Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Don't Go To Law School (Unless)

Several people have suggested that I write an e-book that prospective law students, their families, and current law students could consult in the process of deciding whether law school was a good idea.  DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL (UNLESS) was published today at Amazon (a print edition will be available soon as well).

As the acknowledgements recognize, the commenters at this site (who have collectively left more than 30,000 comments in the 13 months of its existence) contributed significantly to the book's genesis and composition.

Here's a National Law Journal article regarding it.

Over the past year I've spoken to many people who wanted advice regarding law school, and I'll continue to do so.  I hope they and others like them find this book useful.



232 comments:

  1. Congrats, LawProf. Can't wait to read it.

    I've never had the chance to say it, but thank you for everything you've done over the past year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only problem with the NLJ link is that it requires an account and costs quite a bit for a subscription.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Antiro, you can get a free 90 day subscript in a few steps. (It's the 3rd option far right after clicking the "register" button).

      Delete
    2. PS - There's nothing particularly interesting at the NLJ link.

      Ms. Sloan just gave an even-handed review of the book, mostly based on LP's own points, so pretty much par for the course of any frequent reader here.

      Delete
  3. By the way, I can't wait until Leiter is forced to review (or even just discuss) this book. I hope his head doesn't explode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's my plan for reviewing the book:
      1. Find grammar flaws real or perceived to pick at.
      2. Quote my close, close friend and frequent commenter "Anon" over at Prawfsblaaaawwggg as an expert witness rebutting anything Campos says.
      3. Use the word "versatile" and the phrases "it's versatile", "it's a very versatile degree", and "it's a very, very versatile degree" several times.
      4. Review 25 or so William F. Buckley writings, dredging them for nice turns of phrase, despite how much I despised that man's politics.
      5. Refer to Campos's partner in crime, "DMJ", several times as "DMJ".
      6. Mention how many "research" writings were authored by Buzz Leityear in the last 2 years.
      7. Mention how few "research" writings were authored by Campos in the last 2 years.
      8. Sneer several times throughout. Both verbally during the review, and physically (while looking in the mirror) just for the sake of mood-setting.
      9. Mention my own annual LS ratings system, which is based on publication of "scholarship" and "research" articles, at least 3 or 4 times.
      10. Slip in the "fact" that, as per my own ratings system, that benighted little LS that Campos "teaches" at (Boulder College of Cosmetology and Law, or some such) is ranked quite low compared to CCN.
      11. Remind people several times that I teach at one of the "Cs" of the CCN.

      Delete
    2. This was entertaining.

      Delete
  4. I'm interested in reading about the "psychological traps" mentioned in the Amazon review.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Will the print edition be available at Barnes and Noble? I'd like to do my part to help put it on the New York Times bestseller list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a chance. But have fun trying!

      Delete
    2. I'm assuming that you, like me, don't have a Kindle, but you can download free reading apps for PC and Mac, as well as smartphones and tablets here:

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=sv_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771

      Delete
  6. Thank you for all of your great work, LawProf. Anecdotally, I can say that students and the general public are now more aware of the pitfalls of going to law school. But there are still people who will be seduced by the prosepect, however dim, of a lucrative career or helping the underdog. That's why your book is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Flipped through it tonight. Concise summary of the points we need to get across to prospective students with biting commentary on legal academia. Now if we could only get applicants to read the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How many pages? (Or how many words?)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why pay $4.99 when one can read the posts on this website? I read the preview and it appears the contents are the same as here. I wonder if everyone's comments were Prof Campos' research.

    Also, I wonder how the University of Colorado views this publication in light of academia's notorious "publish or perish" expectations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure that self publishing counts...

      Delete
    2. Indeed, nothing counts unless it appears in a law review. For that matter, the sun doesn't rise in the morning unless a law review tells it to.

      Delete
    3. I'm also wondering where Campos is planning to donate the revenue from the book. He has said that he cannot accept donations from this website because he is a salaried professor and sees publicizing the law school scam essentially as a moral obligation given his position. Presumably he would not think it appropriate to profit from chronicling the scam's existence - especially off the backs of 0Ls who may not have a lot of money or options, given unemployable humanities degrees. I hope to hear some assurance from Campos that the profits from this project will be donated to LST or another worthy cause linked to law schools' bad behavior.

      Delete
    4. I don't think that that's any of our business. I won't begrudge Prof. Campos a few dollars from a self-published book.

      Delete
    5. I don't mind. He did the work. He should be paid for it. The scam is out there. It's open for anyone to write a book about.

      Delete
    6. "Also, I wonder how the University of Colorado views this publication in light of academia's notorious "publish or perish" expectations."

      Um, the concept of tenure has escaped you, no?

      Delete
    7. Agreed that you don't really need to buy or read this book if you've read most of the posts here. But people have pointed out in the past that it would be good to have a listing of all the best posts and this book basically does that.

      As for 0Ls not having a lot of money, this book is $5 geez.

      Delete
    8. A couple of points:

      1. Why not $0.99? This book is about the message, right? Not making money. So price it to spread the message.

      2. If I were Campos, I would, as a matter of common sense, donate all proceeds, because he's already walking a thin line by working as a professor while complaining that it's all a big scam. Now there's a book that is making him money based off the scam? And also based off the input and support of this blog by his readers, who are the victims? Keeping the proceeds will open him up to all manner of attacks, more legitimately in this case, because there's actually an appearance of impropriety by using the book as a source for cashing in a second time on the backs of law students.

      Delete
    9. I am pretty sure that Campos already donated a ton of $ to Law School Transparency (I think that I recall reading that he and DJM were the two greatest individual donors?).

      Anyway, my points is that after all that he has done, I hope that he buys something that brings him a bit of enjoyment.

      Maybe a nice tshirt with Leiter's face on it?

      Delete
    10. It's not about rewarding him for something well deserved. It's about looking like taking advantage of victims of the scam. It is an easy way to discredit the current leader of the movement. It's like a TV evangelist driving around in a $100K BMW, funded by the congregation. Just looks bad. (Not saying that Campos will get rich from this book, but even receiving the proceeds is an ethical sticking point for me, and I can't justify buying it for that reason. I think it was a poorly thought out, rushed decision to publish this book. If it adds little beyond the content of this blog, then it's really just cashing in!)

      From an outsider's view, this is a law professor writing about the scam, paid for by the scam (via his salary), and now selling books about the scam to the very victims of that same scam!

