Tenure Under Attack

"Former UB Law School Professor Proceeds with Federal Law Suit Against Law School," by Lisa Epstein (The Spectrum)

After all the exciting news about the new global initiative and the cheerleader pep rally for more money, the University of Buffalo makes the news once again. A former law professor is proceeding with a federal lawsuit against the law school dean and others for wrongful discharge and breach of contract related to his termination. Reading between the lines a bit, it appears that said professor might have been somehow involved in an attempted coup of the law school dean. The university president quashed said attempted coup. Thereafter, said professor was terminated because his job no longer existed. The law school decided to "terminate" "Legal Research and Writing" and replace it with a whole new program called "Legal Analysis Writing and Research." The dean apparently won't provide the terminated professor with a letter of recommendation thereby effectively ending his professorhood. The article doesn't go on to explain why the professor didn't just take a six-figure salary with Big Law to mitigate his damages. Remember budding revolutionary professors, if you are planning to overthrow the king, you must kill the king.

"Defining Incompetence," by Carl Straumsheim (Inside Higher Ed)

The Board of Trustees at Brooklyn Law School have just adopted an expansive definition of causes for termination of tenured professors. Tenured professors are wondering what this means for them. Is it just a harmless change or is it laying the ground work for layoffs? Let me take a law school educated guess to assist any tenured professors who can't do their own analysis: Layoffs (lawoffs?) are coming.

"Is Law Faculty Tenure In or Out? ABA Can't Decide,"  by Karen Sloan (National Law Journal)

The American Bar Association Standard and Review Committee is currently tackling the issue of law school professor tenure. It cannot reach a consensus and is considering drafting a number of alternatives to increase, decrease, keep the same, or require no law schools to provide no tenure whatsoever. The standard that is adopted should be a weathervane pointing where law schools are headed.

A Paint-Free Future!

Sorry Painter.  You didn't win after all.

For the immediate future, all comments on this blog will be moderated.  Comments are still welcome, and there are enough readers out there to add some significant value to our work through intelligent and thoughtful comments - that's half the power of blogs like these.  But the constant trolling - all done by one person, and we all know who that is - has to stop.  We can't block individual IPs very effectively in Blogger, so we now have to read every comment before it's published.

More work for us, but there's enough mods here so we should be able to keep the time between submitting a comment to publication minimal.  Don't get discouraged because you don't see your words immediately up on the blog.  Again, we value your comments, and they are what makes this blog successful.  And the same policies still apply - your comments are your comments, and are valuable no matter what the content.  But if they refer to Painter, or about Painter, they will not be published, just as any other troll-related comments will also not be published.  There are no limits on tone, style, length, subject matter - just no trolling.  Use this blog as a place to feel free to air your concerns and discuss the posts in any manner you choose.

But we're in general agreement that moderation is wise at this point.  One person has spoiled it for everyone, but his goal was to see this blog shut down and disappear.  That's not happening.  We're just taking the one surefire step to stop that one person from bothering us anymore.

We tried.  I reached out to Painter personally.  He made an agreement to stay away, which he broke.  (Just like he broke it at ITLSS and every other blog he's been banned from, so I don't quite know what I was expecting to have changed.)  Other writers here also personally contacted him to try to get him to stop - more broken promises.  One made a heartfelt personal and public plea a couple of weeks ago to get him to stop.  I've blocked his IP address as best I can, but that hasn't worked.  Nothing has worked.  So it's time to prevent him from posting in the only way we know how.  He clearly has a destructive agenda, various issues in his life that need dealing with, and far too much time on his hands.  And we put too much effort into this blog, all of us, from writers to mods to readers to commenters.  One person should not be allowed to ruin our work.

So again, Painter, you didn't win.  You've lost every friend you had here, those who tried to reach out and help you and give you a voice.  You've wasted every opportunity presented to you.  And now your comments will never again be published here, not even for those few precious moments between you posting them and the mods discovering them and deleting them.

I guess this is actually goodbye.  Or good riddance.

Has scamblogging lost it?

I have to comment on recent events here.  I'd do it in a private email to the blog mods and authors, but it affects the readers too - you're part of this movement.

Serious question.  Have we lost it?

This blog started off great.  High interest, good community involvement, lots of effort from all concerned.

Over the past week - over the past month, really - it's gone downhill.  Through no fault of those writers who are spending their time and effort producing high-quality articles each day for you all to read, to get the message out there.  It's hard work.

And in return, we get what from the readers?  A stream of dumb comments?  One or two sensible, thoughtful comments amidst a sea of utter trash that makes us all look like idiots?  From JD Painter ruining this for everyone, to whoever that moron Tannebaum was, recently things have got out of hand.  Sorry to be the one to call you on it, but do you want this blog to survive?

We have extraordinary writers like dybbuk putting himself out there consistently for you.  There's a whole team of us who are writing and producing articles and trying to keep this movement alive, because to be honest, there's only us and Nando who are still bothering to fight.  Nobody gets paid to do this.  Nobody gets any glory or reward.

We're not here for your entertainment.  We're here to work for you to help you receive a better education, better opportunities, and more respect.

So I think it's time to take a step back and ask yourself what your role is.  Active participants, or hangers-on and clowns who are looking for somewhere to screw around while bored?  I'm willing to do everything I can to work towards reforming legal education.  We all are.  So at least show us some scrap of respect and stop treating our work like trash.

Comments relevant to this post will be welcome.  It's time for a discussion and a roll-call.  Who is with us?  And who's just here for fun?

What do you need to become more engaged and focused?  Moderated comments?  Different articles?  A new direction?

You tell us.  Because right now, all you're telling us is that this is a giant waste of time.

International Law? You have got to be kidding me.

I received a copy of this mailing from a friend who was just flabbergasted at its insanity. Take a look at what you can expect your law school to be spending your tuition money on, and asking you for more money to fund even when you graduate:

Here's the text from the front:

Whether or not a student wants to practice locally or internationally, a basic knowledge of international law is now required.

And from the back:

The Annual Fund will support the expansion of the school’s international law curriculum and programs.  Students will hear from speakers, attend conferences, study and work abroad, and choose classes from an ever-growing curriculum taught by a world class faculty.

 (along with Professor Giorgetti's profile, which can be found here.)

From what I gather, this is a fundraising effort from the University of Richmond – not one of the traditional trash schools, but hardly up there with Harvard either – and was sent to alumni, begging for money to bolster its “international law curriculum and programs.” Really.  Have applicants still not learned the following truths about the mythical career in “international law”?

For all intents and purposes, it does not exist, because there are (a) only about five openings per year, and (b) you’re not getting one of them if you graduate from anywhere but Harvard or Yale.

Want some proof?  How about you look at Richmond's latest employment stats, found here.

• How many students got JD-required jobs?  58%.  If the school can't even get barely above 50% JD employment, then what chance do its grads have at the top jobs?  Hardly a degree in demand.

