No one is talking about key data that has always been readily available that should create suspicion about law school employment figures. That data is each school's bar passage rate. I graduated from a law school with a 76% first-time passage rate and a 99% employment rate within 9 months of graduation. This data tells me that it is highly unlikely that much more than 76% of the graduating class enjoys full-time permanent employment in a job as a lawyer. Sure, some non-passers may be at firms that are willing to keep them on for another try. On the other hand, an equal number, if not more, of those first-time passers likely went on pursue an LLM.
While more transparency is needed with respect to job and salary information, I don't think it was ever reasonable to believe that a higher percentage of law school graduates secured permanent, full time employment as lawyers than passed the bar exam on the first try.
For a striking demonstration of this point, check out the remarkable differences between the nine-month employment rates and the bar passage rates in this table (Note that the employment rates here are slightly higher than those published by USNWR in the relevant years, because they were the "raw" numbers reported by schools, before they were adjusted by USNWR, by treating the employment rate among graduates for which schools reported no data as 25%. Also, while it's true that it's possible for a law school grad to have a job with a legal employer without being licensed, few legal employers will tolerate that situation for long).
A related point is that the NALP data on how many graduates had full-time jobs as lawyers nine months after graduation (note this stat includes temporary as well as permanent positions, so it's a generously broad definition of what's a real legal job) has over the last decade consistently hovered around 65% to 70%. While it's true this data is aggregated, i..e, it's still not available to prospective students on an individual school basis, you don't need to be a math major to figure out that if USNWR has been reporting nine-month "employment" rates of over 95% for the vast majority of schools in the top 100, and even quite a few in the third tier, something about these numbers has never added up. (In the 2010 USNWR rankings, that is, well after the recession had gotten rolling, 73% of first and second-tier schools reported a nine-month employment rate of 95% or higher, and the lowest reported rate among these 100 schools was 89.5%).
So in a sense, it should have been easy for prospective law students, over the past decade, to figure out that the employment numbers being touted by law schools were essentially fake. All they needed to do was to go into the process of researching law schools without making any prior assumption that anything law schools -- or the ABA Guide, or USNWR, or the Princeton Review, etc. etc. -- said about law school employment stats was actually true. In other words, ironically enough, they just needed to be thinking like (good) lawyers.
I think this is the defense Cooley is using in its suit: our employment stats are higher than our bar passage rate, so clearly "employed" means anything from biglaw to collecting cans for recycling.ReplyDelete
People who used these things to decide whether to go to law school may have used this information in the way you say, but they may not have fixated on the nine month period as relevant to the potential of their careers.ReplyDelete
"People who used these things to decide whether to go to law school may have used this information in the way you say, but they may not have fixated on the nine month period as relevant to the potential of their careers."ReplyDelete
This would be evidence that these people haven't thought at all deeply about a legal career. If they had, they would know their future as "winners" or "losers" of law school (and frequently, the legal profession) is all but set in stone 24 months prior to graduation, not 9 months after.
I've always wondered where people that go to schools like Cooley think they're going to end up. I mean, this is a school that devised a ranking system that puts it up there with Harvard and Yale. Clearly the school is wrong for lying, but why would anyone ever pay to go there?ReplyDelete
"So in a sense, it should have been easy for prospective law students, over the past decade, to figure out that the employment numbers being touted by law schools were essentially fake."ReplyDelete
1) Are you insinuating that this somehow lessens the seriousness of education fraud?
2) When you applied to law school, did you cross check your school's bar passage rate with the employment stats? If so, did you ask your school's representatives to explain the discrepancy?
People don't expect liberal non-profit institutions to lie to them. In my mind, that puts an even higher ethical standard on schools not to lie. And it makes even less sense to blame the victim when non-profit schools should ALWAYS be looking out for the best interests of their students. Not the administrations and professors.
I think it's funny that anyone thinks that just because someone "expects" someone or some organization not to lie to them that that would put a higher ethical standard for that person or organization not to lie.ReplyDelete
Those lawsuits have a lot of holes in them...good luck proving that the numbers were fraudulent misrepresentations, good luck proving that they were the inducement for a 21 year old to decide to go to law school, and good luck proving that it was reasonable to rely on the information as saying that 99% of all graduates had full time legal work requiring a JD!
I just don't see it happening...but I applaud those who are making the attempt.
"This would be evidence that these people haven't thought at all deeply about a legal career. If they had, they would know their future as "winners" or "losers" of law school (and frequently, the legal profession) is all but set in stone 24 months prior to graduation, not 9 months after."ReplyDelete
This also misses one other critical point: that the vast majority of prospective law students probably make this assessment, but still wind up going to law school anyways, most likely because this 24-month window between one's First and Third years is to them an abstraction based on a series of outcomes which they, for whatever reason, have decided are more likely than not to shake out in their favor.
If they had any reason to believe that, in most instances outside the Top 6, the "winners" and "losers" of any law school class are often restricted to as few as 2% of their classmates, then their decision to enroll would seem even more foolhardy.
But few prospective law students make that kind of assessment, partially because they are lead to believe that the liklihood of success is far higher than the likelihood of failure. That *is* the purpose of this whole enterprise of talking about what law schools actually do.
And if the argument is that a prospective law student should already possess the native ability to issue spot prior to entering law school, then we need to be either a) drastically revisitng how law school is taught or b) doing away with all of T3 and T4. As long as we've decided that law school is not something that can actually be taught, we can at least be honest with both ourselves and the marketplace at large.
So then what do you propose, 10:04am?ReplyDelete
For the problem to persist?
Are you honestly of the belief that there is no economic consequence to saddling tens and thousands of people annually with six figures of deck over what is, in effect, a bill of goods?
Even if it isn't fraudulent misrepresentation, on what basis is it defensible for the entire academy to be so utterly (and it seems willingly) divorced from the particulars of the profession it serves (including the not insignificant nub of whether or not the bulk of their graduates will find jobs)?
@Chris- That is, in part, hyperbole. There are people who have legal careers who wereReplyDelete
not "winners" right off the bat. You are right that people do not do the
kind of work that should be done before deciding to go to law school.
10:14 : No, there is an economic consequence all right...as many of the students and graduates know and as all of the 6 figure salary law profs know as well!ReplyDelete
I am of the belief that there will be no great economic price to pay for the law schools, if that is what you are asking. I'm not saying it is just, but I don't think that there is going to be a legal remedy for any current or prior students.
More transparency will come, I think. I think tuition will keep going up, and I think people will continue to pay it to go to law school.
Going to law school (or college in general) isn't supposed to work like playing the slots, but the mentality that will continue to drive people to do one will continue to drive people to do the other.
Unfortunately, I have no solution for the problem that 45,000 people per year will continue to pay handsomely for something that is not worth the money regardless of how expensive it is (relatively speaking) or how much information they have to try to show them that it's not a good idea.
So, if we achieve 100 percent transparency, and some people stillReplyDelete
choose to go to law school, is that it?
I guess so...what more could you want in our "free society"?ReplyDelete
Look at all of the knowledge that is out there about how dangerous smoking is, look how damn expensive a pack is today, and still there are a lot of people that continue to do it.
The same will be true of law school because lawyers will always be he subjects of good books and entertaining television and movies...
Terry Mallory, I thought you said you were leaving?ReplyDelete
I said this before a couple dozen threads ago, but I think its worth repeating. The transparancy effort will have a stronger effect on parents and other adults than it will on 0Ls, but this is all you need. For reasons now discussed at length, determined 0Ls cannot be stopped. But their determination wasn't born in a vaccuum. Their desire to choose law school is a product of a culture that rewards them with high-status for doing so. It is experienced almost immediately. Once you start telling people that you plan to attend law school, you are met with approval. People are impressed.ReplyDelete
Compare to the reaction you'd get telling people you've decided to go to art school or culinary school. If the 0Ls got that sort of reaction, they'd quickly lose interest. Transparancy efforts can help generate the right sort of reactions from the people whose approval the 0Ls are seeking.
In case anyone doesn't know, the "transparency doesn't matter" post come from one guy who - despite the fact that transparency doesn't matter according to him - has picked it as his only posting topic.ReplyDelete
If it doesn't matter then don't worry about it and stop posting about it.
But remember the much-touted "versatility" of the JD. A 0L can just as easily assume that employed/bar passage rate discrepancy is that not every job that any given school's graduates takes is a job that necessarily requires admittance to the bar. Perhaps the 20% who are employed but aren't passing the bar are being absorbed into other fields which don't suck, e.g. the civil service or regulatory compliance.ReplyDelete
There's nothing that *demands* a starry-eyed 0L to assume that that 20% is instead digging ditches, washing dishes, or on the school's make-work program.
(As an aside, is a school's bar passage rate calculated as test-takers from the school successfully passing the bar/number of graduates, or test-takers from the school successfully passing the bar/number of test-takers taking any bar exam? The numbers could be different.)