      Hardly a ringing endorsement for the moral high ground in this debate.

      To put it into a simpler context, it is like a drug dealer writing a book on how bad drugs are, then selling it to his own addicts at the same time as selling them drugs.

      It just looks bad, that's all. Plus surely that nice law prof salary is compensation enough, especially as it's funded by scam victims already!

      This book should have been freely downloadable from this site. Seeing as it has been written very quickly, it doesn't represent a significant investment of time (like the years and years it takes for some books to get written), and selling it just looks so bad!

      Delete
    11. 6:24, thank you for taking the time to question Campos' personal motives, rather than the substance of his message(s). This blog needs more of that.

      Delete
    12. Again, 8:57, you clearly don't understand marketing. A free or extremely cheap book won't necessarily be taken as seriously as a book that costs more. And $5 is nothing in light of what future law students will be paying for their "education," and is nothing compared to most pre-law books.

      But again, I'm sure Campos will be happy to talk about his motives for choosing this price. Meanwhile law profs were going to insult any price that he chose.

      Delete
    13. I am not sure how Campos writing a book dedicated to stopping dumb smart kids from making a massive financial mistake is anything short of heroic.

      Delete
  10. Here's an aspect of this crisis in the legal profession that--while not consistent with the resounding sentiment on this blog--should be addressed. A piece of Mitt Romney's blunt remarks got me thinking about this website: the seeming rush to claim victimhood. I would guess that well over 47% this blog's commentariat view themselves as victims. These are the "I did everything right" and "I worked so hard" types that claim some degree of entitlement to a standard of living.

    I know it's hard. I know what it's like chasing after doc review projects, because I've done it. I know what it's like to interview with the skeazy managers of bottom-feeding law firm mills, because I've done that too. And I have a supreme distaste for legal academia's obsession with navel-gazing and armchair philosophy, among other vices.

    But shouldn't we be doing everything in our power not to claim ourselves to be victims just yet and figure out ways to prop each other up? A number of you probably have already lost hope, but for what it's worth, I'm still hoping that each of you (yes, even JDPainter) can turn around a good outcome from a sordid mess of a legal market. I wish I had ideas for you, but I prefer to think that the possibility of a future is still out there. Go ahead and vilify me for having stars in my eyes or being out of touch and sounding like a self-help manual and whatnot. But a little more of a positive attitude can at least better your outlook. You're not victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to hear concrete suggestions. I've never been one to frame myself as a victim or to claim entitlement, but I do see the legal "profession" as badly warped.

      And, yes, I did everything right.

      Delete
    2. Nah. I still say fuck it. Live at home with the parents and watch daytime TV all day.

      Delete
    3. 6:53 here again. Here's my attempt at a suggestion, though right from the get-go, I will tell you that this is not a silver bullet, since the industry as a whole is undergoing mass layoffs, these are not a legal jobs per se and the preference is for people with experience. But has anyone thought about going into banking? I have a friend that applied for a private banking position and was passed over for a J.D. holder. Also, with the massive regulatory overhaul post-Dodd-Frank, there is a need for people to figure this stuff out. I've spoken with a regulatory consultant who demonstrated an interest in looking at J.D.s since "you guys seem to like reading" regulations etc. Layoffs are in the headlines, but there is also fertile ground for the mortgage origination business to take off, with interest rates so low and the housing market looking like it has bottomed out. Seriously consider this as an option.

      Delete
    4. "A number of you probably have already lost hope, but for what it's worth, I'm still hoping that each of you (yes, even JDPainter) can turn around a good outcome from a sordid mess of a legal market."

      Oh, yeah. Please fix it. Everyone is doing everything they can. That's the point. I'm not going to vilify you because you seem like a decent person based on your comment, but really let's call a spade a spade. If you were lied to, you were lied to. You're a victim. If you were treated as a source for originating the federal paperwork to get a school money, you are indeed the victim of that.

      If you're asking whether anyone here is nurturing their own sense of victimhood, then that's quite a different matter. I think there is quite a bit of commiseration that goes on, but I don't have a problem with it. This is what people do. if you or anyone else doesn't like what that looks like, then, like, what do you want me to say? Really?

      Your sentiment about propping each other up is a nice one. Some of that is needed. The fact is that were I in a position to hire anyone for a non-legal job, I wouldn't just can all the law grads. I think there is a lot of very smart commentary on this blog. I defy you to go over to CNN and find fewer spelling errors or more wit or better insight. There is no doubt that most of the people here are more than talented enough to be successful, ignoring, of course, their circumstances. Is there a possibility of a future? No idea. Maybe? The fact, though, that you cite Mitt Romney is proof enough that if the people here can't solve their own person crises, there's just about no hope that anyone with the calibre of the general population over at CNN is going to solve it.

      Delete
    5. Wow. Banking, huh? I guess you've solved the entire crisis with that insight. Maybe you could toss us idiots another bone and suggest "corporations" as untapped, hidden sources of jobs where JDs are hungrily snapped up?

      Listen bozo, most of us have applied to law firms, banks, non-profits, hospitals, colleges, media companies, corporations of every flavor, every government agency within a five state radius, courts, startups, established companies, in big cities and small towns, the whole lot. That's what the problem is! There's no jobs! So while it's great that you have anecdotal evidence of an isolated instance of one lawyer getting hired instead of your buddy, it's not as if we're all sitting here firing off resumes only to law firms and have not spent the past five years desperately hunting for any job, anywhere.

      Delete
    6. Let's not be rude. This person is trying to help. I haven't found the suggestions very helpful, but I'm willing to listen to anything at this point. There's no need to turn abusive.

      Delete
    7. "I would guess that well over 47% this blog's commentariat view themselves as victims. "

      Don't confuse numbers of posts with discrete poster numbers.

      Delete
    8. 6:53 again. I've been called far worse than "bozo" before, so I'm not bothered. Besides, my comments are unfortunately chock full of disclaimers and are based on anecdotes on their face. The plain fact about the economic environment is that there are not enough jobs to go around. I get that.

      Other suggestions: How about approaching firms about negotiating a "probationary period" in which they can pay you a student clerk's rate for a few months so they can "try you out" and you can show off your skills? Or read your local business news to see if there are companies that have significant growth opportunities, like those that have publicly announced impending mergers or consolidations or are otherwise posting consistent growth? I am also surprised by the number of friends who have landed jobs in sales and business development. These are not McJobs; I'm referring to commission-based positions. Yes, it's not ideal, but there is a better business justification for salespeople since corporate support and professional services (e.g. legal teams) are mostly overhead and sales personnel directly generate income for the business.