• And how many grads in firms where international issues might realistically come up?  9.  Not 9%.  9 grads.

• But surely this international law powerhouse sends plenty of grads overseas to work internationally on international matters of international law?  Er, no.  Zero grads work abroad.

• The school sends more grads - a whole 2 - to West Virginia, its third biggest employment location, than abroad.  That's like the opposite of international, right?  When you send your grads to places where the average citizen doesn't even know that there's any countries except the USA?

Ok, so looking at Professor Giorgetti’s bio, she’s one of the unicorns – someone who actually has a claim to have practiced international law.  International boundary disputes, war claims commissions, international investment disputes, and she put in some time at the International Court of Justice at The Hague.  I’ll give her credit for that; she does seem like a legit international lawyer.  But dear applicant, don’t fall for the trap: none of her magic, and none of her prestige, will rub off on you (although doubtless some of the male students will be rubbing........er, no, forget that joke.)  When you graduate from the University of Richmond, or any other non-Harvard and non-Yale law school, you will be just another average to below-average law grad, desperately hoping for any kind of paid employment in any field.  Only a select few have the creds to get one of the handful of legitimate jobs in international law.

Compare yourself to Professor Giorgetti to see what you’re up again.  I made you a handy table.

See the difference?  You just don’t stack up to the kind of person who gets those kinds of jobs.  Not even close.  That’s why you aren’t getting the jobs, and it’s why you never will get those kinds of jobs.  (Admittedly, some of her work experience was after she became a lawyer, but still, that’s who you’re competing against for those prestigious international law jobs.)

Now, I’ve complimented her enough.  She is literally the perfect law professor; practice experience, stellar creds, and possibly the most beautiful professor I have ever laid eyes on.  (And you’re an idiot if you take issue with me bringing her physical appearance into the equation, because employers do notice, especially those Europeans with their "bunga bunga parties" and cheek-kissing and perfect little bodies, places where us chubby American girls don't stand a chance.)  Why she isn’t at a better school than Richmond is beyond me – I’m sure a rather fat paycheck had something to do with it, or some under-the-counter perks such as guaranteed tenure after one year - but whatever.  That's her business.  It’s time to take issue with her moronic quotation:

“Whether or not a student wants to practice locally or internationally, a basic knowledge of international law is now required.”

Huh?

Maybe she doesn't speak English properly and mixed her words up.  Let me check.........no, she speaks fluent English.  So she's serious?

Perhaps for grads of Harvard and Yale, where they might actually come into contact with something international in their careers.  But for everyone else?  The grads from the other 99% of law schools in the US, who will be working (if they’re lucky) in small firms, third-rate markets, or as solo practitioners and document reviewers?  They need no knowledge of international law whatsoever, certainly not to the extent of attending a law school with an international law program that is doubtless costing a fortune to set up and run, the costs of which are passed along to these hapless students. What they need is incidental knowledge at best, not three international law classes in law school.

That quote is clearly from someone whose career has been so lofty and prestigious that she simply has no idea what life will be like for her students when they graduate.  But I suppose she has to say things like this to justify why she should get a job as a law professor, right?  She learns quickly, does Professor Giorgetti - the way to keep a job as a law professor is to say things that sound like you're job is important, when in reality, it's not. Certainly not at this kind of toilet where there are zero international lawyers produced and few, if any, who even work in firms that have foreign offices.

There is no need for a knowledge of international law in residential real estate.  Or family law.  Or traffic tickets.  Or any of the other boring tasks that make up the day of 99% of all lawyers.  But before you jump on me and say, “Ooooh oooh oooh what about immigration issues in divorce, or criminal issues for immigrants, or someone foreign buying real estate”, that’s not international law; that’s US law as it pertains to foreigners.  Big difference.  (Immigration law, for almost every practitioner, is US law that happens to deal with foreign citizens.  It’s still US law.)

What these schools are selling, when they talk about international law programs, are these ideas that their grads will be studying these cerebral issues like war crimes, international trade disputes, and things like that, and that their grads will go off to work for multinational law firms, foreign governments, international courts and suchlike.  These schools are not selling the idea that you’ll be figuring out how to plead in a DUI when your client holds an H-1B visa, which is about as international as most lawyers ever get.  These international programs are pure theory, pure mental masturbation for a select few professors, and will stay that way because few, if any, grads from schools like the University of Richmond will ever have gainful employment at that level (and by that, I mean beyond bullshit unpaid internships and things like that, which might be prestigious, but are hardly “careers” in international law.)  Real life lawyers need knowledge of US law as it pertains to the handful of foreign citizens who they may have as clients, but it’s nothing that can’t be learned in a three hour CLE of practical issues that you need to watch out for.  It certainly doesn’t need an entire law school specialty program.

And note to law schools: how about you figure out how to teach your students basic US law first, before running off and setting up expensive international law programs?

Professor Giorgetti is clearly an accomplished, experienced, high-caliber person, and one who looks like she’d make an excellent law professor: smart, real world experience, and highly-qualified, not like half of the dummies with JDs and no legal experience who inhabit law school faculty lounges.  If anything, we need every professor to be like her.  And by all means teach an international law class or two, because it is interesting, if not particularly relevant.  But hounding alumni with such a dumb fundraising campaign, and setting up such irrelevant fluff when we haven’t even figured out how to produce practice-ready grads yet?  Please.

As an aside, if you’re someone who does donate to law school alumni fundraising campaigns, here’s my suggestion: continue to do so if you must, but accompany your donation with a letter stating that you condition it on being used for debt repayment plans for unemployed graduates, or practical training programs like clinics, or something else that will really help.  Setting up an international law program is just madness, and shows the utter insanity, the complete disconnect with reality, of those who run law schools these days.  Don’t validate it with your money.

Suicide and Student Loan Debt

Do you ever think of suicide when it comes to your high student loan debt?

(Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-273-8255.  National Suicide Prevention Lifeline)

If you are wondering if you should end your life due to student loan debt, you are not alone.  No, I have never thought about ending my life over student loan debt (there is no reason to with IBR and with the fact that lenders don't really care about student loan debt).  Yet, many people focus on the number that they owe, a number that can oftentimes be quite high.  They think that the life they see on television can not be attained as a result of their high student loan debt.  And the result is that some people kill themselves because their student loan debt is so high. 

There is no reason to end your life due to high student loan debt, however.  The reality is that student loan debt is something that many people have.  Even some very successful people carry student loan debt with them. 

First, before you lament over your debt level, consider the fact that lenders oftentimes view student loan debt as 'good debt.'  You may be thinking that there is no such thing as 'good debt' but you are wrong in this regard.  Student loan debt that is constantly paid on time shows that you are a good credit risk.  By showing that you are paying off your student loan debt and that you have college experience, you show lenders that you have the capacity to earn more than a person with no college experience and you are also showing lenders that you are a responsible borrower.  If you have had trouble paying on your student loans in the past, do what you can do to become current again.  There are some amazing programs like IBR out there (which means you can pay a very small percent of your monthly income towards your loans, and if you are making less than $30,000, the amount you will be paying is VERY small indeed).