When thinking about why 0Ls go to law school, don't forget the pre-law advisors. Many colleges, I think, brag about how many of their grads go to medical or law school. Plus, pre-law advisors don't want to be in the tough position of saying to some hard-working college student: "Look, I know you've always wanted to be a lawyer, but your grades and LSAT score will only get you into a 2d/3d/4th tier school. That's not worth the tuition--just give it up!" It's in the interest of both the colleges and the psyche of the pre-law advisors to happily encourage their grads' dreams of law school.ReplyDelete
Not excusing the law schools or anyone else here--just saying that the pre-law advisors and colleges may be another force.
Second one should read "test-takers from the school successfully passing the bar/number of test-takers *from the school* taking any bar exam."ReplyDelete
Lawprof, your post is idiotic because there is a simple and easily believable explanation for why a graduate could have a law job before passing the bar. ALL OF YALE'S LAW GRADS HAVE GOOD LAW JOBS BEFORE PASSING THE BAR. ALL OF THEM.ReplyDelete
Passing the bar in no way places an upper limit on the number of grads with law jobs. That is a total failure of basic reasoning on your part. Having 99% employment and 80% bar passage actually makes the school look better than 99% employment and 99% bar passage because the former can place its graduates even before they pass the bar, just like Yale.
To make this as idiot proof as possible for lawprof and others, 99% employment with 50% bar passage = the school telling applicants: "our grads are in such high demand that you don't even need to pass the bar to get your first job. we're like Yale and Harvard, where the jd alone gets you the position."ReplyDelete
As has been repeated often, the majority of prospective law students (who most agree are tremendously risk-averse) choose law school in part b/c they subconsciously think that worst case scenario they will get a secure job that pays around $50K a year.ReplyDelete
That's a flat out lie for at least 50% of JD grads (maybe more). It's an especially destructive lie for the youngest applicants with no other job experience. The 95% percent employed reinforces the illusion of job-finding security with or without bar passage. The biased sampling and resulting massive statistical fraud absolutely reinforces this and other patently false realities.
This is actionable deceit at best, and pervasive fraud at worst.
Let's not forget that there has to be a tremendous amount of criminal kick-backs, bribes, and fraud that goes on in order to cover up the statistical and marketing frauds that are already apparent. Only a matter of time until the whistle blowers show up. I know I'll be ready with my popcorn and schadenfreude.
I don't think the two arguments in your point 1 are mutually exclusive. Clearly the schools are wrong for lying. The fact that they are wrong doesn't the incredibly poor choices some students made (especially Cooley students).
Love the Slate article. Did you notice that a Cooley Law ad accompanies the article? At least it did on my site. Too hilarious.ReplyDelete
Amar and Ayres are heavy hitters among academics, so it's great to have them in this debate. Things are continuing to bubble...
12:13: What these stats show is that, nine months after graduation, many schools are strongly implying that far more of their students have legal jobs than have passed the bar at that point. That has nothing to do with Yale law grads getting offers before they pass the bar -- nine months after graduation almost all Yale grads have passed the bar, so there's no disjunction between Yale law grad employment rates and bar passage rates.ReplyDelete
The Slate article is brilliant. It brings up nearly every issue at hand, in a clear and concise way, and suggests a Real Solution That Might Actually Work. Spread this thing far and wide.ReplyDelete
You don't need to pass the bar to get a legal job. You might need to pass the bar, by your second or third try, to keep the legal job. But you don't need to pass the bar to get the job. All law firm 3L offers, for example, are made before the student passes the bar.ReplyDelete
Well, it is Amar and Ayres.ReplyDelete
The slate article is interesting to say the least.ReplyDelete
"In case anyone doesn't know, the "transparency doesn't matter" post come from one guy"ReplyDelete
No, Im another guy and haven't posted yet today...you are way too defensive and can't deal with nuance or disagreement. Nobody stated that transparency doesn't matter, only that the most important part is the money side of the equation. If tuition was reasonable and loans were dischargeable then people could easily transition from a life of heavy debt and an occupation they decided they didn't like.
Transparency is important but is a symptom of the larger problem. Even if the numbers were not fudged, tuition would still be ridiculously high and there would still be starry eyed students thinking they were the ones that could beat the odds, especially if they hated their current careers/prospects. Its like playing the lottery except you pay for the rest of your life one way or another.
You need to learn how to deal with diverse opinions.
