Friday, November 16, 2012

Something fishy

 Updated below with October LSAT numbers

Following up on DJM's post recalling that nearly 20 years ago some people in legal academia were already sounding the alarm about skyrocketing debt, here are some estimates of average amount borrowed by law graduates who incurred debt in the 1990s:  [Note: All figures have been adjusted for inflation and are expressed in constant 2011 dollars]

1993:  $58,844

1996:  $70,843

2000:  $100,974

These numbers are from a 2002 report on law school graduate debt, put together by the ABA.   Now either these numbers are wrong, or the numbers law schools are reporting currently to the ABA are wrong.  Consider: law schools claim that the average amount borrowed by law graduates in 2011 was around $105,000 ($125,000 for private law school graduates and $77,000 for public law grads).

In other words, if both of these sets of debt numbers were correct, that would mean there was essentially no growth in law graduate debt, in real terms, between 2000 and 2011. And that's just impossible.  Between 2000 and 2011 median private law school tuition increased by 40% in real terms, while median public resident tuition more than doubled in constant dollars.

While "scholarships" (cross-subsidized tuition breaks) have increased, they haven't increased nearly as quickly as tuition, and while it's possible that the average SES of law graduates increased over the past decade, there's no way law school tuition could have risen by, conservatively, an average of 50% in real terms over the past decade, while the average student debt load remained essentially unchanged.

This is especially obvious given that the ABA study found a 72% (!) increase in the average amount borrowed in real terms over just the seven years between 1993 and 2000.   (Over this period tuition didn't increase nearly as much in real terms as it did between 2000 and 2011.  Between 1993 and 2000 private law school tuition  went up by 30% and public resident tuition went up by 53% in constant dollars -- i.e., about half the total increase between 2000 and 2011).

So what's going on? Part of the explanation is that when people attempt to calculate law graduate debt figures they get very inconsistent answers.  The ABA report itself recognizes this in a footnote: it gives three different estimates for the average amount borrowed by 2000 grads: per its own commissioned study the figure is $77,300 (this is the $100,974 inflation-adjusted figure above). Another independent study put the figure at $84,000; a third came up with an estimate of $62,103, and the schools themselves reported an average amount borrowed of around $58,000 ($70,000 for private law schools and $44,000 for public law schools. Keep in mind that none of these figures account for interest accrued during law school, which at present requires adding about 15% to 20% to average amount borrowed figures to calculate total actual debt at initial repayment).

Interestingly, since the 2002 ABA report there seems to have been no independent study of how much debt law school graduates incur.  The only data we have is what the law schools have been reporting to the ABA. And we know there have been serious problems with that reporting process.

This is yet another issue regarding legal education which requires independent auditing by a disinterested party, such as for example the Department of Education. Given that it's funding this whole enterprise, the federal government should get the real numbers before it hands out another $50 billion in law school loans (this is a conservative estimate of how much federal loan money law students are likely to borrow over the course of the next decade).

Update:

October LSATs administered

2009 (all-time high): 60,746

2010:  54,345

2011:  45,169

2012:  37,780  (Lowest total since 1999)

As a commenter notes, the ratio of applicants to LSAT administrations has declined quite a bit in the last few years, ever since LSAC started allowing law schools to report only a matriculant's highest LSAT score.  The result of this has been a big increase in re-taking, as reflected by the following numbers:



2003-04:
100,700 applicants
147,617  administrations
Ratio of applicants to administrations: 68.2%

2004-04:
95,800   applicants
145,258 administrations
Ratio: 66%

2005-06
88,700  applicants
137,444  applications
Ratio: 64.5%

2009-10
87,900  applicants
171,514  administrations
Ratio: 51.4%

2010-11
78,500  applicants
155,050  administrations
Ratio: 50.6%

2011-12
68,000 applicants
129,958 administrations
Ratio:  52.3%

Based on the first two of four administrations in this cycle, the likely total number of LSAT administrations in the cycle will be around 114,000.  If the ratio of applicants to administrations is 52%, that means we can expect around 59,200 applicants in the cycle (This is a lower number than the total number of people admitted to ABA schools two years ago).
 








172 comments:

  1. Indeed, the law schools must be lying about average debt. Just another lie, as if there weren't plenty already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, if lots of people fail out, they'd have lower numbers and be able to cross subsidize lots of eventual graduates.

    1/3 FP drop out
    1/3 FP graduate
    1/3 0 graduate

    The dropouts basically fund the 1/3 that don't pay, and they only get 1 year of debt. The 2/3 that graduate show half a total debt load for the average.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that were true then sure, but that's not how it works. At my school no one fails out and only 5% drop out the first year and another 5% after first semester 2L.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. ^Tier Reality Shall Fall!

      DOWN WITH THE COLONEL!

      ~Mr. Infinity

      Delete
  4. Throw in a few "oops, I only reported one years worth of debt" and the average falls like a stone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's uncanny how those "errors" and "mistakes" ALWAYS benefit the law schools.

      Delete
    2. Yes, just like the comments on this blog ALWAYS interpret everything in favor of a huge scam.

      Would you expect anything different?

      Delete
    3. chili cheeze ur dumbNovember 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM

      3:09, you don't see a difference between (on the one hand) a bunch of anonymous whiners interpreting facts that they SEE in their own way, and on the other hand, law schools CREATING "facts" that go their way?

      If not, I suggest you're dumber than a bag of hammers.

      Delete
  5. Depending on what numbers they do or do not take into account, this is another example of goosing the numbers. LP mentioned that accrued interest is not included. What about origination fees (they currently charge 4% for the privilege of becoming indebted), bar exam costs, and living expenses while studying for the bar (I imagine most students have to borrow for the latter two)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ABA reporting guidelines tell schools to exclude loans for taking and studying for the bar, even if those loans are incurred prior to graduation. Not sure about origination fees.

      Delete
    2. When I graduated in 2010, the bar exam loan was 15k and I needed it to survive while I studied for the bar and sought paying work. Having only worked part time for the prior 3 years, I was not eligible for unemployment. I finally got paying full time non-legal work in December approx 6 months after graduating law school. I would think this is the rule not the exception. Even the lucky ones who have jobs lined up often don't start them for four to six months after graduation. It's very misleading for the ABA to not count this debt. It is directly related to law school.

      Also, worth noting is that the yearly budgets for law schools are for 9 months so any debt incurred in the summer months is not counted. Obviously you can work but good luck finding a job that pays well enough to cover expenses for an employee only working 3 months (excluding summer associate positions).

      Delete
    3. Can you get a bar loan with federal money or are those available only through private means?