Some people like to whine about IBR and create all sorts of conspiracy theories about how it may not be around, or how something else that is catastrophic may occur.  Do not listen to such conspiracy theories.  Negative thinking is what leads people to suicide.  You must think positive and see the good that is in life.  And there is plenty of good out there.

Life is not about money, prestige or being elite.  If you think that then you will end up in a world of hurt.  Life is about enjoying the time you have been given on Earth.  It's about learning, discovering, and being a part of the human family.  It's about being a steward to the Earth and asking certain questions that may not be able to be answered.  It's about thinking and reflecting.  It's about being thankful for the opportunity to live.  How many people who end their lives are thankful?  I strongly believe that those who are not thankful for the life that God gave them can never find happiness.  That's why some people are so miserable in life. 

The Media Often Lies

There are always a few people who will state that their debt has caused them to not be able to do the things that they want to do.  However, many of these people never tell the whole story.  News sources love to exaggerate and sensationalize the drama that debt causes in people's lives.  Sadly, many young (and older) people listen to these sources and think that their lives will turn out in the same way.  You are not the same as the person on television, however.  You are a different person.  News stories lie.  People may not understand that, but much of what you see on television is NOT truth.  Much of what you read in print is NOT the truth.  Exaggerations sell.   Reality is boring to many.  Honest stories don't sell advertisements like lies do. 

What do you want out of life?



If you are considering ending your life over student loan debt, instead, ask yourself is your life worth ending.  Take a moment to think about what you are glad to have.  Life is truly a precious thing, and negativity is never worth dwelling on.  Student loan debt is a reality for many, but there are ways out.  IBR is just one way to make debt payments manageable.  Call your student loan debt servicer and ask about getting on a payment plan such as IBR or getting a deferment.  Ask yourself if you can spend less to survive.  Ask yourself if your house is too big (I know a person who has one child and a three bedroom house and complains of student loan debt constantly).  Can you get a smaller place and save some money?  Ask yourself what your goals are.  Do you want to purchase land?  If so, read my excellent article on purchasing land/a home with student loan debt. 

Do you feel that student loan debt is making it so you can't get married?

Many people think that high student loan debt means that they can not get married or have a family.  There is no reason why student loan debt should make it so you can not procreate or marry.  Many people have happy marriages and service student loan debt.  I have been married for twelve years and carry high student loan debt.  My wife also has a good deal of student loan debt and will have much more when she is finished with school.  Yet, we never fight or argue about it.  Student loan debt is a fact of life in the modern world.  It is something that people will have to adapt to if they want to go to college.  People who think that they can not get married due to having student loan debt are much more likely to think of suicide.

Let me make myself abundantly clear right now:

YOU.  CAN.  GET.  MARRIED.  WITH.  STUDENT.  LOAN.  DEBT.

If you think that you can not have a happy life with student loan debt, think again.  If you think that you can not have children because you have student loan debt, THINK AGAIN.

Life is a precious gift, and you have to do what makes you happy in life.  You have to get over this idea of prestige and being elite.  These thoughts that the media has instilled in people is not based on reality.  There is no such thing as a truly elite person.  Everyone poops.  Everyone gets sick.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Everyone dies.  Money is not all there is to life.  Many so-called elite people spend their lives wanting more or wanting something else.  Many so-called elite wish they had a happy relationship with a life partner or a good relationship with God. 

Take some time to GET OFF THE INTERNET and spend time in the real world.  Go meditate, do some yoga.  Pray.  Clear your mind of the fantasy world that exists online.  Clear your mind from what others have told you that you can and can not do.  I did what I wanted to do, and I am happy with my life.  I owe HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars, yet I will NEVER kill myself due to student loan debt.  Life is far too precious to die over something like that.  Millions of people have student loan debt, and hundreds more acquire it every day.  It does not stop people from finding the life of their dreams.  It does not stop people from getting married.  It does not stop people from thriving.  School has given you something, even if you don't see it.  Ask yourself if you have grown since starting college.  Ask yourself if you think about the world different.  Perhaps you don't remember much of what you learned, but chances are you are a much different person as a result of college.  You have hopefully grown, and you can still continue to grow.  I feel that I got what I paid for with my debt, and it will take a while to get rid of.  But I am glad I have it.  Everything good in life has a price.  My amazing education that has allowed me to see and understand places all over the world was worth the cost. 

Opposition's Fifth Epistle: On Mens Rea, Accepting Your Guilt and Shutting Up

Indebted Law School Graduates
c/o Mom's Basement
Loserville, USA (DC? Chicago? Tulsa?)

Re:  Your Mental State

Dear Bum,

We need to talk about Mens Rea, a/k/a the guilty mind of your 1L criminal law days.  If you're now broke and unemployed, you probably had it before you went to law school.  Law schools didn't.  The sooner you accept this truth, the sooner you'll be able to move on, and learn to stop worrying about debt and love the law.

I.    Reality

I'd like to direct your attention to a few quotes about YOUR mental state back when you applied to law school.  Here's one from Philadelphia attorney Jordan Rushie:

I went to law school to become a lawyer, not for a paycheck. I never paid attention to what career services said.

Twitter @JRushie, April 25, 2013, 9:25 am.  And here's one from legal ethics expert Jack Marshall:

Many of today’s out-of-work lawyers prepared for a profession, a calling, for purely financial motivations: they wanted to be rich.

Neither of these men offer any links or proof that any law graduates now complaining about the law schools went for financial gain instead of wanting to be a chest-thumping lawyer, which is likely because it's self-evident that you bums went to law school to become rich and get that throbbing, meaty paycheck like the capitalist whores you are.  CONFESS!

Most people who went to law school, of course, wrote applications essays about why they wanted to attend, and almost none of them mention money in favor of things like fighting for justice or working as a prosecutor or starting a personally-rewarding career preventing middle-class individuals from getting screwed like they/their relatives did.  Many of those same people would now kill a chinchilla with their bare hands to work for a legal aid pr PD's office making $10/hour.

But those are obviously bogus reasons.  We can safely assume they only went for the money.  Greedy maggots be greedy.

Because people who care about debt and other material concerns clearly didn't go to become LAWYERS.  The logical inference is that if you unemployed grads went for the RIGHT reason - to join the HONORED PROFESSION - you would be practicing LAW at all costs, literally, I suppose.  Because if you only go to law school for the One True Reason - to be a card-carrying justice-loving LAWYER and join the PROFESSION - you should have no care for the return side of your expenditure, and no reason to gripe about anyone bilking you on the financial side of your voyage since you wanted to join a PROFESSION and did not make any "investment."  Or something.  Make it pithy and the simple-minded sycophants love it.