I've been reading this site for some time now, and this is my first post. I start by saying -- great job Prof Campos ! You are performing an invaluable service at significant personal cost. Thank you.ReplyDelete
How about this for a reform idea – instead of the federal government loaning money to students, the feds would make loans to qualified schools. The schools, in turn, could make loans to its students, and the school would take the credit risk on the students and their job prospects. If the school takes the credit risk on the student repaying his/her loan, it would force law schools to set tuition more reasonably, to admit only as many students as the job market will bear, and to train its students better.
Of course, this would have to be phased-in over a period of time and would perhaps work best as a sharing of credit risk between the school and other third-party lenders (but the school should be the last one paid (i.e., junior in payment to the other lenders)). This idea is akin to the new requirement that mortgage brokers and banks retain a portion of the loans that they make, so that they have skin in the game. Law schools should have skin in the game too, skin that is directly related how their graduates fare in the job market.
What kind of psycho claims to be multiple people on an irrelevant comments section? At least try not to use the exact same tone and phrases. You're seriously mentally ill to be so invested in telling everyone that something doesn't matter.ReplyDelete
lol...lawprof, you need to block this troll he is truly ruining your comments section. Every time someone has a slightly different take he comes on yelling that you support the ABA or that you're telling everyone that transparency doesn't matter. should I start yelling that you're telling everyone that high tuition doesn't matter? Grow up.ReplyDelete
Ive had a blog or two in my life so I know that you can easily trace every comment by IP address. I'll eat my shorts if LawProf states that Ive posted more than this comment and the one you're flipping out on today.
First we had steroid boy, then the pearl clutchers and now this guy. So many asshats in this world.
...and we all know who "claims to be multiple people on an irrelevant comments section."ReplyDelete
Hear, hear the slate link referenced above authored by the Yale law professors. Law schools should have long been required to maintain long term employment statistics for their graduates (percent employed and reported salary or earnings), not only 1 year post graduation but every year for 10 years, 20 years, until retirement! If these data were available, the real truth might be surprising.ReplyDelete
The slate article mostly deals with loans and how they should be restructured so the the law schools have some skiing in in the game and also discusses allowing law students to get a refund if the y drop out he first year. Transparency was a side issue.ReplyDelete
Really interesting, with a few faults, but addresses a lot of important necessary changes....mainly about student loans.
And, right off the bat, they brainstorm about solutions, not just describe the problem. As you say, there are flaws, but the lawyerly focus on attempting to problem solve is refreshing.ReplyDelete
Are you capable of allowing one comment go without OCD posting about how transparency doesn't matter and it's all about loans?ReplyDelete
You are a deranged and obsessed loon.
4:24 I agree with you that long term career statistics would be ideal, but I think that goal is too ambitious.The idea to refund tuition money is also unrealistic.ReplyDelete
I say we start with the modest goal of getting law schools to be honest about their immediate placement results. No more biased sampling on salary statistics. No more combining full and part time jobs into one number. No more counting nonlegal starbucks jobs as "business." Let's get that first and then we'll address the more ambitious goals.
Speaking of which, do we have the list of professors and administrators who signed the petition?
I have to disagree w/ the commentator. The issue isn't what the pontential attendees of law schools should have done to discover the truth. The issue is the honesty of the law schools.ReplyDelete
When Bernie Madoff committed the crimes he did, not one peep was made about the intelligence of his victims or what they should have done to investigate the truth. Why? Because we all instinctively realized that he had done something WRONG.
We should be turning a critical eye towards the honesty of a profession that allows its educational institutions to engage in deliberately misleading individuals and trying to conceal the truth, simply because a dime is to be made. Whether those who were mislead should have become professional investigators or expert statisticians is irrelevant, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ENGAGED IN THE WRONGDOING. Remember those times, everyone, when wrongdoing use to be considered negative, unlike today, where it is far better to be a wrongdoer than being accused of being not experienced or not savvy?
Only in the legal profession would you ignore the wrongdoer and instead start reflecting the comments to those who were scammed, because they should have known better. Just goes to show you what high morals the legal profession has: better to be a rip off artist that takes advantage of others than to be the person that was taken advantage of. Next we are going to start praising the law schools for having the initiative to make money at all costs. Gotta love the law and the people in it!
"If tuition was reasonable and loans were dischargeable then people could easily transition from a life of heavy debt and an occupation they decided they didn't like."
How do you suggest that we get there from here?
If you're Bench Press Guy, you believe that we could do this by Occupy-style protests and angry phone calls to former professors (but won't, because that would take guts or balls or other masculine virtues we collectively lack). The transparency advocates believe that most law schools will be forced to change their prices when it's obvious to incoming law students who's getting their students jobs in the law and who isn't. Still others don't bother explaining how we'd get there from here at all, and deride transparency because some people would be dumb enough to attend in spite of facts to the contrary.