      The reason why I ask is that I would never, under any circumstance, take out a private loan for college.

      Delete
  6. I showed this post to a sympathetic but clueless professor I had in law school because he is now an associate dean. He was shocked as usual by these numbers but my school continues to admit more students to full time and a night program. He pretends to sound interested but nothing ever changes except for higher tuition and less scholarship funding. And so it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you could get your money back for crappy classes, I'd ask for reimburement for Campos' classes first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:44 feels the noose tightening.

      Probably set off by LawProf mentioning the deadly possibility of the DoE *auditing* the schools' numbers.

      Once that digging starts, law school officials will be heading to prison.

      There are *decades* of dirt just *waiting* to be revealed - and as the DoE is indirectly funding most of this borderline criminal enterprise, they have the leverage to shut it down almost immediately.

      Might want to check out the extradition laws 12:44.

      Delete
  8. hey, be nice, I learned a lot about the Simpsons during property w/Lawprof

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You made the mistake of going to a mediocre overpriced law school with crappy job outcomes for three quarters of its class.

      Try not to be too bitter.

      Delete
    2. 1:20 talks to himself as he feels the noose tightening.

      Delete
    3. 1:25 you made the mistake of becoming a law "professor." Try not to be too bitter when you're out on the street.

      Delete
    4. ...or facing the *ss end of a depo, 1:25, or jail time...

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990746

      Delete
  9. LP - Sentence needs an `is` in thereNovember 16, 2012 at 1:38 PM

    "This isespecially obvious given that the ABA study found a 72% (!) increase in the average amount borrowed in real terms over just the seven years between 1993 and 2000."

    (Thanks, and feel free to delete this comment)

    ReplyDelete
  10. FYI, re: loan origination fees. They are taken out of loan proceeds, not added to gross principal. So, if you borrow $10,000, you (or your school) will receive $9,600. Of course, you still owe $10,000.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @1:20 here - I was just kidding. Actually, Campos' class was fun and a lot different than the usual. CU was not over priced when I attended. I can't believe how much the tuition has gone up since I finished (circa 2002).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Campos is a shitty academic who is hated by his students. (Prof. X).

      Delete
    2. everyone I know who had Lawprof loved the class. So go away prof X

      Delete
    3. LOL, Prof X doesn't go away - he's read every comment on every post on this blog since its inception, despite his claims to the contrary.

      Delete
  12. and BTW - I'm not bitter at all. Left CU with no debt and have had a good career in govt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, this site doesn't touch on anything important and is nothing but a bunch of whiny law grads bitterly complaining about their lives. (Prof. X).

      Delete
    2. So you are telling this person he is bitter even though he reports that he isn't?

      Delete
    3. No, Professor X is.

      Delete
  13. MAJOR drop in October lsat takers. A drop of 16.4% from the prior year.

    October 2011 45,169
    October 2012 37,780

    This is really going to hurt some law schools.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Drop in LSAT takers:

    37,780

    Down -16.4% from last year which was down 16.9% from the year before

    http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsats-administered.asp

    http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=170835

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note that this number is about the number taken in 1999 36,540
      and 2000 37,847


      I was hoping for a drop about the same as last year but I didn't think it would happen.

      This is big news, I hope, for law school admissions.

      Delete
    2. There has been a huge rise in retakers since USNEWs stopped averaging LSAT scores (2007?) and the schools stopped caring. So the 1999 figure isn't really relevant--the number of actual applicants is far below the 1999 figure.

      Schools will close and/or drop their class sizes with these numbers, they pretty well have to.

      Delete
  15. class sizes should be down and some law schools gone very soon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope so. This thing only hits rock bottom after schools start to close. Then maybe we can crawl out of it (although it'll probably take a decade).

      Delete
    2. And then what?

      We still owe our student loans. No change.

      I don't think a law school or two closing will be as satisfying as you think it will be.

      Delete
    3. "I don't think a law school or two closing will be as satisfying as you think it will be."

      Law school closings and law school personnel out on the street(like hundreds of thousands of us) will be the first time in decades the schools have supplied justice...rather than "law".

      Delete
    4. agree w/@7:23 - it's a start.

      Delete
    5. 7:32 writes, "it's a start".

      That's the punchline. The lead-in is, "whaddya call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?".

      Delete
    6. 6:04, you don't have student loans. You are a law professor and your trolling is ridiculously obvious. Didn't you walk away from this blog the other day, anyway?

      You know it isn't going to be just a "law school or two closing." And your argument that law grads won't be helped by schools closing is just another, flailing attempt to stop people from talking about this issue.

      Delete
  16. RE: One Trillion Dollars of American Student Loan Debt.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4-4bvuX7qA

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mark Kantrowitz is the true Lincolnesque man of sorrows.

    Kantrowitz is a Prophet and Humanist, and an asset to humanity and he cares very deeply about the human condition and his heart bleeds for the indebted.

    May God bless the kindly Kantrowitz as he rests his pretty little head on his pillow tonight and drifts off to sleep-perhaps contemplating a large warehouse full of 100 dollar bills adding up to one trillion dollars of studant loan debt.

    If Kantrowitz was Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic's would someday make him a Saint for all the good that he has done: for all that is moral and right and good and just in the world.

    No blot on the landscape and the human race be he.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Are the figures above all debt of law students or just government guaranteed debt? The law schools may not even have information about private student debt. When I looked at student loans from the major banks, they required verification of the amount of the tuition they were funding as well as enrollment of the student, and paid the school directly. However, it was not clear that the school would know or keep records of how much the bank was lending to each student. On the other hand, government loans, specifically FAFSA, would actually be applied for through the school, so they knew the amounts. Also you have loans against parents and grandparents securities, parents and grandparents homes, 401(k) plans of parents and even loans against the student's assets if they have any that are clearly not going to be included in these totals. I would expect these totals very much understate how much debt law students and their families incur to attend law school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Are the figures above all debt of law students or just government guaranteed debt?"

      I agree. I suspect this is the issue.

      Delete
  19. 37,780 people took the LSAT this year compared to 45,169 last year in October. 16.4% drop

    http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsats-administered.asp

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, if you put your debt into liquid nitrogen, does it freeze the debt and keep it from growing?

      Delete
    2. Exactly.

      The truth is getting out and the word is snowballing - thank God for the scambloggers, blog software, and the internet.

      The schools' decades-old empire of corrupt bullsh*t is collapsing.

      Nemesis is a bitch, motherf*ckers.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(mythology)

      And it ain't over yet.