Of course, these assumptions are nonsense, illogical, and ironically selfish. A motivation for attending law school has little to do with the skewed economics of practice or the misleading statements by law schools.

You could go to law school for the purest of reasons with every part of your soul committed to the religion of zealous representation, wanting to do nothing more than stand in court and defend deaf-mute war widows against slumlords making minimum wage.  You could still theoretically have a claim that law school deceived you about the prospects of repaying the debt load you took on to get that ticket to heavenly salvation known as a LAW LICENSE.

Never mind that one who went to law school only for the RIGHT reasons may be driven out of the right honorable profession (i.e., needs a stable job and cannot take scrapling cases and ad-hoc work) entirely by the unreasonable debt load and that may be the source of their particular angst.

And if the same student knew repaying the debt load would be difficult, but said "my CALLING and PURPOSE is to be a LAWYER at ALL COSTS.  YOLO!" and ignored return-on-investment figures (like those pushed by the CSO and allegedly ignored by Mr. Rushie), he'd be acting remarkably selfishly, not just risking his own financial well-being, but also those around him (like spouses, children, parents, etc., not to mention the entity that loaned you money and the state that has to support indigents).

But former prosecutor Marshall and apparent criminal defense attorney Rushie would rather assume that you had the wrong mental state, and they're not alone.  That's a truth you have to deal with.

At the same time, let's talk about law schools' mental states and their motivations five years ago.  Here's what one professor said:

What has troubled me is that so many law schools distribute promotional materials that would probably violate Rule 7.1, if that rule applied in the context of legal education.
...
Consider some examples.  One law school’s promotional literature cites a report showing that its graduates claim to have among the best job prospects in the country, when in fact the law school’s own employment data doesn’t support the claim.  Many law schools frequently talk about the quality of their clinical programs, not mentioning that their clinical programs are typically not big enough to accommodate all students who express an interest.  Schools also brag about how their graduates take all sorts of interesting public sector jobs, when the reality is that many graduates won’t be able to afford those jobs given the crushing debt that they will have.
...
[N]o school wants to be the first one to eliminate spin from their promotional literature.  Doing so would put that school at a competitive disadvantage...

Andrew Perlman, Professor of Law, Suffolk University, April 13, 2005.  And here is another one:

I am scandalized by the lack of information, and misleading information, flowing from law schools to applicants and students.  It's not fair and it's sometimes a consumer fraud issue. 

John Steele, Attorney and Adjunct at Santa Clara, June 19, 2008.  Steele is riffing off of an AP article that quoted Bill Henderson at Indiana.

So to recap, there is actual demonstrable proof that law schools were attempting to mislead applicants, while there is no hard evidence that law graduates' complaints are related to their pre-law motivations in any serious way.  And of course if we admit that law graduates now complaining went for the money, we would also have to admit that the law schools were overstating the financial reality of the JD, right?  (If they weren't, why would the complaints be so loud?).

Marshall, again, same link as above:

I see no deception or exploitation by the law schools whatsoever.

So even when agents of an institution ADMIT purposeful deception, Marshall - a former prosecuting attorney and an expert on legal ethics - can't see it.

In other words, there are people in this profession who will ASSUME that you did not go to law school to accept a CALLING to a PROFESSION, but rather that you went to law school for the money, merely because you make an internet comment about a quasi-related issue, the cost and debt repayment.  Meanwhile, there are people in this profession who will NEVER believe that the law schools ever did a wrongful act in order to gain money, even with fairly direct proof.

Got it?  Good.

II.    Practical Advice

So given that if you complain, the chest-puffing, law-as-a-religion crowd will accuse you of going to law school for the wrong reasons, and that no matter what you say, certain people will refuse to see law school culpability, there's only one logical conclusion:

SHUT THE HELL UP.

Only reasonable conclusion.  Like a chatty criminal defendant, you're only making matters worse for yourself.  With every word you utter about the futility of a law degree, you prove that you didn't really get your law degree for the RIGHT REASONS.

Because, of course, the RIGHT reason for getting a law degree is to merge yourself with The Borg as soon as possible and spend every single moment of your waking time trying to find clients and represent them, network with attorneys, pester attorneys until they give you work, start a law firm even if you think it's destined to fail, maniacally pursue your CALLING like a modern-day monk with slavish devotion to courtrooms and Westlaw search results.  That's "doing something," and you're obviously not doing it by occasionally complaining about the law schools and the legal profession.

Of course what people like Rushie and Marshall write is irrational.  Of course it's silly.  Duh.  But that's the profession you joined, and if you actually went for the RIGHT reasons, you bought into it the second you sent in your law school application.

The sooner you accept that, the sooner you reform your mental state to be in tune with the RIGHT reasons for being a lawyer, the sooner you'll all have jobs and be off the couch.  It'll be just like the happy ending of 1984 when Winston Smith finally accepts reality.

Just shut up.  All you accomplish is your own damnation and denting law school profit margins.  The former is suicidal and the latter is just plain rude.

So shut up.

Shut the hell up.

Sincerely,

Law School Truth Center

P.S.  If any prospective law students are reading this, please rest assured that your law school is correct:  you CAN go to law school and get a JD even if you don't want to practice law or think you have any "calling" to join the "profession."  A JD is a valuable degree in a number of fields, including business, charity work, non-profit management, media, and government positions.  Similarly, even if you want to go to law school solely for the money, there is still very much a place for you, as law provides a long-term return on investment when you consider the profitability of the degree over the next 40 years, more than justifying the meager cost you will pay now.

Financial Aid Exit Counseling

I did my financial aid exit counseling, and when I got to the end, it said that my estimated repayment would be $22 under IBR.  What's so bad about that, I wonder.  Why are people getting their panties in a bunch over this?  Maybe I am missing something...

I will keep my readers updated on what happens with my student loan repayment as I get closer to the first payment. 

The JD as a sub-paralegal qualification?

I want to follow up on a post made by dupednontraditional on the 23rd, and one comment in particular made by BoCo:

BoCo  April 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

 

From a job posting for a legal assistant with the Colorado AG's Office:

"A J.D. degree will not substitute for the paralegal certificate."

http://agency.governmentjobs.com/colorado/default.cfm

And here's the relevant part from that job ad for a Legal Assistant:

Minimum Qualifications:A paralegal certificate obtained through either an ABA approved paralegal studies program or an accredited college or university AND at least one year (full-time equivalent) of paralegal experience.

Substitution: Four years of work experience in a paralegal capacity which included conducting legal research, preparing drafts of legal documents and gathering and compiling data from legal references and resources will substitute for the paralegal certificate. A J.D. degree will not substitute for the paralegal certificate.
 

These kinds of job ads are not uncommon; other examples are regularly brought to our attention.

