12-29T22:21:00.000-05:00

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...

2011-12-15T20:57:00.000-05:00

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.

2011-10-24T23:57:00.000-04:00

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!

2011-10-10T22:17:00.001-04:00

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!

2011-10-08T21:49:00.000-04:00

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

2011-10-06T00:00:00.000-04:00

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.

2011-10-03T15:12:00.000-04:00

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

2011-09-22T20:03:00.000-04:00

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

2011-09-19T23:34:00.000-04:00

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!

2011-09-19T21:57:00.000-04:00

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!

2011-07-22T00:47:00.002-04:00

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!

2011-07-18T12:28:00.000-04:00

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?

2011-07-14T21:19:00.002-04:00

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!

2011-07-07T21:58:00.001-04:00

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?

2011-07-05T20:01:00.000-04:00

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?

2011-06-29T22:00:00.001-04:00

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

First and Second Tier Reality: Esq. Never is back!

2011-06-20T23:15:00.000-04:00

By Esq. Never

It was bound to happen.

Few people, regardless of their perspective on the law school scam, would deny that the law school employment figures are distorted. Heck, Villanova Law School, while not owning up to engineered employment stats, was forced to admit that they outright cooked the books when it came to admissions data. In fact, even the most ardent defenders of the law school cartel are forced to defend such deceptions with little more than hackneyed quips such as, "You should have done more research."

Well, now one law school has the opportunity to literally "tell it to the judge". As many of you know, at long last, one of the nation's premier toilets, the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is being sued for the pitiful employment prospects it offers even some of its best students.

Others attorneys have mentioned the possibility of bringing additional low ranked schools to justice. If the lawsuit against TJL is successful, you can be sure that it won't take long for barristers across the country to start circling the wagons around the rest of diploma mills that used to comprise what US News once considered to be the third and fourth tiers of American law schools. There is, after all, no honor among thieves.

I, of course, welcome the potential destitution of these egregious funnels for federal student loan dollars. Charging tens of thousands a year in tuition alone for laughable degrees that are entirely worthless outside of one of the most saturated fields in the nation is untenable.

That said, are the third and fourth tier schools really the worst offenders of the law school scam? When I was applying to law school, my understanding was that almost nobody from these schools would ever get a big law job. It would be very difficult to move to another part of the country, and most students would simply have to be willing to work for small local firms or other jobs that didn't pay much.

In fact, one school I looked at in the third tier that offered me a scholarship listed its average starting salary at about $65,000. This is well more than most law school graduates can reasonably expect to make, but it's a heck of a lot more realistic that the $80,000 - $120,000 range most of better ranked school usually list.

In one sense, the lower ranked schools are more crooked in that they charge just as much as the better ranked schools but can't even pretend to offer starting salaries that justify their tuition. In another sense, however, there isn't any reasonable expectation that there will be jobs that justify the expense.

Now, I am not being hypocritical. I'm not saying that first and second tier graduates were deceived while third and fourth tier graduates should have known better.

What I'm saying is that there is a tendency to focus too much on the lower ranked schools while ignoring their brethren in the top 100. The schools that get the most abuse are Cooley, Thomas Jefferson, and Florida Coastal. All of these institutions are indeed dumps, but the deception in which they engage is different and a lot more overt than that of the more established law schools.

What do I mean? Well, let me first use a quote I recently found on JD Underground, "Good lord 120k in average debt is a nightmare. These poor souls will either join the mob, skip the country or killself."

The quote was in response to a posting about Roger Williams Law. I don't disagree, but why is it so much more of a nightmare for a Roger Williams grad to carry this debt than say an American or Pepperdine grad?
It isn't. Aunt Sallie doesn't tell a Richmond graduate not to worry about the monthly payments just because he had a higher LSAT score than the guy down the road at Regent.