If you've got another plan, air it here. If Campos does nothing else for it, he can get that plan noticed by a lot of people. If he reposts it while making fun of the people at Prawfsblawg or Volokh, even moreso.
I wish to clarify the 4:24 post. The point is the law school has been a terrible investment for a large percentage of graduates for decades. A large percentage who get decent jobs out of law school will be nonetheless unemployed with few options for a decent salary a few years after law school. Therefore, in my experience, over the long term, the initial first job statistics tell a story that is still too optimistic (even as bad as the first job placement statistics are). No one can enter the law business and expect to make more money year after year or even expect to make any money year after year.ReplyDelete
Not to minimize problems with law schools but, "a terrible investment for large percentages of graduates for decades"? For decades? How could you possibly know that? You can call attention to the need for people to think clearly about whether to go to law school --and the importance of having reliable information to help make the decision-- without making claims like that.ReplyDelete
Would you call buying a degree for thousands, now multiple tens of thousands of dollars and spending 3 years of your life doing it only to never work in a job that requires that degree a terrible investment? I assume yes.
Would you call buying a degree for thousands, now multiple tens of thousands of dollars and spending 3 years of your life doing it and only work for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 years in a job that requires that degree a terrible investment? I assume yes.
If so, I have lived long enough to see the first and the second scenarios for scores and scores of people. That is why I say law school has been a terrible investment for a large percentage of graduates for decades. You cannot make an intelligent decision on whether to go to law school based upon first job out of law school employment statistics. In my opinion, an intelligent decision must also include an assessment of the likelihood of employment long term and the real long term earning potential.
My main point was that your claim that law school has been a terrible investment for decades is too broad, and not necessary for even a strong critique of the current situation.ReplyDelete
As to your questions, I would answer that it depends on the school, the person, and what he or she wants to accomplish. That was even more true in decades past when law school did not cost so much. I have lived long enough to see scores of people for whom law school was a good choice, even when they went on to other things. I have
seen it be a bad choice for others,too.
You are right that a person cannot use statistics about employment one year out to make the decision. The person has to look to other sources. But while statistics that cover a longer period might be "better" in some sense, they would not be dispositive. There are no guarantees because, as we know, whole industries can shift underneath people's feet.
@6:49 - you're clearly the obsessed loon. You don't even understand the argument. You're the typical douche law student/lawyer who turns everyone off with with your wonderfully charming personality.ReplyDelete
On Segal's latest in The Times.ReplyDelete
Wow those numbers are interesting. 3.6 billion dollars in law school tuition per year, half of which goes to pay professor salaries. Puts the whole job placement statistic fraud thing into perspective. This isn't some academic debate. There is an entire industry with thousands of high paying jobs that depend on schools killing the transparency movement. Publish honest job placement numbers and that revenue would be cut in half at least.ReplyDelete
Good point John 4:41. What the "transparency doesn't matter because it's all about loans" loon doesn't understand is that the job placement numbers fraud is there precisely to get those loans. If NYLS didn't publish statistics showing that all of their graduates got good jobs, then an applicant would take their money to another program. Compared to a median private sector salary of $125,000 a physical therapist program looks bad. But compared to the reality out of NYLS physical therapist school is probably a great deal.ReplyDelete
It's the same reason that companies publish fraudulent income statements in hopes of getting investors. How dumb would someone have to be to argue that accounting standards are irrelevant because the goal should be to cut off the investment money? How incoherent would someone have to be to say it doesn't matter that Madoff is making up fake returns because if we cut off his access to investors then the problem will take care of itself?
I'll tell you how dumb - see the "transparency doesn't matter" lunatic who has been posting his incoherent mental vomit all over this thread.
On the topic of Madoff, it is a fact that if you looked at the volume of trades on the options markets you would have irrefutable proof that Madoff could not have been using the strategy he claimed. There were no where near enough trades.ReplyDelete
For Lawprof to argue that, by way of bar passage rates students were put on notice of the fraud, is like Madoff arguing that by way of the options trade volume data his clients were put on notice of the fact that he was lying about his trading strategy. Actually, Lawprof's claim is even worse - because while the trading volume absolutely/mathematically eliminates the possibility that Madoff was trading as he claimed - bar passage rates do not place an upper limit on the number of graduates in legal jobs (because, again, most law firm attorneys start their associate job before passing the bar.)
I hope this lays this awful post, and the idiot commenter who inspired it, to rest once and for all. I don't know how much clearer I can state it.
Anybody thinking that Lawprof is arguing the students were put on notice is misunderstanding the tone of the post, and probably hasn't read this blog from start to finish. If anything, Lawprof is mocking that argument.ReplyDelete
Too much space and effort for a joke.ReplyDelete
Foreclosure Defense Lawyer have extensive experience defending their clients in all types of contract disputes. These range from standard breach of contract matters, credit card cases, and cases in which an individual or corporation failed to uphold their terms of the contract.ReplyDelete
Thank you for sharing such an informative blog about law and lawyers..it is very useful information..i hope it will help me in my business...ReplyDelete
Houses For Sale Pine Island
Law is established to maintain peace and order in society and to deliver justice to the people..than ks for sharing this informative blog..it will prove worthwhile for my business.ReplyDelete
Nice article..it's giving useful information about the work of lawyers..thanks for sharing the post..i hope it will prove worthwhile for my business..Condos For Sale FortMyersReplyDelete
It's a useful information..thanks for sharing it..it would be of great help for my business..PineIslandRealEstate For SaleReplyDelete
Great posting..thanks for sharing this information..it will help me in my business..Homes For Sale Pine IslandReplyDelete
I read the content and found it very useful..thanks for sharing..it will be worth helping in my business..Homes For Sale In Cape Coral FloridaReplyDelete
quite good..very good written article..i liked it..thanks for sharing it..it would be helpful for my business..Houses For Sale Cape CoralReplyDelete
very good article thanks for sharing.. Patent Attorney Holland, MIReplyDelete
The above information will be very useful for my business..thanks for sharing it.. Patent Attorney Kalamazoo if you are accused for trademark violation, we have expert lawyers to represent you strongly in the court.ReplyDelete
It is a useful blog for a lawyer..thanks for sharing it.. Trademark Attorney Holland, MIif you have been accused of trademark violation and copyright infringement charge, we offer you the expert lawyers to handle your case.ReplyDelete
this is an informative blog..thanks for sharing it.. Trademark Attorney KalamazooReplyDelete
we provide you the best lawyers to handle your trademark violation case.
Intellectual Property Lawyer Holland, MI we have the best law firm in Holland which excels in the area of intellectual property laws.ReplyDelete
Intellectual Property Lawyer Kalamazoo our law firm is dedicated to provide any kind of legal assistance related to intellectual property laws.ReplyDelete
Copyright Lawyer KalamazooReplyDelete
our lawyers are the most experienced and efficient in handling copyright infringement cases, they are aggressive lawyers who fight for their clients in the courtroom.
one's percentage did not decide the efficiency at work.. False Arrest Lawyer ManhattanFalse Arrest Lawyer of Manhattan is a law office with full understanding of what constitutes a legal arrest. our lawyers in Manhattan are in great demand especially among people who have suffered from the hands of policemen who were too aggressive and lacked due diligence in doing their jobs.ReplyDelete
Great article.. Federal Defense Lawyer Manhattan Anthony strazza is the best lawyer in Manhattan.He is most experienced in defending cases with a high level of honesty, but an even higher level of skill and dedication.ReplyDelete
Good Blog.. Divorce Lawyer NewCanaan divorce is finalised in-order to ease the tension and create a more stable family life for the children involved in the divorce. If you are concerned about the ability of your ex-spouse to take care of your child, then it is essential that you hire a lawyer in New Canaan to defend your child’s future.ReplyDelete
Thanks for sharing useful information.. Divorce Attorneys StamfordThere are reasons that will help you better than others in the long term. If you have simply just fallen out of love with your spouse, it is unlikely that you will be able to get a massive settlement.ReplyDelete
It is very useful information especially for lawyers.. Divorce Lawyer Norwalk Divorce Lawyer Norwalk clearly defines the nuances of divorce and a separation to her clients with the aim to help them understand fully the ramifications of the actions they intend to take.ReplyDelete
Well written blog.. Bankruptcy Attorney StamfordBankruptcy Attorney Stamford wants you to know that state law play a major role in many bankruptcy cases, and it is often not possible to generalise bankruptcy law across the nationReplyDelete
Drug Defense Attorney ManhattanIf you are arrested for suspicion of drug offense in New York City, you need to get a drug defense attorney, Manhattan based to help you with your case.ReplyDelete
Thanks! This post contains very significant ideas and facts that every reader should be followed. Great idea indeed Car Accident Lawyer MaconReplyDelete