I teach law (part time) and work full time as a lawyer.  I supervise many paralegals.  I have also taught in paralegal programs on occasion.  I'll be the first to admit that a JD program lacks much in the way of practical teaching, but let's put this into perspective:

1.  A JD is far more rigorous, far more in-depth, and far more practical than a paralegal certificate.
 
2.  An average JD student is far smarter, harder-working, motivated and committed than the average paralegal student.
 
3.  An average JD grad is almost always a far superior employee (in terms of ability) than a paralegal grad.
 
4.  Paralegal programs are disgracefully lightweight, easy, and are in no way superior to JD programs.
 
5.  A JD grad could walk into almost any paralegal job and pick up the skills in a week after being told how to do things just once, not ten times.
 
6.  Online paralegal certificates are pathetic, as are those who "attend" those programs.

I think that our message might be getting lost on some people.  The message we want to convey is that a JD program is not a good economic choice right now - no jobs, too expensive.  Our message seems to be interpreted by some (e.g. Colorado AG's Office) that a JD has no value whatsoever, even less than a paralegal certificate.  This is a bad outcome.

Let me explain further. I don't mean to insult paralegals out there - you do a great job (some of you) - but don't start to think that you're "better" than JDs.  The paralegal students I taught, at an ABA-accredited paralegal program, found it hard to understand basic legal concepts, wrote like middle school kids, lacked motivation, and were doing this because they had nothing else to do with their lives.  A couple were highly-motivated and smart, but most weren't.  Most were rather stupid to be honest. Most just didn't care.  The work I graded was embarrassingly bad.

The paralegals I see in my office are good, but they are the one-in-one-hundred paralegals, and they tend to be older, with no formal paralegal education, and a decade or two of experience.  When I have to interview paralegals for openings, the vast majority are poorly-spoken, have resumes riddled with errors, seem lazy, entitled, and I know that they would just make a mess of things at work.  Their work experience up until that point is fast food or retail, and generally they get through three or four jobs each year.  Once in a while, there's a good one who we hire straight away.  But most of the new paralegals these days are literally idiots.

Compared with the law students I teach, there is no comparison.  A law student is a vastly superior person in almost every way; professional, smart, motivated, good writers, quick learners, committed etc.  And law students these days are hungry for work.  Paralegal grads think that they should be handed a career on a plate.

So let's try to make sure that when we're complaining about JDs and law schools, that we are careful that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.  Our job is to bring down the trash law schools, remedy the oversupply, reduce the costs of law school, and reform legal education to make it more relevant to practice.  Our job is not to destroy the reputation of the JD degree so that we look inferior to paralegals.  The day paralegal certificates are considered more attractive than JDs for even these low end positions is a sad day indeed.

Mr. Pomposity

While riding on the subway tonight I saw my reflection in the glass and it was interesting to look at myself not only as a commuter, but as a soon-to-be law graduate.  In fact, for a moment I felt somewhat proud of myself, riding the rails.  Soon I may be representing these people in the courtroom I thought to myself. 

In a couple of weeks my school will be holding its graduation ceremony, yet I will not be a part of it.  No, instead I will be either in Europe or the Middle East.  In some ways I am glad I will not be going.  Other than my wife, my family would have not attended.  Many of them don't even know that I am graduating.  I have fallen out of disfavor perhaps with them. 

A long time ago my sister-in-law, shortly after I was married, called me a name that stuck with me for a while.  In fact, the name riled me when I thought about it, and I was angry with her for saying it.  I thought of all people, how dare she call me such a name.  Who was she to judge me?  She barely even knew me. 

That name was Mr. Pomposity.

Today I reflected a little bit on that name, and realize that perhaps, just perhaps that name does fit me.  I am somewhat pompous.  Not when it comes to strangers, but when it comes to many members of my family.  My wife's family obviously sees it too.  Keep in mind when they called me it I had barely started community college.  Nobody had any idea that I would even finish, nor did they even imagine I would go to law school.  Yet here I, Mr. Pomposity, am, on the edge of graduation.  When others in my class will be walking to get their diploma, I will be either walking along the canals in Amsterdam or floating down the Nile on a felucca. 

Perhaps I am pompous.  But it shall be bitter sweet.  I know that on the day of graduation I will wonder what I missed.  I never went to my undergraduate graduation.  I was the first, the very first of all of us in the family to graduate.  I went to a pretty good college and when it came time to walk I decided not to.  Again, the only person who would have attended was my wife.  Perhaps I should have done it for her, but I knew I would feel upset if nobody else showed up.  So I skipped it. 

It's not the graduation that matters.  It's how we use the knowledge that we are bestowed with.  I have seen that now more than ever.  Some law school graduates succeed and make great attorneys, some are mean spirited people, and others fail for various reasons.  It's like life itself I venture to say. 

Perhaps I am pompous in ways, but I will not let that get in the way of my relationship with those who I serve in the future.  Maybe I will struggle with it with my family.  But perhaps that is due to the fact that I feel some of them have turned their back on dear ol' Mr. Pomposity.  Who knows why, but as I get older, I realize that it is my life, and I have accomplished so much that I can be proud of.  That I can share with the person who is the most important to me.  And that is my wife.  Even those who read this as my critics know far more about me than the members of my family know.  That is something for me to reflect on as I move forward with this blog that so many people just can't stop reading. 

Cheetos and Cheerleaders

"Harvard Law School Offers 'Tax Planning for Marijuana Dealers' -- No Joke By Robert W. Wood (Forbes Magazine)

Money Quote: "And someone should bring the Cheetos."

*****

"UB Law School Strategizes for World Wide Impact,"  by Ilene Fleischmann (UB Reporter)

The University of Buffalo Law School has it all: A "newly appointed director of global strategic initiatives," an accelerated JD program for students from outside the United States, and, yes, taking New York law to the world! One would think UB will need to raise money for this new global initiative.

*****

"[UB] Law School Launches $30 Million Campaign," by Charles Anzalone (UB News Center)

Oh, wait! The University of Buffalo Law School is launching a new fund raising campaign! The campaign's theme is "Our Time is Now." The kick-off is Friday, April 26, so there is still time to attend. Here's a fun down -- I mean run down -- of the festivities: "Festivities included in the ceremonies include: UB cheerleaders doing backflips and other acrobatics at 6:30 p.m.; collective cheers from the crowd spelling out the reason for the law school’s campaign at 6:35 p.m.; unveiling of an illuminated campaign sign showing money already raised for the campaign at 6:45 p.m.; and a firing of confetti cannons and a mass-audience waving of pom poms at the finale at 6:49 p.m." Maybe the collective cheer could be "D-E-B-T-R-E-L-I-E-F!" or "L-A-W-J-O-B-S-N-O-W!"

*****

"Our Opinion: UND Law School's Renovation Needs Approval," by Tom Dennis (The Grand Forks Herald)

Money Quote: "For the sake of all North Dakotans, who depend on the graduates of their law school to staff courtrooms and serve residents’ legal needs throughout the state, funding for the $12 million project must be assured."