      Again, I'm firing what comes to mind. I know that my attempt to try is not good enough if the result isn't there. And there's the elephant in the room called " six-figure student loans." But maybe this will get some wheels turning in some readers' minds. Probably not, but hopefully this helps at least someone.

      Delete
    9. "I know it's hard. I know what it's like chasing after doc review projects, because I've done it. I know what it's like to interview with the skeazy managers of bottom-feeding law firm mills, because I've done that too."

      Curious how you ended up, by the way. Are you still chasing the above, or have you found a "way out" to a different legal job? Or completely out of the legal arena?

      Delete
    10. Sorry, I can't sell anything on commission. I'd sooner slit my wrists. Besides, I came into this racket wanting to be a lawyer. At least I don't have student loans, so I'm better off than a lot of people here.

      Delete
    11. Again, 6:53, you're preaching to the choir. We have all already done that, and more. Some of us have been looking for that worthwhile job every day for half a decade, and we have looked in places you wouldn't even know existed.

      Plus you make a rather basic error in your assumptions. To you, it's a lack of jobs, and you think those jobs will appear if we can just show employers how good we are. But in reality, the lack of jobs is just the symptom of the underlying problem, which is a lack of business.

      You could be the best lawyer in the world, but unless you can bring in business to the firm that will cover your salary, you won't get hired, nor will you get hired if the firm just doesn't have the work for you to do.

      The bottom line is that there are not enough clients willing to pay decent rates for lawyers anymore. So no matter how great a lawyer you are, how nice you are, how amazing an employee you turn out to be, you will not get hired if there is not enough income for the firm to hire you with.

      It sounds like you're either very young or very new to all of this. So trust me when I tell you that your helpful insights into where the jobs are is insulting. We looked in those places years ago, and we still look in those places, plus a thousand places you've never even dreamed of, each and every day. So please stop insulting us with the "have you tried [insert obvious thing here]?" crap that makes you sound like one of the ditzes working in a career services office.

      Delete
    12. Give it a break, you 47%r.

      Delete
    13. And law, by the way, is a "sales" position. You're hawking expensive, unnecessary services on clients. They can get most of what they need done with a little common sense, a few minutes on LegalZoom, or by the cheap lawyer down the street who is begging for business because his house is going to be foreclosed on.

      In all my years in law firms, it was 90% sales, 10% actual legal work.

      Delete
    14. "To you, it's a lack of jobs, and you think those jobs will appear if we can just show employers how good we are."

      Yes. A complete Jack Marshallization of the situation, if you will. And law professors are apparently on board with this lune's logic.

      Delete
  11. Don't go to law school unless you were born with a silver spoon up your ass.

    And that category accounts for a hell of a lot of law students. About a quarter of the students at Columbia graduate with no debt—courtesy, no doubt, of Daddy's exchequer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jealous much?

      And you know what? Mom's have money too!

      Delete
    2. Endorsing an ethically-fucked, taxpayer-funded scam, much?

      Delete
    3. How is it a tax-payer scam if your parents or your trust fund pays for it?

      You say don't go unless you have money. If you have money, the tax-payers aren't getting involved at all.

      Delete
    4. Of course I'm not jealous.

      Delete
  12. Please also buy my audiobook on Amazon.

    It's called "Should I Go to Law School?" and it features me saying "No" in all 6500 spoken languages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw you doing commercials for Capital One credit cards a few years back. You're David Spade.

      Delete
    2. Capital One Spokesperson:
      - " Whatsin YER wallet??"


      LawGrad:
      - " Nottabloody THING!!"

      Delete
  13. Unfortunately, this book came too late for me but it should me mandatory reading, as well as this site, for anyone considering law school. However, publishing a book is one thing, promoting it is another. CBS should be contacted for a segment on 60 Minutes...and other news programs as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Frontline needs to do a documentary on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. said that a few posts ago.

      Delete
  15. I'm not religious. But I believe Prof. Campos is doing God's work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Goldman Sachs is "Doing God's Work".

      Remember, that's what Blankfein said.

      He's "Doing God's Work".

      So, at the very least, they have a copyright on that phrase. It may be a trademark as well.

      Delete
    2. Campos is as shameless as they come.

      Might as well be a heroin dealer selling tickets for $5 a pop telling people the dangers of getting hooked on heroin.

      Then again, what more can be expected of your typical law professor?

      Delete
    3. Dona,

      I think you might be an idiot.

      Delete
    4. 4:54 AM,

      I think you might be Marie Antoinette.

      Delete
    5. "I think you might be Marie Antoinette."

      You misspelled Brian Leiter.

      Delete
    6. 4:53

      Huh? I don't get your analogy. So telling people about the dangers of going to law school is going to get them hooked on going to law school?

      Delete
    7. "Let them eat Ramen!"

      Delete
  16. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105887484/Occupy-Wall-Street-Strike-Debt-The-Debt-Resistors-Operations-Manual

    There is a pretty good overview of basic information.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I knew this was coming...this was Paul's motive all along.

    $$$

    Knew it..just knew it.

    That's why he never disclosed that he was in the process of publishing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all knew his blogging over the past year was just a cover for this $5K money-making enterprise.

      Delete
    2. That's right. Law prof risked the hatred from the legal community and his peers just so he can sell books for free downloads or for $5.00

      I am sure the millions he makes will more than compensate for the harassment and shunning he has had to endure. LOL again.

      Delete
  18. Since this book is a public service, I'm sure someone(s) will invest the $5 for poor Paul, who now is trying to get them coming, present, and going, and distribute it far and wide on every torrent, newsgroup, and fileserve on the internets.

    Of course, Paul should only be so happy when this is done, because it will get the word out.

    It's not about the $. The $5 price was just because only those 0Ls who are SERIOUS about knowing the truth need know it.

    Of course, I would never post this copyrighted work online. That goes without saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are you getting this from? Have you talked to him about his motives, the price he chose for the book, or what he plans to do with the profits? I'm sure he'll say soy something about it.

      But holy shit do you law profs love to assume the very worst about every move Campos makes. This guy can't scratch his balls without you guys calling him a hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. Most 0Ls will be able to get the book for free. Every college student I know has Amazon prime.