Indeed, I would argue that the scam is even more deplorable as you move up the ranks (until hitting the truly elite schools). You see, in order to get into most second (and virtually all first) tier schools, you need at least a 160 LSAT score plus solid grades in college. Often times, it'll take even more than that. If my memory is correct, you need to be at least in the top 80% percentile of all test takers to get into these schools.

Do you think any of these people would really have forgone three years in the workforce and driven themselves into the red if they had known beforehand that they'd be making little more than college graduates while faxing over medical forms to verify $3,000 worth of medical fees from a third rate chiropractor in Southeast DC for a case that would otherwise be worth $100 for an emergency room visit?

Does a Cardoza graduate have a smug sense of superiority as he codes documents in a subterranean urban dungeon next to some NYLS kid who could only hit a 151 on the LSAT?
You do realize there's no room on the industrial boiler in the back of the basement on which to hang your "prestigious" degree?
That is, if you can find one of these positions to begin with. Try looking for entry level attorney positions. You're lucky if you can even find a toilet law role that pays $40,000 (sans benefits) for which to apply in the first place. Maybe having a degree from a better school will give you a leg up against the other 5,462 other candidates who applied for the job, but going to Boston University isn't going make jobs magically appear anymore than a Suffolk Law diploma will.

Plenty of people have heard about UVA grads who were threatening to protest because they didn't have jobs lined up. When I was running my blog, I heard from Georgetown students who were practically in tears because of how miserable their post law school lives had been. Having a GULC pedigree doesn't exactly take the sting out of being being a secretary or a waitress.

I'm not quite in this elite circle, but I went to a second tier school where it pretty much took a score in the 160's to get in, and it's the same story. LinkedIn profile after LinkedIn profile give vague descriptions of being lawyers but don't list any actual full time attorney work under experience. Plenty of people, like me, just left the profession and moved to other fields that don't even require a law degree.

You see, the only advantage of going to most better ranked schools is that there's a larger window for landing acceptable attorney positions. At a school like UVA, it may be as wide as the top 50% of the class. At GW, it may only be 20%. At most second tier schools, you're probably out of luck if you're out of the top 10%.

Once you fall outside of those ranges of class ranks, you might as well have gone to a third or fourth tier school. Toilet law is toilet law. Document review is document review. Thoughts of throwing yourself off a bridge are...well, you get the idea.
I believe the point of calling out the scam isn't to vindicate the victims. Plenty of us were naive, prideful, and even greedy. That doesn't matter. Just because we were good marks, doesn't entitle the law schools to use us as conduits for pillaging the federal government's generous loan system.
That said, I do believe that those who went to better schools are a bit more justified in their outrage at the scam. They weren't taken in by fly by night operations with names like "Florida Coastal", "LaVerne", and "Thomas Jefferson". They were duped by established, not-for-profit institutions of higher learning such as Georgetown, Villanova University, Boston University, American University, and Emory University (to name only a small number).
I am definitely pleased to hear about the serious attempts to see some of the most overt examples of the law school scam brought down. I will be even more pleased when the scams that hide behind the pedigrees of elite institutions also need to worry about hanging up the old "Going out Business" signs.

You can contact Esq. Never @ (esqnever@hotmail.com)

The Law School Bubble!

2011-06-20T15:45:00.000-04:00

From: The Best Colleges

Great graphic, Tipster! Not my own though. So happy that that schizzle is becoming common knowlege. If you don't know, now you know!

Education Does Not Equate Class a.k.a. Can't Buy Class

2011-06-20T12:35:00.000-04:00

I'm of the school of thought that people are born into certain circles. You can fight your hardest to get out of your circle, even with a modicum of success, but you cannot escape where you came from. At the end of the day, you are "of" a certain class.
If you are about to call me an elitist, you can refrain. I came from a lower middle class family and I doubt I will ever be in high society--it's just not me.

Upward mobility has always been a dream for the middle and lower classes. Education has traditionally been one way to do it.

Not for one woman riding on the Metro North Train.