      Delete
    3. THESE BASTARDS ARE GONNA BE HURTING REAL SOON

      Delete
  21. How many people matriculated at ABA-accredited law schools two years ago? Even fewer than the number admitted. So the declining number of applicants spells trouble for the law schools.

    Also worth noting is that the sharpest declines in applications are seen in the highest LSAT scores, which are achieved in general by the strongest candidates
    (http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2012/04/law-schools-applicants-rankings.html). Thus the quality of the applicant pool is declining as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. June administrations were down too. Looks like we're set for another 10-20 percent drop this cycle. This could get interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let’s assume your 59,200 applicants for this cycle is correct. For fall 2011 there were 78,500 applicants. This resulted in ABA enrollment that year of 48,700 students. So about 62% of the applicants enrolled in law school. If 62% of the 59,200 applicants enroll that will make the incoming class be at 36,704 students. But, we still need to take out attrition of around 7,000. This would make the graduating class of 2016 have 29,704 students. I think it is going to be hard for there to be a drop of over 15,000 law students graduating law school and not have some schools go under.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go under what?

      Delete
    2. "Go under what?"

      That's what I'd like to know. If s/he doesn't precisely explain this, the law school scam doesn't exist.

      Delete
  24. This is an interesting graph from lsatblog -- it shows that applicants to law schools from a high of slightly over 100,000 in 2004 to a projected low of around 67,000 this year:

    http://lsatblog.blogspot.ca/2012/04/law-schools-applicants-rankings.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. I like your math 7:59, and I'd love to see some of the schools close. Lets put the disgraced law deans in a cage and have monkeys throw feces at them. I know it won't take away the loans or interest but I can't imagine that it won't help some of us juris debtors feel a little better!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Not a few people are even perversely using the sharp decline in applications as a selling point for law school: now you can expect get into a law school that just a year or two ago was out of reach, so go for it while you can.

    Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caveat emptor, quia ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit.

      Delete
    2. This is not a contract of emptio. I agree that students are foolish to sign up for $200k in non-dischargeable debt without evaluating their prospects; however, the tired old maxim caveat emptor (which wasn't good law even in Rome) does little to advance the discussion.

      Delete
    3. 1. If people are going to insist on going to law school, it is probably true that they will do better in terms of admissions and financia aid, then they would have two years ago.

      2. To me the most telling statistic is the high percentage of higher scoring students who don't go to law school. These are people who could have gone to a top school but realized that law is a terrible bet for most people in general and for them specifically.

      Delete
    4. That isy reply immediately above.

      3. Students don't seem to fully grasp the reasons behind these drastically declining numbers. While I understand people hoping that their 171 is more desirable now than 2 years ago, I don't understand the lack of context with the overall terrible market for lawyers.
      On TLS , people are very happy to see this drop because it means they might be competitive for better schools. But I haven't seen anyone saying, wait a minute, do I want to even go as it becomes more and more obvious that law school can be a losing game for a high percentage of people even from top school?

      There are many posts on TLS from unemployed grads, including an entire thread of unemployed 3Ls who got no offered from their summer firms. These are students at great schools. Yet the applicants still have a disconnect. They really for the most part seem so focused on applying be getting accepted - caught up in the process- that they aren't saying law is a terrible profession and costs way too much.

      There is one person from UVa who keeps trying to warn people , but he isn't well- received.

      Delete
    5. 12:25, I think your analysis of TLS is solid. But remember that you're observing TLS, which has always been plagued with a bunch of starry-eyed, law-school-prestige-obsesseed dreamers.

      IRL I know both TLS type and non-TLS type applicants/potential applicants. The TLS types are going to law school, and right now, nothing that anyone says is going to change that. The non-TLS types have pretty much all stopped considering law school because it is clearly an insane gamble.

      It might take longer to convince the TLS types that law school is a scam, but eventually they'll realize they're chasing after something that no one else cares about, and something that fewer and fewer people associate prestige with.

      Delete
    6. As for the one person from U Virginia whom people are ignoring:

      O that men's ears should be
      To counsel deaf, but not to flattery!
      ——Timon of Athens

      Delete
  27. law deans, law deans, whatcha gonna do?
    whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certain courts say it is caveat emptor (fraud be damned!).

      The internet (and slooowwwly the market) says: Caveat bastards.

      Delete
  28. I just received a donation request e-mail containing a video link of my law school dean begging for money from alums and saying how they need the money now more than ever. Ha ha. Good luck with that one. Not one more penny to these jerks.

    I also agree with Nando that these numbers always seem to favor the schools. The schools have been "scrubbing" the numbers for years. If they raise tuition, obviously reporting a reduced overall debt value is beneficial to them since it will lead more suckers to slaughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn the penny that I ever give to my law school. Anyone who has the gall to solicit a donation will get an earful of very colorful profanity.

      Delete
    2. post the email text for LOLZ

      Delete
  29. One think to plug into the date is that while last year there was a total of 129,958 LSATs administered, of those 62% were unique test takers - the rest were repeats. So if you take the numbers for any LSAT you need to take of 30-40% for repeats to work out how many potential LSAT applicants there are.

    The second issue to consider is that LSAT taking and law school applications rise during recessions and fall during recoveries. Thus between 1989 and '91 LSATs went up by 31% and then fell off by about the same through 1998 - rose again by about 35% in 2001-3 and then fell back. The reason is that applications to law school have historically risen in recessions - this recession being an odd one in that while there was a jump in '08-'09 applications started falling in 2010 and have continued. Nonetheless is is reasonable to suggest that if an economic recovery is underway - and it strengthens in '13 law school applications will fall even further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please note that the number of people who were repeat takers had changed over time . Now that schools can just report the highest score, and people know that admissions is a numbers game, the number of repeaters have increased( despite advice to the contrary from law school deans)

      So when comparing to a decade ago, there were fewer repeat takers. This means the number of test takers has dropped even more dramatically.

      I think the LSAC publishes the data on repeat takers, so it should be possible to find out the axial number of unique takers for each year.

      Delete
    2. The 62% was LSACs number for last year

      Delete
    3. This factor is reflected in the ratio of applicants to test administrations, which has fallen from 2:3 to 1:2.

      Delete
  30. one thing to plug in ...

    I dash this stuff off.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I dash this stuff off."

    You certainly do:

    Line 1 -- the data, not the date.
    Lne 4 -- take off, not take of.
    Line 15 -- it is, not is is.
    Line 17 -- needs a second dash.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Typo - I've got payin' work to do

    ReplyDelete
  33. Just bored and f-ing around. Nobody -- least of all me -- actually gives a shit about typos in blog post comments. I just thought it was funny that you took the time to correct the think/thing typo, but didn't notice the date/data typo in the very same sentence (or any of the other typos).