      Delete
  19. Seems like there would be a lot of smallish and mid-sized firms that would need an in-house lawyer but cannot afford to fund a full-time position. if they had a someone in marketing or sales or administration with a JD who could pick up the legal duties on an as-needed basis, even if only to monitor their outside legal firm, it would be very beneficial to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, because a JD without experience still doesn't have the foggiest idea what even the smallest businesses need on a day to day basis in terms of legal services. It's like learning to program to make yourself more competitive for sales jobs because every company has computer software.

      Unless the boss desperately wants someone to discuss the lastest federal circuit opinions with at lunch, then I'm sure a JD would be very useful.

      Delete
    2. So the corporation just accepts whatever legal services the outside firm wants to supply at whatever price they chose to charge?

      Seems that has been a slight problem of late?

      Delete
    3. Or goes to LegalZoom. Or hires a attorney on the cheap for the short time they're needed.

      Why hire an attorney to do legal things + other things when the legal things are 1% of your company's needs and attorneys aren't trained to do other (relevant) things.

      Delete
  20. I sort of see things this way: http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-bourne-identity/eMTptm2umhtmb/#!quotes/

    ReplyDelete
  21. I wonder how many of the these comments are from law professors...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll bet that every single comment that is even the slightest bit critical of anything Paul says is probably a law professor, dean, or administrator of some sort.

      Delete
    2. But law professors don't have the time to post here, nor would they be interested in doing so because none of them care about this blog or anything LP and DJM have to say. Leiter has told us this many times.

      Delete
    3. Yes. Law professors are busy all day doing important and necessary work. LOL.

      Delete
  22. Fuck the haters. I hope Campos does manage to get rich off this. He deserves it. The rest of you fucks deserve the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which fucks, exactly do you mean?

      And for the record, Campos' books don't sell that well.

      Maybe things will change with this one, but his little $5 plan hardly makes him the Louie C.K. of the law school scam.

      Delete
    2. I see you fucks are getting pretty angry now.

      Delete
    3. Why pick on Campos for remaining in his faculty position? Think of how much more credible a warning about "the military-industrial complex" was because it came from a General. (The same can be said for the book "War Is A Racket.) Campos knows how the system works; as long as he remains in his position, no one can call him a loser or accuse him of being envious of those who've gotten rich under the system.

      Delete
    4. Plus if he resigned they'd make sure to emphasize that he is a "failed" quitter.

      Delete
  23. Forget the Lawyering, get ye to the coal mines!!!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/harvard-losing-out-to-south-dakota-in-graduate-pay-commodities.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. to 5:09

    no one would take any legal advice from a marketing person, even with a JD, seriously. it just doesnt work that way in the real world. conversely, no one would take marketing advise from someone with a jd seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the outside law firm is certainly not going to review their own billing and the outside law firm is not going to have the in-depth product or industry knowledge that someone inside the firm would have.

      The template seems to be to put people in the "lawyer" pigeon-hole or the "not lawyer" pigeon-hole. I am just asking why.

      Delete
    2. Business people know the objective they want to achieve and they task the lawyer with finding a way to achieve it. The legal work is just one small piece of the puzzle along with the marketing, financing, etc.

      The outside firm will review their billing to make sure the price of their services is appropriate for the task. It will be reviewed by the client as well just like any other cost.

      Delete
    3. Well I think having a JD in house reviewing the billing would have a cautionary aspect to overcharging by the outside law firm to start with even before the in-house review.

      How do these HYS new graduates get the $160,000 starting salaries if someone is not being overcharged?

      Delete
  25. 626 here

    20 years of legal experience tells me that almost no one in the business world will take a lawyer seriously if they dont have have the right credentials and look and act the part. being in marketing and providing legal advice is not going to cut it for the vasy majority of business owners. sorry, but its a fact of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well if I am working as an in-house lawyer as an additional duty I could care less if you take me seriously. However you would be advised to take my questions seriously if you want to get paid and remain our outside law firm. Sorry, but that is a fact of life.

      Delete
    2. You wouldn't be working as an "in-house attorney" as an "additional duty".

      You would be working as a "administrative assistant with responsibility for looking at legal bills".

      And you would have no authority over outside counsel, nor would your boss listen to you.

      That's why he has outside counsel, fucktard! Because there's nobody inside that he listens to!

      Delete
  26. As a tiny part of the effort to cut down on the flow of lemmings to law school, I'm going to send a link to my undergraduate college student newspaper, (Bates College) and offer to buy them a copy if they will consider reviewing it. I request other readers to consider doing the same for their colleges and universities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like this idea. I'll do the same.

      Delete
  27. New law school is opening. It appears some people haven't received the memo. Maybe Law Prof could send them the book.

    "Louisiana College says J. Michael Johnson has resigned as dean of its Shreveport-based law school, a move that could delay the opening of the school."

    http://www.katc.com/news/la-college-law-school-dean-resigns/

    ReplyDelete
  28. So are people saying that prospective law students contemplating taking on 300k in debt for law school shouldn't invest $4.99 on this book. Lets be serious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what anonymous law professors are saying, yes.

      Delete
  29. Why is there a $4.99 price at all is the question.

    And if it was necessary, once costs are covered, where do the profits go?

    It is irrelevant to the content, but I think we'd all like to believe that Paul isn't going to profit from the endeavor, considering how much he's already profited from the scam (and continues to, of course).

    Again, this is not an attack on the premise of the book or anything in it, so don't get your panties in a bunch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Name one author that gives away their books for free. People don't work for free. They just don't, unless you're a law student or something trying to get experience or something.

      Delete
    2. Why do you care what lawprof earns? It really is none of your business.
      Why don't you write your own book?

      Delete
    3. No the don't necessarily give stuff away for free, but the $5 price point?

      Why not the 99 cent price? That would maximize sales and distribution while also minimizing the appearance of profiteering from the scam.

      Delete
    4. Concern troll is concerned.

      Delete
    5. Let me explain to you how it works. When people write their own books they get to set the price they sell it at. You can write a book and sell it for 99 cents if you want. Some people need to drop the I'm holier than thou routine.

      Delete
    6. And there is marketing to consider (not that a law professor would need to understand something as arbitrary and irrelevant as marketing). A 99 cent purchase price smacks of amateurism. Giving something away for free is even worse.

      Again, we'll let LP talk about his reason for selling the book at $5. I'm sure he knew that, no matter what price he chose, you fucks would be all over him regardless.