High five to the New York Metro North train employee who asked the loud, offensive cell phone user to tone it down. Thumbs down to the cell phone user who informed the train employee that she was "too well educated" to be asked to quiet down and stop using the F-bomb.

Several times, the woman refers to herself as a well-educated woman. She rudely asks if the train employee is aware of how many schools she's been to.

There's even a video available here.

Is it more shocking that someone like this can become well-educated, or that being so "well-educated" can have nearly no bearing on someone's behavior?

"Money can't buy you classsss... elegance is loveeee, my friend"

A Really Bad Interview....

2011-06-09T20:29:00.000-04:00

Very cool video. Actually, the whole series is pretty cool. From what I read on the writer, Rick Eid, he is a former Skadden associate, turned writer for Law & Order. Kudos, Rick! Congrats for the successful leap to a fulfilling profession. Thanks for the tip!

Florida Coastal School of Law: Beware and Be Scared--Guest Post from Tip Ster!

2011-06-03T20:45:00.000-04:00

Dear Angel and Hardknocks,

I want to pass along a message I received from Florida Coastal School of Law (FCSL). Please feel free to post this analysis on BIDER as an example of how ludicrous this school is for charging students a fortune for a clearly substandard product. It would be good to save prospective FCSL students from financial disaster and heartache.

Text from the e-mail:

"Coastal Law provides a joint degree program with the Davis College of Business at Jacksonville University (JU), the only AACSB accredited private business school in all of North Florida and South Georgia. This program allows students to enroll in the Coastal Law J.D. and the Davis MBA courses simultaneously and they often earn both degrees one year earlier than if pursued separately.
Learn more about our JD/MBA joint program here: www.fcsl.edu/academics/jdmba
I would like to tell you more about Florida Coastal- please reply to this email or call me on my direct line at (904) [xxx-xxxx]"

Bottom-Tier

FCSL is a bottom-tier school in a state that has at least 10 law schools. I know that US News and World Report school rankings have flaws, but a school probably isn't that great if it lands in the bottom tier.

High Costs

0Ls should be wary of scholarship offers from this school. An online search of the school's name and the word "scholarship" indicates that many students lose their scholarships after 1L. A recent NY Times article covered this type of phenomenon, but at some other schools. According to US News, 91 percent of the class of 2010 took on debt for FCSL, and the average amount for those debtors was $120,410 (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad-debt-rankings/page+2).

Few Benefits

Meanwhile, the class of 2010's average starting salary was only $48,615, with less than one third of graduates reporting. The low response rate means that it is possible that the true average is even lower, assuming that graduates with lower salaries may be less likely to report their salaries than graduates with higher salaries. More information can be found at https://www.fcsl.edu/sites/fcsl.edu/files/ERSS%20Class%20of%202010%20Statistics.pdf.

The MBA joint degree offering does not change the conclusion that the FCSL JD is not worth getting. In the MBA world, in general, there is a significant weakening of employment outcomes as one moves from a top business school to a middle-of-the-pack school to a lowly-ranked school.

In summary, it doesn't take an MBA to do a business analysis and conclude that Florida Coastal School of Law is a bad investment of time, money, and energy.

*****************
I, for one, haven't heard of this shit hole. If I haven't heard of it, don't go. Also, if it has a buzz word in it--like "coastal"--it's obviously a trick. They are trying to attract the beach bum/swimming/fishing types. All of the best school are in shitty, cold, locations. Or they're in the middle of nowhere.

Also, if I haven't said my rule of thumb in the past, I'll say it here. The total amount of your debt should be equal to your salary the first year that you graduate. At FC, you debt load could be $120,000. However, your starting salary will be (if you're lucky) $48,000. That's bad economics. You will be broker than you were when you sold lemonade in your front yard for $1.50 a pop. You actually can't even conceive of the poverty you will suffer. You will look at homeless people with envy because they don' have bills. Trust me on this one.