    ReplyDelete
  34. The industries that feed off lawyers (West, Lexis, Martindale) should be very nervous too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For this October administration, the LSAC is down at least $1,182,240 from last year. Just from one test administration; they lost even more last June.

      And because the scores were delayed, they are waving late fees of anyone who took the October test who is retaking in December. So they are out the $68 they could have charged for late registrations.

      Delete
    2. I mean they also lost money from the June administration.

      Delete
  35. The students wih high scores are going to be pissed when the see the number of transfer students their school admits as 2 Ls.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Meow Meow interjects: The law schools have at their disposal informing applicants they are home free after twenty years with IBR. However, it appears they aren't using it or it isn't working.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people are using it. But even most 21 year olds don't want to sign up for 20 years of debt.

      Delete
  37. Once again I read through all of the comments in this thread. And once again I saw almost no posts (maybe one or two, and only if read a certain way) that are whiny or self-pitying or talking about how shitty life is. So please, Professor X, go away and let us expose and dissect this scam in which you so eagerly participate.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I went to 4th tier Touro Law School and was in the 13th graduating class.

    13 is a very bad and fearful devil's number and indeed I did learn about witchcraft at Touro from profesor louise harmon in a jurisprudence class and who now teaches law in India on behalf of Touro.

    May dear God help my damned indebted soul. Damned for life and for the curse that has been placed upon me by the forces of evil that exist at Touro law school that so dearly want to incorporate the subject of wtchcraft into a law school curriculum that is funded mainly by American student loans.

    This woman in the link below is a dead ringer for louise harmon and if ever there was one.

    too much income for too little work means to much time to play around with the forces of evil in my humble opinion:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mva2HA8SPP8

    Student Loans are the work of the devil, and the devil sits on the shoulders of every student loan debtor until they are his, and all dead.

    For death is the only way out of American student loan debt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, NO, another way to get out is to simply pay it off.

      If you would really rather live with your parents for 25 years instead of working just 10 years at a government job, nobody has any sympathy for you.

      Delete
  39. I just saw the CA bar passage rate for July 2012. Is it me or are bar passage rates declining across the board in most jurisdictions? The passage rates are abysmal. I wonder if this reflects the poor quality of students law school admits nowadays (lowering standards to fill incoming class seats) and, if so, won't some schools begin losing accreditation? I mean Cooley for example had a bar passage rate of 42% for Michigan's Jul. 2102 bar exam. How can these schools continue to operate with these kind of disastrous results? To make matters worse, the law schools don't take responsibility for the poor bar exam showings. For example, Cooley's dean recently exercised denial by stating something to the effect that the bar exam results aren't a real reflection of the caliber of lawyer a Cooley law grad can be. What kind of herb was he smoking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday as I was sitting at a red light there was a beat up old car in front of me with a Cooley Law School sticker in the back window. Might as well been a self-imposed Kick Me sign.

      Delete
    2. Someone on this planet is proud enough of attending Cooley Law Skule to advertise the fact? Jesus.

      Delete
  40. California's numbers seem normal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @2:48PM

    55.3% is normal for CA?

    http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/ThisYearsNewsReleases/201231.aspx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compared to the last three years, yes. Also, first time passers are at 74%.

      Delete
  42. 24% pass rate for repeaters? These pass rates are an indictment of the American legal education system.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A few choice quotes from Mr. Lawrence E. Rosenthal, professor at the esteemed Chapman University Law School:

    "It may well be the case that law schools are producing more lawyers than the market can absorb (although relying on the graduate to law-firm jobs ration is perilous because not everyone goes to law school in order to practice law in a conventional setting)."

    Chapman grads don't take jobs in an "unconventional setting" because they want to, they take these jobs because they have to.

    "If we care about positioning our graduates well in an increasingly competitive market, then we should care a great deal about offering a program of legal education that maximizes the marketable skills that students have on graduation."

    This is the breakdown for Chapman grads:

    Cost/year: $41,460
    Est. total Cost: $265,265
    Est. monthly loan payment (10 yr plan): $3,163

    Percent employed in full-time, JD required jobs: 40.1%
    25%/Median/75% salary for above jobs: $50,000/$64,000/$75,000
    Percentage of above jobs that are Solos: 2.3%

    Percent employed in full-time, JD Advantage jobs: 10.7%
    25%/Median/75% salary for above jobs: $33,280/$55,000/$70,000

    Percent employed in other professional jobs: 3.4%
    No salaries reported

    Percent employed part-time, all categories: 18.7%
    No salaries reported

    Percent unemployed: 19.8%
    No salaries to report

    So a Chapman grad has about a 1 in 5 chance of no job whatsoever, a 1 in 5 chance of a part-time job, and a 50/50 chance of obtaining full-time work at a salary that will almost certainly require they go on IBR (i.e. their education put them in a financial hardship that requires government assistance).

    http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/11/what-matters-most-in-legal-ed-these-days/comments/page/2/#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's true that "not everyone goes to law school in order to practice law in a conventional setting". Some go because it's a nice way to spruce up the family's entry in the Social Register.

      There are also many who go because they're going to Save the World, or perhaps out of a desire to practice "sports law" or "entertainment law". (I haven't yet met anyone who goes to law school with a burning desire to handle insurance claims.) Before long, however, these little darlings find out that there just aren't any openings in those fields. Then they desperately want whatever job they can get—but they can't get one. Never mind. Rosenthal will glibly assure us that not everyone went into law school wanting to practice law in a conventional setting.

      Delete
    2. Are you sure about those cost figures? If you are, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!

      The cost of "edukation" at Chapman has now become SO expensive, it is not worth it.

      Do any Chapman grads even get biglaw jobs? Even if you get "biglaw" how can you afford $3,200/month payments on your loans?

      Think about it...If you are making $120k a year, what is your taking home? Maybe $72k or $75k. You almost certainly are going to have an apartment and car. You also have to put food in your belly. You probably also can't go shopping for clothes at Wal-Mart & goodwill. To get that kind of salary you are probably going to be in a high cost, high tax location CA, NJ, NY, PA, MA.

      HALF OF YOUR INCOME GOES TO LOAN REPAYMENT!

      Delete
  44. Eddie waited till he finished high school.

    He went to Hollywood and got a tattoo.

    The sky was the limit!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqmFxgEGKH0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what, Painter? I actually miss you.

      I wish you would start blogging again, and I wish you would post here again. You are sorely missed, and you need to make a triumphant return! This blog is actually rather boring without you!

      Bring Back Painter!
      Bring Back Painter!
      Bring Back Painter!

      Ignore the bores who think that you should be banished. Time to ride that donkey back into Jerusalem!

      Delete
  45. I agree with the commenters above about law school applications dropping among those with the highest LSAT scores when they see that even a top law school is a big gamble today.

    Never in a million years would many people who are lawyers today have chosen this path if they knew how bad the job market for lawyers would be and how hard it is to find a legal job and to stay employed as a lawyer. The problem is that the no-offering of summer associates, the year after year up-or-out firings of associates in large and not so large law firms, the continuous stream of stealth layoffs in all law firms and the clubiness of many in house jobs(if a lawyer can get such a job at all), where rather than live and let live, survival becomes like pledging for a college fraternity in the 1950s and being a member of the top clique is essential to keeping one's legal job.

    If it is apparent that all these factors result in a large percentage of even top law school grads being unemployed or underemployed, what type of 0L will chose law? Clearly not Ols who are not absolutely committed to being a lawyer and who have the option of doing anything else they want. That is what we are seeing now.

    Really smart people with good records can enter into any career they want. If they want more job security, they can go into medicine. They can switch gears and do sciences or engineering with more undergraduate courses. Law is such a gamble today, and one is playing with fire gambling with a $250,000 degree.

    I think it is humiliating to be a real estate broker with a JD. A sign that the person was hoodwinked into spending three years and a lot of money on a useless degree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'm a really smart person with a good record, but I apparently can't enter the legal profession.

      Delete
    2. 8:14 The point is that now almost anybody can enter the legal profession, but why would you want to? To play a game of dice with unemployment and underemployment, even if you go to a tippy top law school and work your tail off?

      Delete
    3. Not almost anybody can enter it, except through the chimera of solo practice—a quick road to penury.

      Why did I want to go into it? Because I'm a goddamn fool.

      Delete
    4. It has always been a risk to go to a law school below the level of a University of Pennsylvania or University of Virginia. Above that level, one was highly unlikely not to get a decent legal job until the last 10 years or so. I think anyone who went below that level even 40 years ago should have known that there was a risk of not being employed as a lawyer in a manner that would make the cost and time of going to law school worth it. Of course, some people made it from lower ranked schools, but they took a bigger risk than those from the top few schools.

      Now it is much worse. Going to any law school is like a game of dice long term. Harvard or Yale does not protect you from being a solo and does not in and of itself bring business if you are a solo. Of course, a top law school degree helps if you are a solo, but you need to do more than have that degree to succeed.

      I still think many people from lower tier schools who start at the bottom rung of the profession will succeed in the long term as lawyers. They will find clients, get picked up by a firm, have a practice in the firm.

      Just that a lot of people are finding that even a top law school does not get them any type of career they can take to the bank, i.e.,earn a living that is at least as good as a teacher or policeman with comparable experience levels in their community.

      Delete
    5. By the way, the top schools, or at least some of them, have drastically increased their enrollment over the careers of those who are currently working. My alma mater has almost doubled its enrollment. That accounts for some of the problem here. On the other hand, the midsized firms which were big factors here in New York City have disappeared. The big firms have a lot of jobs for lawyers that last a few years and few career positions. There is a traffic jam not only at the first job level but a huge traffic jam for those trying to move on from big firms.

      Delete
    6. Yes, and I never would have attended any institution below the level of a Penn or a Virginia. I did not. But, as you said, one can be unemployable in the profession nowadays even with a degree from a top law school—and even with top grades.

      Delete
  46. Holy shit, after spending the last 8 years in law school and studying for the bar, this moron finally passed the CA bar:

    http://californiagbx0707.blogspot.com/

    Too bad he won't get sworn in before the Mayan prophecy comes to fruition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holy cow. He failed it TEN TIMES IN A ROW and finally passed on his ELEVENTH attempt.

      No one's going to hire him...

      Delete
    2. Maybe there is hope for JD Painterguy yet.

      Delete
  47. On his website it says he passed on his 11th attempt, unbelievable. Why even bother at that point? And why post your repeated failures on a blog for all to see? Will anyone hire him knowing all of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ELEVEN times?

      How can they even allow someone to take it that often? So this nincompoop finally scraped through. Big deal. Does that mean that he's suitable for the profession?

      Unless he has similarly cretinous acquaintances who will give them their business, he's hardly likely to get far as a nominal lawyer.

      Delete
  48. There should be a rule limiting how many times you can sit for the bar exam. I think you should be allowed to take it twice within a one year period and if you fail both times, you get to sit for it a third time after a one year "cooling off" period. If you cannot pass after your third attempt, you have no business becoming a lawyer. I realize that sound austere but would you go to a doctor who fail the boards more than 3 times? If I was a malpractice insurance underwriter, I would charge this 11th time bar taker an arm and a leg for a premium as he is a walking legal malpractice case waiting to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't we just get rid of the bar exam? Enough of this monopolized "profession" bullshit. What a joke.

      Delete
  49. As someone who passed the CA Bar on my fourth attempt, what exactly does my ability to pass a timed writing exam (MBE was never my problem) have to do with my ability to practice law? The briefs used in my area of practice bear little in common with anything I wrote for the bar exam. FWIW, I practice Administrative Law where the rules of evidence don't apply and all briefs are no longer than say 4 pages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't you prepare more thoroughly after the first or failure?

      Delete
    2. (Sorry: "first failure")

      Delete
  50. "As someone who passed the CA Bar on my fourth attempt, what exactly does my ability to pass a timed writing exam (MBE was never my problem) have to do with my ability to practice law?"

    Most people who take the CA bar actually pass it, and this is true even though Cali has more TTT's and non-ABA schools than any other state. So failing to pass three times in a row shows potential employers/clients that you either don't work that hard or aren't that bright. It really doesn't matter that the test may not reflect the actual work a lawyer does, it only matters that it is a test that most CAN pass, and that you DID NOT pass, repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/11/what-matters-most-in-legal-ed-these-days/comments/

    This was mentioned upthread but it's definitely worth reading through the post itself and the comments.

    I like this Bernie Burk guy. He seems to think pretty clearly and does a good job of hacking up irresponsible comments like they "Anon" guy who suggests there's no lack of law jobs (Anon seems to think that the 10s of thousands of unemployed law grads really just need to knuckle down and do legal work for indigents).

    ReplyDelete
  52. I have been following the thread as well. It's funny to see the TTT profs come out of the woodwork and try to defend the position that there are plenty of good jobs out there. But they get taken to task pretty quickly by Prof. Burke and the others.