Why must it be assured? "The American Bar Association accredits law schools, and the association has made itself clear: In 2007, the ABA’s site visit report called the law school’s building ‘less than adequate,’ ‘cramped’ and ‘substandard,’” the State Bar Association of North Dakota reports. The team stated that a major addition to and renovation of the law school was ‘crucial to the success and future of the school.’ That’s accreditation-speak for 'Do it, or else.'"

*****

"Law School: Higher Costs for Less Pay"

Published on Apr 25, 2013

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- On today's "Off The Charts," Bloomberg's chief markets correspondent Scarlet Fu examines the soaring costs of legal school tuition, growing nearly 10 percent per year since 1985 as average salaries have recently declined. She reports on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers."

*****

"Should you go to law school?" by Rosa Brooks (FP National Security)

Since dream jobs in national security and foreign policy are difficult and difficult to come by, a discussion as to whether law school is a viable option...and Ms. Brooks' (a law professor) answer is "maybe" with caveats.

*****

"ABA Panel Struggles for Answers on Law School Reform," by Karen Sloan (National Law Journal)

Money Quote: "It turns out that if you ask 30 different law professors, practitioners, judges and bar association leaders how to fix legal education, you'll get about 30 different answers."

The two faces of Whittier Law Dean Penelope Bryan.

              

(Whittier Law School Dean Penelope Bryan cuddling a puppy in a promotional video. And I always thought that supervillains stroked pet cats).

 

I found a couple of  quotes from Dean Penelope Bryan of the Whittier Law School that I think are instructive. But to fully appreciate the quotes, you must first know that even among other law schools, Whittier is at the scammy extreme. The average debt load (excluding undergrad debt) for a graduating Whittier JD is $143,536, the 11th highest among the 201 ABA accredited law schools. However, the percentage of Whittier law grads from the class of 2012 who obtained bar-required full-time, long-term, non-solo jobs within nine months of graduation (i.e. its Law School Transparency [LST] employment score) was 31.2%, which was the 11th worst outcome among the 201 ABA-approved law schools. [1] And even that is a significant improvement over 2011, when it ranked second from the bottom among the 201 schools, with an incredible 17.1% LST employment score. [2]

 

Oh, one other nifty data point: Whittier Law School paid Dean Bryan $410,524 for the fiscal year 2010. [3]

Good Dean Penelope Bryan: "We consider this [Whittier’s placement results] a problem. We have redesigned completely our career development and we expect to see some improvement, but in the meantime we’ve had to live with this transition."  [4]

Bad Dean Penelope Bryan: "Any student, no matter what you’re trying to accomplish or what you’re trying to become, is very well served by this law school." [5] 

Why did Penelope Bryan (somewhat) acknowledge the dire problem at her school in the first quote, whereas in the second quote she touched the Zen of Pure Scam? Well, the first quote appeared in a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Law Grads Face a Brutal Job Market," where the reporter specifically asked the deans of several law schools to comment on their schools' poor placement outcomes. A "no comment" would have sounded evasive, and hype would have sounded ridiculous. Moreover, the Journal article was unlikely to have been read by many prospective students-- indeed, it was probably behind a paywall when it came out. The second quote, however, is from a six-minute long promotional video prominently featured on Whittier Law's website. It is far more likely to be viewed by prospective students.

I know that some may not take particular offense at the second quote, deeming it to be good old-fashioned public relations and marketing, similar to any industry. As long as the legally required disclosures are made somewhere, must a salesperson alert prospective customers to the problems and drawbacks of the product? Caveat emptor.

 

In my view, our profession requires more. How many times, as a law student and since, have I heard law deans and professors yap about the "majesty of the law," the "highest ethical standards" expected of us as lawyers, our obligations to society and to the less fortunate, and other such high-minded phrases and concepts. Probably, many students roll their eyes at such talk; but I believed it, and still do. However, wealthy law school deans and professors ought not promote standards of ethics and professional responsibility to their debt-ridden students without imposing equal or greater obligations on themselves, lest they be accurately deemed filthy hypocrites.

 

Dean Penelope Bryan of bottom-of-the-barrel Whittier Law School, do you regard your students and prospective students as future colleagues, and young people whose trust you must strive to earn? Or do you look at them and see big ambulatory bags of money to be corralled and pillaged?

 

__________________________

Notes and links 

[1]  http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other#  (2012)

(8th worst excluding the three law schools in Puerto Rico which, for some reason, all report employment scores of under 14%).

 

[2]  http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=other&class=2011#

[3] http://207.153.189.83/EINS/951644048/951644048_2010_07fcadd6.PDF

Scroll down to the section labeled "Part II: Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees." This is found about 60% of the way through the document.

 

Dean Penelope Bryan's total take of $420,709 consisted of a base salary of $317,206, plus $65,046 in "other reportable compensation" plus $38,637 in nontaxable benefits.

 

I got the idea of checking the school's IRS Form 990 to determine levels of faculty compensation from Third Tier Reality [TTR].  Here is a link to TTR’s profile of Whittier:

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/rank-fourth-tier-scat-pile-whittier-law.html

[4] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577486623469958142.html

[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZD5i57Nks&list=UU3vtKmN-6evqnRsyXyh516A&index=1&feature=plcp&noredirect=1
(quote appears at 0:50-0:57)



　

　

　

　

　

　

　

Last Day of Law School

Today was my last day of class.  Part of me is sad.  Being a student has been my identity for almost a decade now.  I am still a student, as in a student of life, but as far as when a person asks me what I do, I am no longer a student.

On my way home today I kind of thought what I would do differently if I was to start law school again, and perhaps that will be the subject of some future posts.  I would have tried to get better grades my second and third year, I would have went to class more often, I would have tried to talk to people, perhaps make some closer friends.  And, I WOULD HAVE NEVER READ THE SCAMBLOGS!  Sadly, most of what we learn in life is learned too late.  I am glad I went though.  Law school was something that took me three years to get into.  Granted, I could have probably got in the first year had I applied to the lower ranked schools the first time around, but I did not.  I learned a lot though and I am grateful I went.  Honestly, those who said that they hate it probably hate life.  Law school was a challenge and it made me think.  I did a lot to transfer law school, to get in, to get top grades my first year, and to make it through the last year.  I did not do too much to find a job and I often asked myself if I even wanted to go to law school.

Much of what I wrote on this blog, during 2L, is stuff that I feel strongly against now.  It was an emotionally hard time for me.  I was almost homeless for a while due to a financial aid mix up.  My grades suffered.  I really wanted to be on the law review.  I read too much 'scam blogs' and mistakenly thought they were right.  I did a lot of soul searching in my third year and finally proved to myself that they were wrong.  Completely 100% flat out wrong.  In fact, I think that as a whole they are some of the most arsinine things ever written and I honestly hope that none of my readers will give a bunch of whining washouts any credit.  That's about as nice as I can say about that, and I won't get any meaner than that here.  This blog is no longer about them.  It's about my thoughts on law school and my experiences as a student.  I will still post here.  There is a lot to be said about law school, becoming a lawyer, and my reflections on it all.  It was three years of my life, a life that I hope will be a long one as a result of healthy positive thinking, a vegetarian/vegan diet, and a close walk with God. 