      Delete
    7. Hey clown, a self published book smacks of amateurism more than a 99c book. The price is irrelevant. It could be $28.99 and it would still be self-published and therefore dismissed by everyone except a few close family and friends.

      Delete
    8. I think you are mistaken about the self-published stuff being dismissed. This isn't the old days when people used to think that blogs would never be taken seriously. Things have changed.

      Delete
    9. Boomer nonsense. It hinders progression.

      Delete
  30. Have any of you ever published anything? for fuck's sake the writer doesn't just set the price. You think Amazon puts up ebooks for free for just anyone to read? You think there aren't a number of other people besides lawprof who are involved in this enterprise of getting an ebook ready and up on a major website?

    I honestly don't care if lawprof makes money off of this - why should he keep donating his time endlessly?

    Isn't this just a distraction?

    The real question is which schools are actually worth it and which schools are worth it for free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have not researched much about Amazon self publishing, have you?

      Try reading this before you embarrass yourself any further.

      https://kdp.amazon.com

      (If you can't be bothered, let me summarize it for you. It's free, easy, no middlemen, and the author sets the price.)

      Delete
    2. 9:11 you need to understand that a free ebook is seen by many as the equivalent of an anonymous internet post - not to be taken seriously. A 99 cent book is not viewed as much better. And $5 is still far cheaper than pretty much every "How to Succeed in Law School" book on the market.

      $5 is nothing. And you still don't know Campos' plans for the (likely meager) profits. Even if he had made it free you fucks would still criticize him (e.g. "Who's actually going to read this 99 cent piece of trash?")

      Delete
    3. No. Self-published "anything" is seen as not taken seriously, no matter what the price.

      This was a viable publication for a small academic press or independent publisher. Not anymore. This book is now in the same category as "History of the Rowley Family, by Nancy Rowley (age 9)", "Cooking with Dogfood: My Life as a Pet Chef", and other self-published fare. Self-publishing means "nobody wanted to publish because [shitty book][shitty topic][crazy author]".

      Methinks there was a certain panic on Campos' part to make sure he was the first to write about this topic, and to be the defining book about it. And he would have been, with a little patience, and it could have been big. But now, it's just one more ignorable self-published book. Try getting interviews around that in any legitimate media outlet!

      And the law school scam movement struggles on without a bible, or at least without a bible that anyone outside the movement will consider worthy of being read, reviewed, and discussed.

      What a shame.

      Delete
    4. "And the law school scam movement struggles on."

      Keep dreaming, professor. This isn't going away.

      Delete
    5. Wow, moron, nice way to quote me out of context to pretend that you're correct. I actually posted (and it's right above your misquote so it's not hard to check) that "the law school scam movement struggles on WITHOUT A BIBLE", meaning that this book could, and should, have been what gave this worthwhile movement some much-needed momentum. I did not say that the movement was failing, as you pretended that I did.

      The key to misquoting is making sure that you do it in a way that most readers can't notice. You don't misquote right under the actual quote.

      My point was this book is a missed opportunity. A little planning, a little less rushing off to Amazon, and a little more concern about how poorly self-published eBooks are received would have gone a long way.

      WITCHCRAFT!!!!!

      And enough of your stupid cries of "Professor!!!!" as soon as someone posts something that isn't 100% cock-lickingly worshipful of Campos. It's like the fucking witch trials here, where everything is taken out of context, misinterpreted, and branded as evil if it helps a few select people get their own way.

      If you want that kind of audience for your posts, and if you want everyone to join in and persecute anyone even remotely critical, I think you're at the wrong blog. Third Tier Reality is more your style.

      Delete
    6. Alright, settle down. You do make some decent points. We could probably use to stop acting like every criticism of this blog/movement comes from law professors. On the other hand who didn't know the minute they saw this post that anonymous law professors would be jumping all over Campos for self-publishing his book. If he had it published by someone else they'd be all over him for writing five fewer pages than he should have.

      I disagree though that self-publishing is some sort of mark of death. That's like people arguing that posting on the internet has no effect and that we should instead pool our money to create flyers. Self-publishing is rapidly expanding, and this might be the kind of book that could help showcase its potential. Also, as another poster has mentioned, almost every college student has Amazon Prime.

      Delete
  31. I hope Campos uses the money to buy a shiny new BMW. He's earned it, unlike the law professor trolls who cowardly attack him anonymously. My message to you people: fuck off you worthless sacks of shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best case scenario, this is in fact a Campos Anon troll post itself. In any event, CAMPOS FTW!

      Delete
  32. Everybody should read this book to learn the truth about law professors. They aren't academics and they aren't lawyers. They are pseudo intellectuals. They are frauds.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Well I think having a JD in house reviewing the billing would have a cautionary aspect to overcharging by the outside law firm to start with even before the in-house review."

    i could teach a monkey how to review a bill. several of my clients relatively low level employees review my bills. its really not that hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK then, who reviews the billing in those firms that do have an in-house attorney or legal department - the janitor?
      After all, it is such a menial job anyone can be trained. Not like it is a very considerable expense or anything like that.

      Delete
    2. The $35k/year liberal arts grad.

      Delete
    3. Let me see if I believe that.........no, I don't, sorry.

      Delete
    4. I guess that settles it.

      Delete
  34. "OK then, who reviews the billing in those firms that do have an in-house attorney or legal department - the janitor?
    After all, it is such a menial job anyone can be trained. Not like it is a very considerable expense or anything like that."


    i am in private practice. several of my clients relatively low level employees review my bills.

    others have finance folks do it. seriously, its not complicated.

    further, there are services available that will review legal bills for a company and interface with the law firm if the bills exceed what is deemed reasonable. they work for a percentage of the amount billed or percentage of the savings.

    one doesnt need a jd to review bills anymore than one needs a jd to review documents.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why am I getting the feeling that the last thing law firms want to encounter is an employee of a client firm who knows his industry and firm cold and also has a JD? It would then be time for them to cut out the happy BS and produce?

      Delete
  35. Congratulations on the new book Prof. Campos. I can't wait to read it later tonight.

    And yes there is hope for me if I could get a small business loan.

    But the debt to income ration has forever ruined my credit, and I can only get approved for a credit card with a 400 buck limit.


    See how it works? The debt ruins the credit score and with the ruined credit comes so many other problems.

    Even car insurance premiums are higher for people with ruined credit.

    And car loans, if possible, will come with a high interest rate.

    And forget about a mortgage and forget about marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enough with the "forget marriage" stuff. If you have a significant other who is supportive and loves you - like what you need to get married? - then student debt is a non-issue. It's only an issue if your significant other is a money-grubbing piece of crap who thought he/she was marrying a rich lawyer.

      Life choices that involve no expense do not have to be put on hold. Like "marriage", and like "enjoying life outside work, even if it's not living a models and bottles lifestyle." Get a cheap hobby, read some books, do whatever. But there's little need to feel sorry for oneself under a pile of student debt when so many of the best things in life are free.

      Delete
  36. "OK then, who reviews the billing in those firms that do have an in-house attorney or legal department - the janitor?"

    secretaries sometimes. attorneys sometimes. outside consultants sometimes.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I worked in house. Our "billing review" process was simple. We told the firm how much we wanted to spend, they told us it was too little, we said ok we'll go elsewhere, miraculously the work could get done for our price after all, and then we refused to pay anything above what we agreed on. End of story.

      Billing review is merely chopping out stuff that doesn't make sense. A moron can do it. Even me. When I saw "email" and then more than six minutes billed, I cut it down to six minutes. When I saw "reviewed", I cut it in half. When I saw "discussed ... with", I scratched it all out. And so on. It doesn't take a JD to figure out what the bullshit in billing is. We know how long it takes to write an email or have a conversation or review a letter. And I expect a legal professional to be able to do it faster than me, not take five times as long.

      Delete
    2. If you are running a firm without an in-house legal department and you have JD on the staff in another capacity and the guy wants to do the billing review and other legal interface work as an additional duty why would you not let him?

      Delete
    3. Of course you could. But the point is that the JD will not get you hired as some kind of "billing review specialist".

      Once your foot is in the door, milk that JD for all its worth. But that JD isn't going to get you hired in the first place. In fact, as history has shown, the JD gets your resume trashed very quickly for most non-legal jobs.

      Delete
  37. For those who don't have a kindle device there are free reading apps for PC and Mac, as well as smartphones and tablets.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=sv_kstore_1?ie=UTF8&docId=1000493771

    ReplyDelete
  38. "If you are running a firm without an in-house legal department and you have JD on the staff in another capacity and the guy wants to do the billing review and other legal interface work as an additional duty why would you not let him?"

    becuase the perception is he would not be qualified to do legal work - if he was qualified to legal work he would be working as an atorney, not doing marketing or whatever. i'm sorry to burst your bubble that is reality.

    its a harsh world made harsher by the fact there are too many attorneys out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the reality is that the head of a company without an in-house legal department but who does have a sharp employee with a JD could care in the least what the outside attorneys think. They will do what they are told and work with who they are told.

      Delete
  39. I'm a prime member so I get the book for free. Why is the price the issue here instead of the content?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because most of us aren't Prime members. And most of us don't want to pay $5 for a reworded collection of posts from this site. And most of us don't like the idea of Campos' making money from this. Once he explains where the proceeds will be going, then people might buy. I'd buy if my proceeds were going to LST, and not to the Campos "Law Professor Salary Augmentation Fund".

      Delete
    2. Fuck you asshole.

      Delete
    3. Classy, 11:44. I see that this blog is degenerating from a once-pleasant and intelligent forum for the scam movement, now rapidly becoming more of a childish free-for-all for underemployed and offensive little kids.

      Delete
    4. @11:32, I don't think that "most" of the people here think that it is bad. Maybe just you?

      Delete
    5. I'm not seeing too many sales...

      Out of however many hundreds or thousands of people read this site, only one person has actually bothered to buy it?

      It's not as if we're all posting our reviews or even discussing what's inside the book, and this is for a $5 book we could all be reading right now on our computers, Kindles, or phones. We can't even be bothered to spend a few bucks and a few minutes of time to get it, but we can spend all this time posting comments here?

      Yeah, fucking bestseller, just like you say.

      Delete
    6. Like I said, fuck you. That's the only response your little contribution here merits.

      Delete
    7. It would be good if everyone just posted their own opinion instead of guessing what everyone else is thinking.

      I am all in favor of this. The more people who get word about the scam the better.

      I plan to buy a couple of hard copies to give to the pre-law advisers at the undergrad school near where i live.

      Delete
    8. I don't think that this book is written for the people who are already on this site. This book is for the people who are not informed about the scam yet.

      Delete
    9. Leiter @12:00 PM

      Well, Brian, I just bought it so that makes at least two sales.

      Delete
    10. How can you tell how many sales there are?

      Most college kids have prime Amazon accounts because you can get them for free with a college address.

      I don't know if the free downloads will be shown?

      Delete
    11. I don't plan on posting a review until I actually read it. :)

      Thanks for publishing this lawprof

      Delete
    12. Yawn. More dumb cries of "Leiter!" whenever a less than positive comment is posted. That's right, I'm Leiter. You got me! Well done, detective. Now how about you put as much effort into writing something useful in the comments instead of just telling everyone you don't like to fuck off?

      Delete
    13. Professor Leiter,

      Are you going to review this book?

      Delete
  40. Also, there's nothing about getting a JD that makes anyone more competent to review a bill than an executive assistant.

    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say a successful company owner did not become successful without using all of his employees' skills in a manner beneficial to the company and his employees. What part, if any, of the JD's salary is apportioned to his legal skills is between the JD and the owner.

      Delete
  41. 10:34, I understand your point. I might well learn something in a ten minute conversation with a colleague that it would take me 30 minutes to find out researching myself.

    Obviously, there are going to be times, lots of times, where a client is justified in cutting down on meetings. But the 'don't ever talk to anyone' rule I see from some clients is sometimes a stupidity in the other direction.

    CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:34, thinking that a substantive e-mail is only going to take 6 minutes is silly because it usually takes longer than that just to discuss it on the phone.

      Delete
    2. Don't be fucking obtuse - I was speaking generally. I worked as a lawyer for many years, and I know damn well that "email" was bullshit on a bill nine times out of ten. Yes, there were occasional substantive emails, and they were generally acceptable. But I scratched out every instance of "emailed ... " that had no description, or that I was not cc:d in on. I'm no fool, and everyone knows that billing for an email is a great way to pad one minute of work up to about six minutes worth of time. Want to bill an hour of work in ten minutes? Send ten emails to ten different people. Each one gets written down as six minutes.