    ReplyDelete
  53. FUCK YOU. THE BAR EXAM GRADERS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE. THERE ARE NO DEFINED CRITERIA FOR SEPARATING PASSERS AND FAILERS. IT IS ALL COMES DOWN TO THE VAGARIES OF WRITING STYLE, WHICH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE CLIENT. CLIENTS CARE ABOUT RESULTS, AND A LAWYER'S WRITING STYLE BEARS NO IMPACT ON THE RESULTS THE CLIENT ACHIEVES.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yeah, sure. It's random, with no defined criteria. Or the whole thing is rigged against you. Poor you, so hard done by.

      Delete
  54. "Yes, and I never would have attended any institution below the level of a Penn or a Virginia. I did not. But, as you said, one can be unemployable in the profession nowadays even with a degree from a top law school—and even with top grades."

    This is why my advice to any 0L who asks is:

    1. Don't go at all if you don't have the credentials to go to a T14, BUT
    2. Don't actually go to a T14, use your credentials to instead get a FULL scholarship at a lower ranked -- but still first tier -- school in a location where you want to live.

    With the cost of education and the lack of legal jobs, anything else is just too much of a risk in my mind. A person is probably better off just going straight into the job market and working there way up to something decent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:30 PM. The problem is that even going to law schoool with a full scholy and getting a decent entry level job, you are still taking a big risk. Believe me, from my law school class, where EVERYONE GOT A GOOD JOB FROM LAW SCHOOL, there are tons of people who have NO EARNING CAPACITY SEVERAL YEARS LATER. Even being double Harvard does not necessarily get you paid legal employment today.

      So even if the law degree costs nothing, you may still have made a mistake going to law school. BEWARE. None of the law schools have published ongoing employment statistics. If you cannot work for the last third of your career, which I really believe is the case for a substantial number of top law school grads today, you blew it going to that top school even for free. You could have gone to a career where you have a full career of earnings, as opposed to partial career of earnings in law.

      I think your advice vastly understates the risk of going to even a good law school for free.

      Delete
    2. Furthermore, there's still a large opportunity cost in going to law school, living on your savings or on borrowed funds. You could instead get started on another profession and earn some money.

      Delete
  55. From Lisa G. Lerman, professor at the esteemed Catholic University of America:

    "I suspect that many people who would like to become lawyers are hesitating to apply to law school because of inaccurate negative propaganda and because of incomplete information."

    >> Exactly the opposite, students are finally getting complete information.

    "More important, prospective law students don't seem to know yet that whatever the tuition and the debtload, that under the new "pay as you earn" loan repayment assistance program, loan payments can be made modest and manageable and a large percentage of the student loans will be forgiven... we need to get the word out that the student loan debtload of graduating law students is no longer the scary monster that it was"

    >> Another prof selling government aid program for people in financial hardship as a reason to go to law school.

    http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/11/more-turbulence-ahead-another-plunge-in-lsat-takers.html#comments

    http://www.law.edu/fac-staff/LermanL/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny that someone who believes in eternal damnation has the has the gall to accuse others of negative propaganda.

      Delete
    2. And even "manageable" debt wouldn't necessarily be desirable. However "manageable" the payments may be, I don't want to spend $10 per month for the rest of my life on something that is worthless.

      Delete
  56. Asking questions are reаllу nicе thіng if you are not understаnding something cоmpletely, however thіs paragгaph
    ρrovides nіce underѕtanding evеn.
    My website xfire.com

    ReplyDelete
  57. I'm excited to find this website. I need to to thank you for ones time due to this wonderful read!! I definitely really liked every little bit of it and i also have you book marked to check out new things on your website.
    Also see my web page :: online forensic accounting course study guide

    ReplyDelete
  58. @1:12 pm,

    Yeah, this Lerman person has been hawking IBR on various websites. She made glowing comments about it on this (linked below) law school article (referring to IBR as a "terrifically important reason" to go to law school.

    Other commenters on their more or less took her apart (politely, I might add), but she never bothered to answer anyone.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-case-for-law-school-2012-11

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wоw thаt waѕ odd. I just wrotе
    an really long comment but after I cliсked submit my соmment didn't show up. Grrrr... well I'm nοt writіng all that
    oѵеr again. Regardlеѕѕ, just wаnted to saу
    wondeгful blog!
    Here is my website :: online fire science

    ReplyDelete
  60. The spam-bots always seem to show up after the thread length breaks 100. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know it is very annoying but I give credit to the believability of the spambot who claimed their long post was lost.

      Also online forensic accounting might not be so bad (joking, but I did want to see what their tuition is, and if you can get loans to pay for it.)

      Delete
  61. The crash is coming. The anonymous majority must do our part to contribute to the crash.

    1) Contact our undergrad pre-law advisors.
    2) Write an op-ed for local newspapers and civic organizations.
    3) Join a bar committee relating to legal education.
    4) Discourage applicants from going to law school. Or at least advise them to demand scholarships as a condition to admission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kickstarter RebellionNovember 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM

      I applaud your focus on taking direct action.

      One suggestion - why not a Kickstarter project set up to fund an advertising campaign (Google AdSense?) to aggressively get the word out about the newly emerging truth about law schools?

      The schools pour a fortune into marketing their scams - for the most part the Rebellion is stuck in our scamblogs.

      A Kickstarter of $5k to $10k would probably get funded (there are hundreds of thousands of pissed off lawyers out there, ready to gut their lying alma maters).

      If there is interest out there, let me see it in the comments and I'll start doing preliminary work on the Kickstarter.

      Reaching out to Law School Transparency would be a good idea too - they have done yeoman's work assembling the facts behind the scams and they are in increasing need of funding.

      Setting up a Kickstarter for them as well might not be a bad idea.

      Delete
  62. I agree with the above and would gladly contribute to a kickstarter campaign.

    Just in case people don't know what is STILL happening with admissions,
    here are some TLS posts from 0LS - posted in the last day or so:

    1. in the Florida International University thread:
    I just noticed that my status had switched to "decision rendered, letter mailed" (as of nov 16th!). I haven't seen the letter yet but I'm pretty sure I am in (168 3.92)
    Note: TLS doesn't allow people to post negative stuff about schools in the admission threads, but it can be posted elsewhere.


    2. From the Michigan thread:

    I just noticed that my status had switched to "decision rendered, letter mailed" (as of nov 16th!). I haven't seen the letter yet but I'm pretty sure I am in (168 3.92)

    3. From a thread about the number of LSAT testtakers:
    Everyone calm the fuck down. Yes, a JD is overpriced and the legal market is shrinking. Good news? The supply side is adjusting for this. That is why LSAT administrations are continuing to plummet along with total number of applicants. Will the problem be solved instantly? No. It will take another couple of years to stable out, but it will stabilize, so stop spreading the gloom and doom and put things into perspective (which was this thread's foundation).

    and

    Everyone calm the fuck down. Yes, a JD is overpriced and the legal market is shrinking. Good news? The supply side is adjusting for this. That is why LSAT administrations are continuing to plummet along with total number of applicants. Will the problem be solved instantly? No. It will take another couple of years to stable out, but it will stabilize, so stop spreading the gloom and doom and put things into perspective (which was this thread's foundation).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry
      the copy and paste on my laptop is not working fast enough and I am on my way to work.

      I will fix this later, but you get the idea.

      Delete
    2. You are taking a big risk by going to Michigan. There are other careers that offer far more long-term ability to stay employed and earn a living. Law does not.

      Delete
  63. Some more (which are different this time) From the decrease in applicants thread:
    two more from the same poster:
    No shit some people are going to fail. People dont cut it in all walks of life. Maybe your appearance/immutable characteristics aren't what an employer wants. Maybe you're dumb. Maybe you prioritize family and another candidate prioritizes work. Maybe your daddy isn't sweet enough. Maybe you piss off the wrong person. Maybe your degrees and background aren't marketable to clients. This is NOT bad or shocking. It's the way of the world- and the sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be able to accept your place and live a happier life. The pyramid is getting
    slightly
    steeper in an already stratified world- this is a change in degree not a change in kind.

    and
    I agree with you that some people get fucked by debt, and that is unfortunate for them. But I think they deserve every bit of that misfortune. Back in the day elite, professional filtering was done earlier on and through different mechanisms. The difference isn't that cost has gone up, it's that our society has changed its approach. People didn't bet their careers because they didn't have careers to bet- they were generally locked in to a range of careers by their family's wealth. Allowing people to take on debt and strive has benefits, but it has costs, i.e. providing access to school necessitates cost and risk. So the conclusion is simple- there is no free lunch. Unless you are demonstrably exceptional, or are already part of the elite, dont strive unless you are willing to be fucked - which is exactly the same situation people have been encountering for thousands of years. Everything is on the table - I don't understand where the pity for people who behave recklessly comes from.

    and one more from a guy who has a 178 (or so) on the LSAT so thinks he is golden (Note that JCougar is one of a couple people in the thread trying to educate the 0Ls and not getting any thanks for it.)

    JCougar, until you compare the value of a JD with relative income figures of not perusing a JD, I cannot take you seriously.


    Start by comparing it to an alternative of a minimum wage job and work your way up if need be.
    40 year forecast.
    etc, etc.



    Not this bullshit, debt is bad, be afraid nonsense.
    Use your probabilities of statistics for getting a job. Research and see if years out of LS increase or decrease the chance to get a legal job with a JD. Stuff that isn't so readily apparent but is very valuable when evaluating a degree.




    ReplyDelete
  64. 178 is useless once you get into law school. No one ever asks and if you tell them they do not care. Will not help you land a legal job now or in the future.

    There are about 1.25 million licensed lawyers and somewhere over 700,000 legal jobs. If 225,000 of these are solos and another 200,000 are temp or document review, you have about 275,000 legal jobs that are full-time and permanent. Of these, at least a quarter are in larger law firms that are highly age skewed - they are associates in an up or out situation. You get down to a couple of hundred thousand paying jobs. If you look at the number in any geographic area, the numbers of jobs dwindle. Sure you an move after law school, but you cannot keep moving with a family every time one of your law jobs ends, which is likely to happen frequently. If you look at the jobs open to any given person, the numbers of jobs dwindle much more. Most legal jobs that are not entry level require very specific expertise that takes years of actual work to get. Most lawyers cannot qualify for that job based on their expertise. It is jobs that disappear at the drop of a hat and slim or nonexistent pickings when you need to replace that job that you should worry about. With a degree from Michigan, maybe half the class will not be gainfully employed at some point several years out of law school because they cannot find work. You do not want to be one of those people. A 178 LSAT does nothing to fix the situation. It is laughable to think someone could actually believe that a 178 LSAT will help them establish a legal career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he feels that with a 178 he will get Harvard and be set for life. I guess we will see how that plays out.

      Delete
    2. Also - right now that poster says he is really broke and law is his best shot at a career.

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    3. I don't know how many Harvards end up as solos or not working. The numbers would be interesting. I know several Harvard and Yales in these categories. I think it is safe to say that if these people could get paying legal jobs, they would take them. The question is whether one can have a happy stable career. With these numbers and the numbers getting worse each year, even Harvards are likely to be pushed from pillar to post.

      Delete
    4. My little town with too many lawyers has a Harvard Law School experienced attorney who just hung a shingle.

      Delete
  65. Just to clarify the comment of the writer above made, regarding fixing the supply side in a couple of years, the oversupply of lawyers will not fix itself for years and years. We are talking about 25 years if the law schools quarter their classes. The 178 LSAT is entering a losing market, whichever way you slice it. There is probably a surplus of one million lawyers over full-time permanent legal positions where one can stay for a career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What gets my attention is that people will blithely say that the market will sort itself out. They aren't realizing that market forces work on them as we'll as their friends, family and colleagues.

      Delete
  66. The other problem is that 0Ls do not understand the factors that go into being employed, at least once you age out of being young. Social factors that have nothing to do with the school you attended become paramount. It is like going to a very socially stratified high school and trying to join and stay in the popular clique. Once you are a certain number of years older than the boss, good luck. Surely some people have great social skills, but that is where the double Harvards that everyone thought were okay are separated from the Cooleys who were firmly ensconced in the top crowd in high school. Guess who gets to keep the job at age 45? It is not the double Harvard.

    This happens mainly because we are in such a lawyer oversupply situation. It is like the Dewey collapse. Every manager knows it. If you are not part of the manager's select clique, you are likely to be out the door.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This gem is from an 0L with 12 posts on TLS:

    As I have said, the market will sort all of this out. Those crap law schools that ignorant people recommend to similarly ignorant undergraduates? They will either go out of business or their reputation for getting no one a good job will precipitate down to the general public. It will become common knowledge.

    Lawyers have been around since before there was a written word. If anyone seriously think that a recession can take away the prestige or power of the profession, think again. Go back and read some news articles from the 1930's - reporters were swarming around the fact that the law profession was becoming a relic of a past age due to the Great Depression. The simple fact of the matter is this - the law is too convoluted and vast for businesses, congressmen, criminal defendants, and bickering spouses to be bothered with. There will always be a need for lawyers.

    Now if you want to argue the point of prestige, there might be some substance there. However, let me leave you with this last bit - there's always been jokes about lawyers, and there always will be. Similarly, the last thing someone in the legal system wants to be without is counsel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a faculty member at a lower tier law school masquerading as a 0L

      Delete
    2. Could be a faculty member but I doubt it. I didn't think that most faculty members would bother to post on TLS. Most of these people that I quoted are genuinely clueless 0Ls who are aggressively defending their decisions to go to law school.

      Delete
  68. Right, a million surplus lawyers will disappear overnight to make room for this 0L in the profession. You missed the point buddy. Those million extra lawyers want to work too, in all of 200,000 legal jobs, most of which are filled at any given time.

    How do you think it will sort out? Only after a lot of lawyers have zero value from their law degrees. This is economic suicide for the lawyers involved. Their situation is not sorted out in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Bar exam passage? I passed on the first try. But I maintain its a bullshit rite of passage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This bullshit "profession" is full of bullshit rites of passage.

      Delete
  70. Mr. Infinity seems to have his blog back up. It is worth keeping track of, since he seems a bit threatening.

    At least he didn't re-post that video of his, which almost made me call the police.

    In it, he threatened to "destroy" the scamblogs and/or the bloggers. It wasn;t clear on that, but enough for alarm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I read his newer posts on Jackass Marshall. I'm still convinced this guy is 100% flame. What worries me is that he's nut case flame.

      Delete
  71. Do you know what they call you after you graduate at the bottom of the class?

    They call you: "Counselor"

    And do you know what they call you if you pass the bar after 8 times?

    They call you: "Counselor"

    And then when you malpractice they might come up with a different name :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Hey you know.....

    Hey you know there was this um like this guy?

    He was like this um... guy um....you know?

    And he was like a, uh, you kinow, a lawyer?

    And he was at the bottom of the class in uh, in um...his law school? Like..that he went to?
    You know what I'm saying? The one that he went to?

    And then after that he took the bar exam like my cousin Vinnny like six times to pass? To um...to like pass it?

    And, and and and then later on he did big lawsuit against a big company that was um like a class action lawsuit and like really big like millions of dollars? To do as a big lawsuit?

    And then he like, he won?

    And now he's really rich? Like, rich?

    And that's what I heard.

    ReplyDelete
  73. For your enjoyment: Another TLS thread where a person asks for common factors among the unemployed lawyers. He has been offered a scholarship at his local T3 (school named not mentioned) THAT REQUIRES HIM TO REMAIN IN THE TOP 15% to keep all of it and TOP 30% to keep half of it.

    Shouldn't that be illegal?

    He wants to know if it is a good idea for him to go to this T3 as he is a local boy and has connections. He knows enough to ask this but not enough to know he can negotiate the stipulations on scholarships.

    Anyway...no one has mentioned in the thread so far that the reason people don't get jobs is because there aren't enough jobs. One person suggests it is because law students don't look for jobs hard enough, they assume they will find work after they graduate. I think this is in part correct, people don't realize how terrible the market is until they realize that they aren't getting a job. Blame for this perception lies squarely on the schools who for years lied about job prospects.

    But, of course, the real problem is that the jobs don't exist. You can't get hired if a job doesn't exist, no matter how hard you try to find one.

    http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=198452

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too bad experienced lawyers cannot comment anonymously on TLS. It is a fiction where kids convince each other to make the greatest mistake of their lives. No one who is working and has something to lose will comment with their name. These kids are on a forum where they have the wool pulled over their eyes.

      Delete
    2. You can create an account and post under another name. You just need an email address to create an account. It can be under any email address, as far as I know. It doesn't have to be in your real name. But the forum mods will always be able to see your IP address, if that matters to you.



      Delete
  74. They ought to allow experienced lawyers to comment without e-mail addresses so the people using that site do not deceive each other.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Just saw this article on law.com about legal hiring being flat or down at most firms in California. Works out great for the firms because they can get the best talent and assume that talent might stick around for a while.

    Also, clients are happy to pay for due diligence done by a non-partnership track attorney living in West Virginia, according to Orrick. (Orrick is gleeful about getting clerks and getting low paid associates. Guess this whole law collapse thing is really working out for them.)

    http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202578696141

    ReplyDelete
  76. The law school debt numbers barely registered with commenters. It is becoming so expected that the numbers are fictitious that new revelations as to their level of deception have little to no impact. Schools should be pushed to come up with a standardized formula for student debt level and should have to turn in to the ABA the raw data. It would be easy to accomplish this without a FERPA violation. The formula should include undergraduate debt, compounded interest, and an average surveyed response for bar exam period loans. Why fight against a realistic number? The reason certainly can't be in line with the schools stated mission.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Wrap it in gauze and put it in the infected area.

    Nylon underclothing may also cause an allergic reaction in some
    woman. Candida bacteria feed on other weakened friendly bacteria in the human body.


    my web blog: yeast infection and pregnancy symptoms

    ReplyDelete
  78. You should never stop investigating, researching and analysing the market to be reactive and play the main role on your market.
    Robert Riohe is a well-known author, he has been writing different blogs on different topics like
    health,nutrition,supplements etc. If this kind of business you are
    looking for or planning to go into just for the reason that you wanted to consult or
    even handle those promotions for other businesses, well then, make sure that don’t fail to notice the
    opportunity to point out those costumers or clients of yours who
    are potentials in which you grow your own business with the very techniques you wanted to provide to them.


    Also visit my web blog Internet Marketing Plan

    ReplyDelete
  79. There are also many reputed facebook fan page design and
    fan providers who sell their products for a price. An experienced service provider from the industry can
    anly assist you buy Facebook fans and likes that would be real and active
    Facebook users. This is the reason why most of organizations are
    now being into contact with social networking solution providers.


    Feel free to visit my web page Buy Facebook Fans Cheap

    ReplyDelete
  80. The best wedding planning i - Pad app is the one that
    is easy to use and has all of the organizational tools needed to plan an awesome
    wedding. This is the perfect chance to send a
    wedding announcement. This is not always something that brides or grooms have time to put together on
    their own.

    My page :: wedding website advertising

    ReplyDelete
  81. Well with the internet the world has suddenly become the customer base of many
    businesses, especially Facebook. Everyone knows that the internet is a
    global village where it is very simple to reach
    your audience for the promotion of specific business idea, products
    or services. Like anything else in this world, you get what you pay for.


    Feel free to visit my blog :: Buy Google Plus One Votes Cheap
    My webpage > Buy Google Plus One Votes Cheap

    ReplyDelete

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