I thank my readers for being with me through all of this and putting up with me.  I had a lot of fun writing this and I will not stop now.  And let me say, no matter where you go, you will find success.  I work with a ton of people from tier four law schools and they are doing wonderful.  Nobody seems to care where you went to school at my firm.  That was a fear of mine a while back, and it was irrelevant.  What matters is you.  How you treat others, how you improve yourself throughout life, and how you view yourself and the world around you.  Do not think that status and prestige matter.  In the end those things are worthless. 

Now, it is time to prepare for the bar, prepare for finals, and get ready for an amazing month and a week long trip to the other side of the world!

Comments are once again off

Comments are not allowed anymore.  I was getting:
1.  Way too much spam.
2.  I don't want to hear what my critics have to say, because their view has been proven irrelevant and the logic is that of a child.
3.  Mean people stink!

Brian Tannebaum - Internet Troll and "Lawyer" (Updated)

Ah, yes, Mr. Brian Tannebaum, "hyper-successful" Florida defense "lawyer".  Or prick, in other words.  Who evidently has whole swathes of time in his afternoons to troll sites like this and insult people.


Here's some of the comments he has not yet deleted:

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Congratulations, this is the most pathetic post I've ever read.

 

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 1:04 PM

This is a protest? Don't you have to get off your couch to protest something?

 

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I love this community. There is nothing better than being around people that make you feel better about yourself. And as far as what I find pathetic? I think it's unfair that you are asking me to be specific when I am unable to find anything in the article that's not pathetic. Now go make sure your Mommy has made you dinner while you curse the man for not giving you the job you were promised.

 

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Gee, I've never ever ever ever seen that comment before. Maybe we have people working for us, maybe we don't need to have 300 cases a day to make rent. Maybe this is when we eat lunch. But keep trying, one day you'll have this type of practice. No, actually, I'm kidding, you won't.

 

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Does it hurt you to be so stupid? I mean I realize you're anonymous so you get to sit at home and be happy that no one knows who you are, but do you really think that not having a link to staff on my website means I have no staff? NO, wait, you do. Damn. And 300 clients? Here's what I said punk: "maybe we don't need to have 300 cases a day to make rent." I don't have 300 clients, don't need 300 clients. Maybe if I charged $500 a case I would, but, nevermind. Hey, listen, next time you're in Miami, come by the office. I'll provide the tissues.

 

Brian Tannebaum April 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Mom?

 

 

 

Seriously, what a douchebag.

 

Was he drunk perhaps?  Who knows.  But anyone who posts insults online under their own name lacks common sense.  You want this moron as your defense attorney?  He's laughing at you behind you back while taking your money.  Note to future clients - there's a difference between hiring an aggressive, competent attorney and hiring a loudmouthed dick.  Tennebaum is the latter, by the way.

 

This clown is the current president of the Florida Association of Bar Defense Lawyers.  Awesome representative they have - someone who insults people online like a ten year old. Do they know he trolls sites under his real name, insulting new entrants to the profession?

 

But be careful!  This media tycoon had his article "The Bar Grievance Process" published in the statewide magazine, Florida Defender.  Professor Brian Leiter, watch out!  We have another super author academic on our radar now.  Florida Defender?  That's right up there with, er, the New Mexico Journal of Horse Physiology, or Alabama Raccoon Hunter Weekly.  What a prestigious publication.  We're in awe of your awesomeness, Brian.

 

In 2003, The National Law Journal recognized Brian's acquittal in US v. Dow as one of the "Top 10 defense verdicts in the United States." So be careful - this super lawyer has done nothing of note for a decade other than hack away in criminal court, get drunk, and work on his "phone book lawyer" photo.

He has two highly popular blogs, each generating upwards of one comment per post.  My Law License and Criminal Defense Blog, both of which deal with two topics: "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and "drinking wine".  Two topics that his comments on this site also echo - us pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, and him drinking lots of wine.


Brian, you don't want to start a fight with us online.  So be a good little boy, disappear back to your low-end practice, and we'll leave you alone. But come here and start insulting us, and you'll find yourself on the losing end (again), just like everyone else who went before you.  You see, we're not all unemployed lawyers.  There's many people here who have careers you can only dream of.  AUSAs, high-end NYC and LA criminal defense, judges, etc.  You mistake our concern with legal education issues for personal failure.  Trust me, Brian, our anger at the legal education system doesn't mean that we haven't found jobs, or even had jobs for longer than you've been practicing. And there's some of us who work down in your neck of the woods - you might even know us.  I'm sure I'll get plenty of emails from people who know you.

Now get lost, you sad, pathetic, drunk little man.


(It seems like I'm - we're - not the only ones who think this guy is a dick.  See the following:  http://asshatlawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/brian-10-year-bomb-tannebaum-from-miami-florida-tannebaumweiss-com/)

Asshatlawyers...

UPDATE:

Ah, the irony.

Brian Tannebaum comes here trolling, and does us all an inadvertent favor.  One of the goals of this blog is to deter people from becoming lawyers.  And he's done plenty of that.  Who seriously wants to become someone whose friends even refer to as a dick? Who seriously looks at this guy and thinks, "I want to be him."  He's truly done us a favor - making the reality of being a lawyer come to life.

Anon at 10:24 sumed it up fairly well:

I don't know Tannebaum, but I have been practicing personal injury trial law (plaintiff’s side) for almost thirty years now in Florida, and our entire profession has become one ruled by uncivility and outright aggressiveness. After doing this job for a while, being an assh*** becomes almost second nature and a necessary part of a person’s personality to survive in this type of environment . . one where neither truth nor justice are the goal but winning through gamesmanship means everything. If lawyers simply acted ethically and respectfully, simply complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure on a routine bases, the practice of law would be much more enjoyable. Therein lies the problem with Mr. Tannenbaum. He has become a hyper aggressive casualty of what our profession has become.

Tannebaum embodies "success" as a lawyer these days - for those of you who will end up outside the elite practices in NYC, DC, LA and Fed.  That is what you can aspire to become.  If you're lucky, that is.  If you're unlucky, you just end up being an aggressive, thoughtless tool with no business.  At least this clown has clients.  There's always one or two lawyers in town who develop a reputation for being assholes, and being proud of it.  Brian is one of them.  It works - it brings in the kind of client who is willing to fight dirty and win on issues other than the law.  And it works for those clients, because the system hasn't yet learned to deal with those lawyers who abuse it.