      Delete
  42. "I think the reality is that the head of a company without an in-house legal department but who does have a sharp employee with a JD could care in the least what the outside attorneys think. They will do what they are told and work with who they are told."

    let me clarify. the perception that he is not qualified to do legal work will come from the company owner and other high level, mid level and lower level people within the company that the sharp, non legally employed jd holder works at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reply at 12:07 above. My mistake in posting.

      Delete
  43. Law prof, did you mention the correlation between law school and mental illness, e.g. the statistics showing that 0Ls are no more depressed than the rest of the population, but that 30-40% of 2Ls and 3Ls are depressed?

    If not, I respectfully say that's inexcusable. That, combined with the lack of jobs, is the reason of all why law school is THE WORST thing you can do with your life after college.

    An art grad program may not get you a job either, but it won't cause you to become mentally ill (in fact it'll probably raise your spirits). Not so for law school.

    Unfortunately, I suspect this aspect of the scam is something even people like you don't want to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually there is a chapter on this in the book. You can see the table of contents for free on Amazon.

      Delete
    2. "Unfortunately, I suspect this aspect of the scam is something even people like you don't want to talk about."

      Where the hell do you guys come up with this stuff? LP has talked about this before, and as the above poster mentioned, it's in the book.

      Delete
  44. Replies
    1. As funny as this is, it should be deleted as it doesn't even attempt to mix rational thought with inflammatory rhetoric.

      The bar of censorship is not a high one, but we should all at least feign an attempt to reach it.

      Delete
  45. I realize this is years away still, but I just cannot wait for the day that these fucking asshole scumbag law professors start to lose their jobs. You people are such scum and the sort who actually bother to troll Campos' blog are the worst. Yeah, you're laughing at us. You scammed us and you don't give a fuck. You like to come here and try to poke the festering wound just for shits and giggles. There is literally no horrible future that I would not wish on you people. I cannot type FUCKERS in large enough letters to represent what you are.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I would say a successful company owner did not become successful without using all of his employees' skills in a manner beneficial to the company and his employees. What part, if any, of the JD's salary is apportioned to his legal skills is between the JD and the owner."

    if it helps you sleep at night, you can believe this. and in some cases you may be right. but from my experience, for the vast majority of time, you are dillusional if you think that a business owner would value the "legal" opinion of a jd holder who holds a non legal job. sorry, this my opinion based what i have observed. many business owners dont hold attorneys in a fine light but realize that it is a necessary evil to have counsel that knows what they are talking about. i think its delusional to think he will take legal advise from someone in marketing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am never - NEVER - asked for legal advice by my employer. Lawyers' "skills" are becoming increasingly useless.

      Delete
    2. Just as students are getting ripped-off by the law school scam so many firms are getting ripped off by their outside law firms. I have personally seen it in two different aviation firms. in one case the in-house lawyer was sacked and his favorite outside firm fired also. in the second the in-house lawyer is woefully unknowledgeable about the firm and the industry and is going to be sacked shortly, mainly because of the excessive billing the company is receiving and his poor performance in lawsuits they have no business in losing and in pushing to trial cases they don't
      have a prayer of winning. And that is with firms that have in-house
      lawyers. Given the general sleaze quotient of the dozens of aviation law firms I have given depositions to, I would seek help wherever I could find it if I were a business owner.

      Delete
  47. I hate to write this because Paul will simply go against what I say to give the illusion that I am wrong, but here goes anyway:

    Paul is greedy. Paul jumps on bandwagons and writes generally angry, crappy, biased books about the subject.

    Paul started this blog purely as research and to gather data and anecdotes for just such a book.

    We all contributed to his secret plan, which he KEPT secret all along.

    Now he's shot his load early and wrote a junk book just to be "first," which is as lame as the people who post "FIRST!"

    He will now slowly but surely STOP blogging because he got what he wanted from the poor research subjects here on the site.

    When another fad comes along, Paul will find a way to write about it whether he knows anything about it or not, just like his diet books where he tells people it is okay to be fat and makes fun of well-known people rather than write anything of substance.

    Enjoy your extra few hundred bucks from this endeavor, Paul.

    You are the worst kind of slime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you think that LawProf, who already makes plenty of money, spent all this time and effort, just for the sake of writing a self-published book that will make "hundreds of dollars" for him???

      If that was his plan then he isn't being greedy but an idiot. I highly doubt making a couple hundred dollars after all this effort makes much sense.

      Delete
    2. Why are you so hate filled. Lawprof published this because people had asked for a guide. I know from TLS that people are desperate for something to convince their parents that taking off a year to retake and reapply is a good idea.

      Why are you assuming that Lawprof will stop blogging?

      I think you have a mental problem. I really think you need help.

      Also, if you read the book you will see that lawprof is using stuff that he wrote. He isn't stealing anyone else's ideas. He is using his own work product.

      I think that lawprof could have easily found plenty of anecdotes from TLS without ever having a blog. He didn't need this blog to get inspiration for what to write. Just read TLS and see what questions 0Ls are asking. You can write your own book!

      Delete
    3. It's hard for those of us who respect our law professors to imagine one of them spewing such bile. But the inference is pretty strong here. They must be hurting worse that they let on.

      Publius

      Delete
    4. Marie Antoinette @ 1:07 PM,

      You're adorable.

      Delete
  48. The bitterness over LawProf making a pittance from this is ridiculuous. The man is a hero, a paragon of free speech. He has been posting five days a week for a year, and he has really changed the terms of the national debate (see, e.g., DePaul case-it's now "obvious" that most law schools are diploma-mills. Stop yer' whining.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Keeping the proceeds will open him up to all manner of attacks, more legitimately in this case, because there's actually an appearance of impropriety by using the book as a source for cashing in a second time on the backs of law students."

    I just don't see how this comment makes any sense. How does publishing a book, mostly for the benefit of 0Ls, "cash in on the backs of law students"?

    The people that will benefit the most and who are the target audience of this book are 0Ls who are thinking of going to law school not current students or grads who already decided to go or have gone.

    Its also laughable to think that this book will actually make any real money for LawProf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he means that it looks bad when a key member of a scam (a law professor in this case) writes a book and makes money off the scam through book sales.

      First time, second time, whatever. But I agree that Prof. C should at least post a follow up that explains what his plans for the proceeds are. It looks like the book has not had a bad first day on Amazon.

      Delete
    2. I understand your point. But it "looking bad that he is making money off the scam by paradoxically writing an anti-scam book" is not the same at all as "cashing in a second time on the backs of law students".

      Law students and grads aren't expected to read or buy this book as it won't benefit them at this point. 0Ls are the target audience and these people are not yet students and have not yet been "scammed". So whatever proceeds there are will be from people that have yet to be scammed.

      Delete
    3. In one day this book has more than half the total Kindle sales of "Getting to Maybe." This is a good day.

      Delete
    4. Where can you see the sales figures?

      Delete
    5. Product Details > Amazon Best Sellers Rank. I think it measures Kindle ebook sales, but now the number looks smaller than it did earlier.

      Delete
    6. No that just measures its rankings. I really thought there was a place this could be done.

      Delete
  50. I think this book contains valuable advice for anyone who is not aware of the scam.

    I wish Lawprof had named which schools were worth it by name. I don't trust 0Ls to research more than the USNews rankings, even though there is a chapter as to why that is a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If he wanted to make money he would have been better off publishing some shitty supplement and requiring it for his classes like so many other professors do.

    ReplyDelete
  52. As we have seen before, whenever Paul scores a direct hit there is a predictable increase in the volume of "hypocrisy" whining on here from law school professors/administrators who are always careful to avoid addressing the merits of his message.

    "Oh hell, now he's put out a low-cost easily-accessible book about us. What should we do about it? Hmmm, let's attack him for not giving it away free. That'll work."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Since this book has been out for all of about 24 hours and Campos hasn't actually said anything about where the money will go, why don't we all take a deep breath and wait a bit. Maybe he'll give the money to LST, maybe he'll never reveal what he does with it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. LawProf has devoted a lot of his time, resources, and reputation to the most in-depth discussion I've seen of an issue deeply important to law students and 0Ls. I doubt he is doing more than covering his costs. BUT, even if he was to profit, so what? If people can't make a profit by exposing scams, fewer will be exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  55. People who take on $200k in non-dischargeable debt without batting an eye scream and wail when someone sells a book for $4.99.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People who encourage the soon to be unemployed people who pay their salaries to take out $200K in non-dischargeable debt without batting an eye scream and wail when someone sells a book designed to keep people from doing that for $4.99.

      FTFY

      Delete
  56. i'll wait for the revised edition to come out. (seriously)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Asked way above was, "OK then, who reviews the billing in those firms that do have an in-house attorney or legal department"


    We have software that flags any number of outside-of-norm items. All our law firms have to e-bill us through that software. Kind of a PITA for the smaller firms, but the larger firms are used to this sort of thing for all their corporate clients.

    As far as the human touch goes, first pass is an admin or paralegal familiar with the matter billed even if the billing passes all the electronic filters. Anything over $X must at least be ok'd by a lower level attorney. Anything above their approval level still gets ok'd by them, then kicks to me for final approval. I don't see anything at or below that attorney's approval level.

    Routine work seldom faces much scrutiny, unless you get a bill for 18 hours when you knew you could have done a decent job on it yourself for considerably less time (i.e., I wouldn't quibble if I thought it was a 15 hour job, but would certainly make a call if billed 18 for a 12 hour job).

    Litigation billings face the most scrutiny, both because they tend to be much larger in a given month than routine transactional (etc.) work, and because there's more opportunity for error (double billing for an expense, etc.).

    My two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Is this a LEITER that I see Before Me?September 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM

    All you people who see a Leiter behind the bush of every negative comment seriously, seriously need to get a grip.

    I mean, c'mon, Leiter's a busy guy.

    After all, it's more likely Horwitz making those posts.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think @ 2:07PM, Lois Turner, summed it all up. Amen. This post kicked up a hornets nest.

    And BTW, why are the overwhelming majority of the critics and for that matter, the general commenters, invisible, anonymous, and particularly nasty hornets?

    It is so obvious and almost comical in fact, and one has to assume that they are industry shills that do not want to put their names and faces behind their words.

    And all of youse anon people think that youse is all so smart, whilst Campos and DJM have the ability to simply enable comment moderation, and even go so far as to refuse to post any anon comments.

    And then, where will all of you be?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...why are the overwhelming majority of ...general commenters, invisible, anonymous, and..."


      We're pertekting are seekert eyedentitees, matie.

      Delete
    2. Because few people are stupid enough to bare their souls for eternity on the Internet.

      You are now unemployable because of your blogging, Painter.

      The smarter, Anonymous posters are, on the other hand, still able to get jobs without their prospective employers Googling them.

      You seem to have a disturbing penchant for (1) exposing the identities of commenters, and (2) encouraging people to make the same unanonymous mistake you yourself made.

      What is with your creepy, stalker fascination with who we are in real life?

      Because I can promise you, we're not this huge cache of law professors you're expecting us to be.

      Delete
  60. Editorial Comments R UsSeptember 19, 2012 at 4:36 PM

    Above was written, "People who take on $200k in non-dischargeable debt without batting an eye scream and wail when someone sells a book for $4.99."


    I think you've misidentified the screamers.

    Try this instead, "People who take IN $200k in non-dischargeable debt from their sheeplike students, without batting an eye, scream and wail when someone sells a book for $4.99."

    You are welcome.

    No charge.

    Tips are welcome - see the jar at the end of that there pianer.

    ReplyDelete
  61. And two pity maxims for the believer in true love and marriage (half of which end up in divorce):

    1. It is just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man.

    2. Rich is better.


    What I need to do is find a rich woman.

    And here is the ballad of the poor, little drummer and the aristocratic lady, which has a happy ending :)


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnxnUC89IhM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glug glug glug, Painter is drinking again. Copying and pasting to stop him deleting his posts in the morning, as usual when he sobers up:

      ----------

      And two pity maxims for the believer in true love and marriage (half of which end up in divorce):

      1. It is just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man.

      2. Rich is better.


      What I need to do is find a rich woman.

      And here is the ballad of the poor, little drummer and the aristocratic lady, which has a happy ending :)


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnxnUC89IhM

      Delete
  62. @Clark Kent

    My sympathies for ye.

    Tis is a bad luck handle ye be a givin' to yerself.

    And how so is it ye never heard of the Superman curse by now?

    Aye!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glug glug glug, Painter is drinking again. Copying and pasting to stop him deleting his posts in the morning, as usual when he sobers up:

      ----------

      @Clark Kent

      My sympathies for ye.

      Tis is a bad luck handle ye be a givin' to yerself.

      And how so is it ye never heard of the Superman curse by now?

      Aye!

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.