And for those of you who don't aspire to Tannebaum's stratospheric levels of professional sleaziness success, you're in for a treat.  Because practicing law involves what this blog highlighted over the past two days: dealing with people you'd normally never even speak to.  Your days will be filled with obstruction and harassment from so-called leading lawyers who represent the other side.  Voice mails, demands, bullying, aggression, threats, dishonesty, timewasting, etc.  All the little "tricks" that they know to make your client give up.  Not lose.  Just give up.  They win cases by wasting your client's time and money.  Wallets and boneheadness win in Brian's world.  Dirty, but they win.  It works in criminal defense, family law, just about everything.  If you can wear down your opponent, you win.

So, Brian did you all an unwitting favor.  Either our readers will become someone like him, or will be practicing law against someone like him.  That's a shitty choice, and one that will cause many prospective lawyers to choose different careers.  You can't avoid the Brians.

Get a grip, people.  Don't go to law school. The past two days is like thirty minutes in the sleazy world of small firm practice.  (Me?  I represent big clients in a big firm.  Smalltime clowns like Brian fold every day when we flash our clients' wallets. This way of practicing cuts both ways.  Brians settle when my firm starts doing what it does. Just like he's "settled" and shut his mouth after he's realized that trolls don't win internet fights.)

But even more irony...

Brian himself will be sitting at his desk right now, rubbing his hands with glee.  He's just gained some additional "I'll fight for you!" back-of-the-phonebook defense lawyer cred.  The kinds of clients he takes love this stuff.  They see this kind of trashy behavior as the kind of go-getter, aggressive, take-no-prisoners attitude that they value in a defense lawyer.  Causing trouble and refusing to back down, even when hopelessly wrong?  That's priceless publicity for defense lawyers.

So we all win, right?  Or not.  Because we all lose.  The legal profession loses by valuing, even praising, this kind of Jerry Springer behavior.  For those of us who have practiced law for a while (including me), working alongside this kind of lawyer in this kind of environment is depressing.  Lucrative, but depressing.  At least I f**k over opposing counsel with dignity. You get some fancy letterhead when I send you a "go f**k yourself" letter.  But that's what law is these days - bickering, cheating, twisting, timewasting, and doing everything possible to avoid the merits of the case.

If you want to be putting out expertly-set fires by arsonist lawyers like Brian all day, then go ahead - there's 200 law schools that will happily take your money, and countless thousands of Brians who will make your professional life miserable.

If you want a career where there's perhaps one Brianesque dick in the entire company, who you can happily avoid and deal only with the normal people, then pick something other than law.

Thanks, Brian!  You've done our readers a favor.

Moving on, as of tomorrow, I'll be hitting the moderation hard, and I expect the other mods here to do likewise.  Trolls will be deleted.  End of story.

Legal Job Outlook for 2014

The best year in law since 2006!

"What is the lawyer job outlook like for 2014?"

This is a question that hundreds of people have asked me, and it needs to be addressed.  I don't know when I became the expert on the future legal job market, but the reality is that many people come to this blog with such questions in mind, so I figured I would take this chance and talk about the 2014 legal job market in great detail.

First, there is actually little information out there on the 2014 job market.  Many students are holding their breath, so to speak, when it comes to getting jobs in 2014.  Many people who are taking the bar this July and next year are going to be largely entering the job market at the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014.  That means that people want to know what the job market is going to look like, but few people really know.

I do not know what the legal job market looks like in 2014, but I can give you some of my guesses.  Time will tell whether or not these guesses prove to be correct.  However, let me tell you right now that I have often found that I am right about gleaning information.  Whether you trust what I have to say is up to you.  However, I would like to state that I have it on a pretty dang good hunch that 2014 is going to be better than 2013 is turning out to be!

Why?

First, there are less law school applicants now than ever.  Law schools are cutting enrollment because the profession cares about not saturating the market.  Even if law schools were not cutting enrollment, I believe the legal market would be fine.  As an economics major I pay a great amount of attention to how the market works. 

Less law students are enrolling in 2013, and that means in 2016 there will be more jobs.  Up until 2016, including during 2014, the legal job market will steadily improve.  More and more baby boomers will be retiring from the legal field.  More jobs will begin to open and employers will know that there is a smaller pool to grab from.  While this year may be hard for some students, those students who volunteer, take lower paid jobs, and who continue to actively improve their legal skills will most likely find the kind of jobs that they are looking for. 

However, let me say right now that those who let their law skills slide will have a much tougher time getting a legal job.

"Should I go to law school if I am an older student?"

"Will I be able to find a legal job as an older student?"

Define older.  Do you mean 30s, 40s, older?  50s?  Yes and yes, you should go to law school if you think that you want to practice law. 

One lawyer had this to say about finding a legal job at an older age:

"[A]s far as firms looking for young whipper-snappers to work those 80-hour weeks, perhaps some firms do, but I think most firms realize that a person a few years older is more likely to have developed a professional work ethic (as opposed to just an academic work ethic--and they're very different), and is also likely to know what he is getting into."

Law firms do want older employees.  While some state that law firms only want young employees, the reality is that their reasoning is off in left field.   Law firms care about the bottom line, money.  Older attorneys have relevant job experience and have a lot to give to a firm.  Law firms do not want children running around.  They do not want to be a babysitting outfit.  I have gone to law school with older students, and I must say I see a HUGE difference in maturity between law students who are young and playing with their phones in class and the geriatrics (just kidding) who sit in the front row, engaged in studying.  In fact, I would not be surprised if it was the old fogeys were who reeling in the top grades and high ranks. 

In short, go to law school if you want to and if you are old, do not let it hold you back.  And if you are worried about 2014 being a bad year, forget about it!

As for me, it's time to do some naked yoga and perhaps watch some Dr. Who.

Law Schools Search for Loose Change

In the never-ending quest to find loose change in the couch cushions, law schools are offering some creative new course offerings. Many of these are online! Here's a sample from yesterday's announcements:

1. A legal English class for foreign lawyers

"Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri, has begun offering a ground-breaking course in Legal English to help international legal practitioners develop the skills needed to conduct law-related business matters. The law school is the first top-tier U.S. law school to offer such a course in an online format, allowing legal practitioners to develop related skills without having to travel to the United States for an extended stay."

2. Indigenous Peoples Law

"The University of Oklahoma School of Law is launching a new program designed to help American Indian tribal officials and others navigate the legal landscape in Indian Country. OU recently opened enrollment for its new online Master of Legal Studies program in Indigenous Peoples Law. Classes begin in the fall semester."

3. Executive Leadership

"Lincoln Memorial University officials announced Tuesday a new leadership center and degree programs they hope will bolster its downtown Knoxville law school, which has been struggling to achieve accreditation and battling a decline in enrollment."

"The Center for Leadership and Community Advocacy, modeled after a similar facility at Pepperdine University in California, will focus on conflict resolution and mediation, university President B. James Dawson said. The center will offer an educational doctorate in executive leadership, a master’s in education in community agency counseling, a master’s of business administration and a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice."