I"m Striking Out at OCI
midweststudent (Aug 30, 2012 - 2:01 am)The typical law student at the typical law school is now incurring levels of educational debt that make sense only on the assumption that the student will get a job with the typical employers (large law firms) who come to a school's on-campus interview (OCI).
Help! My grades are not the problem (my school is an issue, but I know that others have gotten CBs). I do have a lot of public-service/not very prestigious pre-law-school experience on my resume - which employers seem to want to talk about (and which might be a problem). I only have a couple additional screeners - so at this point, I want to talk small firm 2L summer stuff. How do I go about getting a job. I've been drinking all night - apologies for typos, general lack of coherence.
The typical law student at the typical law school is extremely unlikely to get such a job.
In 2011, 3,375 out of the 43,001 graduates whose job status was recorded by NALP were reported to get jobs via OCI. This is a smaller number than the 4,756 graduates who were reported to get jobs with law firms of more than 100 attorneys, although some unknown percentage of the larger figure were hired into non-partner track positions that certainly weren't acquired via OCI.
In any case, the large majority of graduates who got jobs via OCI were at T-14 schools, as at most schools the number of graduate who get jobs via this route is negligible, as is, of course, the number of graduates who get jobs with large firms. (I looked at the extended 2011 NALP forms for two schools, one top 50 and the other top 100, and found that 24 of 460 grads got jobs via OCI).
Why do people pay so much for something that is very unlikely to produce a result making the investment worthwhile? ITLSS has examined several of the factors at length, including asymmetrical information (in its more extreme forms, morphing into outright fraud), optimism bias, confirmation bias, and other factors that produce annual blizzards of special snowflakes.
One thing that hasn't gotten enough emphasis is what could be called the incredulity factor. I suggest there's a baseline assumption at work among prospective law students that, if law schools cost $200,000 and more to attend, it couldn't be the case that this price simply bears no reasonable relationship whatsoever to the present value of a law degree. Because if this were the case, that would suggest a bunch of very respectable social institutions had in effect become shams. And that couldn't be true because . . .
Better start searching for that lost shaker of salt.
A law school grad asked Obama on Reddit (whatever the hell that is) about debt and unemployment. And I quote:
"Despite graduating from a top school, I find myself unemployed with a large student loan debt burden. While I’m sure my immediate prospects will improve in time..."
To which the president responds:
"You’re right – your long term prospects are great, but that doesn’t help in the short term.... Because of our student loan bill, we are lowering the debt burdens that young people have to carry."
I would say that both optimism bias and the incredulity factor at hard at work here.
I'm have conflicting feelings over an issue that doesn't even affect me: Obama removing the subsidization of Stafford graduate loans.Delete
The point is Obama is not lowering debt burdens, unless he wants to make the argument that the removal of subsidization indirectly reduces tuition prices.
"How do I go about getting a job?"ReplyDelete
Here's how: Go to a top school and get good grades. Go to a good school and get top grades. Or have rock solid employment connections. If you don't fall into one of those categories, you don't get a job. Now get back to drinking.
I have the first two but cannot get an interview, never mind a job.Delete
Oh well then, I guess you will have to find another career path. If you can't get an interview, then you can't get a job.Delete
So unless you go solo, you will need to choose a new career.
Are YOU A LAW GRAD? If , you are, no license, when seek a job, don't' even mentioned you are a law grad, the chance is slim, unless you tell them you could do anything , anything whatever they order you to do.Delete
If you apply related legal work in law firm, you are a outsider unless you have relationship with one of another.
If you walked into a casino with $200,000, you're probably a lot more aware of what you are getting yourself into. If you lose the money, well, what did you think was going to happen? If, on the other hand, you walk into an accredited law school, replete with beautiful hallways and classrooms, you could not possibly imagine how big of a gamble you were taking. As Bernie Madoff showed us, the illusions that people and institutions put up are quite powerful.ReplyDelete
A notable difference is that once you've lost that $200,000 in a casino, you're kicked out a free man. In law school, once you tap out, your promises stick around for a while - i.e., the rest of your life - and keep gambling such that what you lose keeps doubling down on itself.Delete
Agreed. So pay back the money or live with the crushing debt burden.Delete
Take your pick.
I posted this late last night on the prior thread, but the videos here are so good, they deserve a second chance.ReplyDelete
A succinct and accurate summary of the situation for law students today:
lololol "Don't fall for the law school scam you dumb motherfuckers." Says it all right there.Delete
How I got here I haven't a clue.ReplyDelete
One thing that confuses me about the JDU post -OCI and OCI callbacks before Labor Day? That sounds early to me. I graduated 20 years ago, maybe things have changed.ReplyDelete
Yes. OCI and callbacks start in August now. Many people even mass mail before then to firms outside of OCI.Delete
C/O 2011, top 50 school, regional powerhouse, my OCI was done and I had my summer Biglaw offers by Aug. 20 of 2009.ReplyDelete
The C/O 2010 experienced what was really the first "OCI rush" where firms began doing OCI in July/August. It's basically the standard now. You know how it is, Cravath farts and everyone else farts too as to not lose face.ReplyDelete
The last 20 years or so, I've gotten progressively skeptical about government and authority in general:ReplyDelete
--the housing collapse (conventional wisdom = real estate is always a good investment and if you rent you are throwing money away)
--the law school scam (the outlines of which I started to discern a few years ago)
--the Catholic Church child sex abuse horror
--the disastrous drug war and the entire prison industrial complex
--the general higher education scam
--the whole food pyramid, low fat/high carb, taxpayer-subsidized corn syrup and soybean oil thing (which has been a health disaster)
Im at the point now where I simply don't accept conventional wisdom about ANYTHING--because Im learning CW is usually bullshit. The emperor has no clothes.
"CW is usually bullshit."Delete
Don't forget the "weapons of mass destruction" b.s. that was used to justify invading Iraq. As for the building 7 collapse... sigh, I don't have the energy anymore.Delete
Paul, are you actually saying that you think the present value of a JD is < the cost of tuition?ReplyDelete
Are you incorrectly using terms, or do you sincerely believe that a JD will not be able to earn back his/her tuition over their lifetime?
I don't think you have nearly the wisdom to even place a respectable guess as to what the lifetime worth of a JD is. Granted, in the short term it looks miserable, but there is simply no way for you to know what the vast majority of grads are going to do over the next 50 years or so.
12:01PM is clearly a shill, a 0L or a professor who can't face the truth.Delete
A JD is worth it if you manage to hit the BigLaw lottery, if not, do not pass go and collect 150k in non-dischargeable debt.
I hope this is sarcasm. I think it probably is, though the last paragraph does make one wonder. If it's not, consider that the relative short term is all that really matters. Once you hit default on your student loans, your financial life is irretrievable.Delete
Are time value of money and opportunityy costs difficult for you to understand? Three years of sacrificed income, strong probability of gaining nothing from the degree (you might as well have set the money on fire), interest payments on loans, damaged employment prospects outside the legal field (which you will turn to if you haven't found decent legal employment within two years because you're seen as tainted)... the list goes on. If you're going to State U or, worse, Local U, and your State U isn't Michigan, Virginia, Berkeley, etc. you are almost certainly wasting your time and effort.Delete
Hi Anon. You're posting here now?Delete
See the above comment, to which I will again emphasize the matter of interest. A law student that borrows full tuition to attend one of the most inexpensive law schools in the country, will end up paying back $600K on a 20 year repayment plan. Is that the great "lifetime worth" of a JD? Or if we can't really know what this "lifetime worth" is, it's nonetheless a good idea to bet $200k of non-dischargeable, taxpayer-funded money on law school? WTF kind of nonsense is this?
Whoever you are, Anon, you are actively engaged in fraud, and sooner or later you will be held accountable for your actions.
Let me clarify. Picture yourself sitting in the middle of the Sahara desert. You have no water or supplies, and will likely die of thirst in the foreseeable future. Out of nowhere, Thomas Cooley comes along and offers you an attractive deal - the opportunity to debt-finance a McDonalds franchise in Grand Central Station, NYC for the low price of $10,000.Delete
Your argument: The lifetime value of the franchise is surely above $10,000. Look at the long term, fools!
Everyone else's argument: Navigating the legal profession in this economy is tougher than finding water in the Sahara desert for average graduates. Return on investment is there - theoretically - but you have to find your way out of the desert to realize it.
You wrote---you have to find your way out of the desert to realize it. YES, it is truth. however, cold weather adds on snow even worse to come. Means --- you see ABA/each State posted prohibition on JD GRADS, who has no license, CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. What bullshit is that, --cold added on snow, worse to come.Delete
JD grads been trained for 3-4 , can not give a legal advice? HOW MONOPOLY CONTROLLING. THOSE PEOPLE, PANELS KNEW THE LAW , VIOLATED FIRST AMENDMENT---FREE SPEECH. BUT THEY PLAY POWER, stripped the others rights.
WE NEED TO FLAG SUCH RESTRICTIONS.
Any class size #'s released yet?ReplyDelete
Wow, if those numbers are correct, I;m depressed. Sure, they're down, but I can't believe there are still so many suckers willing to buy into the law school scam.Delete
Hey 12:01: If a law grad can't get a real law job for 3 years upon graduation, what's the likelihood he or she will ever get a law job?ReplyDelete
You tell me.ReplyDelete
That is the point.
You think the horizon is within arms reach, but it is not.
I love how many of you throw out the "opportunity cost" BS.ReplyDelete
What O.C., I ask? Oh yeah, that $100,000 job the BA gave up for their Poli Sci degree or that other 6-figure career in mountaintop philosophizing!
By and large, MOST graduates of ALL higher ed do end up working and do end up earning more than those with less education.
Nobody can accurately predict the net present value of any degree the way Paul has tried to do here.
You're simply overstating your negative case.
What part of D-FAULT don't you get, 12:23PM?Delete
I don't particularly care about the opportunity cost argument.
What I do care about, however, is being lied to about my prospects of success in the line of work I'm trying to enter by starting a program that acts as a gatekeeping function for that line of work, and then having to work under basically a 5 year time clock in the Second Great Depression to save my life from irreparable harm.
That's not even to mention the fact that just about everyone here would break down in tears of joy were they given the luxury of being able to declare bankruptcy, which is something so devastating for most people that they're led to hang their heads (or, unfortunately, themselves) in shame.
And don't mention the fact that you continue to lie people straight into your buzz saw and apparently are only more than happy to do so.
Let's not mention either the fact that even under the reformed default rate calculations that came in a couple of years ago, the rates at which borrowers default on student loans are wildly misleading.
And don't even consider the fact that some of us signed on to private loans at a time when they were dischargeable in bankruptcy, only to have Congress rewrite the contracts in 2005.
And never you mind all the personal effort that people like those on these boards do to stay decent, kind human beings despite being treated like Dickensian deadbeats. If you get your rocks off by trolling desperate people, then have at it, but you're not making any progress on whatever point you think you're making or in protecting whatever personal interest you're out for. It's all largely irrelevant - so much so that I'm nearly embarrassed that I've dignified your rapacity with my reply.
Who has proven any fraud?Delete
There was no fraud.
You gambled with other people's money and lost.
Now pay it back or enjoy the consequences.
That's fine, so long as the law profs give back their income over the last 5 years for the fraud they perpetrate.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
the veneer of high credibility and integrity of the law school cartel is also helped along by the admission questionnaires that ask the applicants for their past criminal background and so forth. Many or even most potential applicants look at these questionnaires years before they apply. These questionnaires give them the impression that law school is hard to get into and therefore there must be a rich and lucrative reward to be reaped for taking on such a task and such a debt.ReplyDelete
another factor in the current veneer of credibility that the law school cartel has is that the law schools spend many millions of dollars in advertising revenues. These millions buy a lot of leeway from the mass media.ReplyDelete
The law school shills are getting desperate and are flailing for any remotely plausible argument. They've went from "It's the poor economy; the legal job market will improve in a couple of years from now when the economy recovers" to "Who knows what the future will hold? You have take into account where JD holders are thirty or forty years after graduation." What will their arguments be by next year? "Buy the ticket, take a ride"? "You can't win, if you don't play"? "Somebody has to win"?ReplyDelete
There should be a distinction between getting a biglaw job at (July/August) EIP/EIW vs. (regular Fall) OCI.ReplyDelete
"I love how many of you throw out the "opportunity cost" BS."ReplyDelete
And I love, as the poster above pointed out, how ridiculous your go-to arguments have become over the past year. Someone with a worthless BA should go $200K deeper into the hole for another, worthless degree?
But 12:28, it HAS to be the poor economy, which will eventually turn around, because people will always need lawyers and legal services!ReplyDelete
Take a shill pill, and lighten up!
@12:01 PM said:ReplyDelete
"Are you incorrectly using terms, or do you sincerely believe that a JD will not be able to earn back his/her tuition over their lifetime?"
My reply is yes, with the qualification that the JD must be a Jim Dandy crackerjack.
If not, then the tuition will not be earned back over a lifetime.
Yes. I will confidently say that for a majority of people- taking on $100,000 or $200,000 of debt us not worth it and it will never be worth it over any period of time that you care to measure.9ReplyDelete
It should be possible to add up just how many large firm SAs there are.ReplyDelete
I think your figure of under 5,000 is low for nationwide. Last time I checked there were close to that many jobs just in New York.Delete
Good post from ATL re: POTUS' lack of understanding/ideas to fixthe problem.ReplyDelete
Jimmy Buffet's "Margaritaville" is good, but I think this song better fits the mood of lifetime SL indebted American law school cast-offs and losers in general:ReplyDelete
After the debt grows to a certain size, it seems like nothing ever comes to no good out on Choctaw Ridge.
JDPainter, you are aging yourself with those song choices.Delete
Re: taking on 100-200k debt in an attempt to increase earnings over lifetime--if we are looking at lifetime earnings then we have to look at total amount paid over the life of the debt, not the amount borrowed (law schools conflate the two). So if you graduate with say 150K at 6-8% interest you will pay twice that, or more, when interest is included (Im too lazy to plug the numbers into a loan calculator to get the exact figure). This assumes you can make the payments on time--if you are late/in default, the interest due compounds. Add in late fees, etc. and 150k can conceivably become 400K or more over the period of the loan.ReplyDelete
Note that there are schools now where full freight is now $280,000. So people borrowing sticker are getting closer to $300,000 even before they graduated. See Northwestern.ReplyDelete
"How long, Lord, how long?!"Delete
lol, who are these morons signing up to pay $53K per year? Jesus.Delete
"lol, who are these morons signing up to pay $53K per year?"Delete
Jesus Christ. $280000 at 8% interest over 20 years works out at more than half a million dollars - closer to 600,000.Delete
$53K x 3 = $159k
14 hours a week x 30 weeks x 3 years = 1260 hours total class time.
159K/1260 = $126 dollars per class-hour
Basically, if it were possible, it would be cheaper to pay a lawyer what is not an altogether terrible hourly rate to teach you one-on-one than it would be to go to law school.
Sure, this is a flippant argument, and it doesn't take into account additional benefits of LS outside of class time, but it's striking none the less . . .
Okay, I know that lawyers generally and law profs specifically are born to split hairs.ReplyDelete
So, someone please help me understand the inherent differences between this Incredulity Bias and the Optimism Bias?
TIA, one and all.
You can't prove that getting a JD won't increase somebody's lifetime earnings.ReplyDelete
"You can't prove that getting a JD won't increase somebody's lifetime earnings."Delete
Good point. Gooooood point.
Yes, let me explain it to you. Half of JDs don't get jobs that require a JD. They could have done just as well, or better without a JD. Their investment of time and money is a waste.Delete
I mean, can you prove that having a JD will increase lifetime earnings for the students who don't get jobs out of school? How much do you think they are making over their lifetime?
2:45, expect the usual "JDs make $1M more than those with BAs over their careers - who wouldn't make this great investment?" comment.Delete
Then we'll be expected to ignore that this questionable stat refers to lawyers and not all JDs, that lawyers give up three years of earned income to obtain the JD, that lawyers stay in the workforce longer than non-lawyers, and that the interest rate on current law school tuition, alone, almost eradicates any supposed increased earnings.
Well I would expect some data with any claim that JDs make more over their careers. We have plenty of evidence that is not true and when you add in debt, it is even more true that law school is a financial disaster for most people.Delete
Other things you can't prove a JD won't do:Delete
- Deter elephant attacks
- Prevent alien invasions
- Make it rain, eventually
- Make men go bald
- Lead to a huge whole in your finances if you self-fund.
Look: So far two Judges have called law school a "risk" and that "sophisticated consumers" of education ought to be wary (caveat emptor)ReplyDelete
This is not so much classic "contract" language.
However, all of this tends towards Insurance Industry language, and there is possibly no more heavily regulated industry than the insurance industry.
Moreover, a defaulted Student loan shows up on a credit report with the following words, and in print: "Claim filed with Government, balance paid by Insurance Company."
So if the spirit of the age is to Judicially call law school a "risk" why should the law schools not be understood as being in the capacity of brokers to an insurance contract between the student debtor consumer and the Government lender/aka taxpayer that the law schools represent?
If a broker shades the truth, or even outright lies, the broker will have to be held accountable.
In a broader sense: if forgiving SL Debt or allowing it to be discharged is obnoxious to whatever sense of logic coupled with current day economic morality that seems to prevail today, why not try another approach and simply make the law schools ante up in a collective fund that will be set aside for financial losses?
In other words, the Insurance Industry requires all operating Ins Companies within a respective state to pay into an intercompany pool and guarantee fund that is set aside to pay for losses incurred by a fellow Co that goes bankrupt.
And so if a particular law school is producing an unreasonable amount of SL debtors that have defaulted on their Sl debt obligations, the other law schools will have to pay the loss and pay off the sl debt of all the disenfranchised graduates from one school, or several, based upon employment history and income 5 years post graduation.
I didn't make this stuff up, and two judges so far have called law school a risk.
So why not spread the risk a little?
If Mark Kantrowitz insists that 6 figure SL debtos are anomalous, then surely the 6 figure debtors must be coming from the law school camp, and surely there must be a way to regulate the "Risk" to the taxpayer that ultimately suffers for the overproduction of law grads today?
Are you as out of touch as all that?
And so that is my guess.ReplyDelete
The Student Lending Industry goes hand in hand with the incredibly huge industry legally structured as the " Insurance and financial services" Industry.
If that is the case, defaulted Student Loans are potentially subject to very many Federal Insurance Industry regulations.
Sallie mae, and one if its over 100 or so branches and subsidiaries and related partners is probably solidly established within the Insurance Industry as well.
All one needs to do is investigate.
Look, if big tobacco was brought down, bringing down Sallie Mae should be a snap.
LawProf and DJM,ReplyDelete
So far the two of you have done an excellent job warning potential and current law students of the financial dangers surrounding pursuing a law degree paid for by 6 figure student debt.
How about discussing what should be done to resolve the debt issue for newly and recently minted lawyers who can't get jobs to service their legal educational debt? Many of these individuals come from middle class backgrounds and were duped into pursuing law by the promise of a middle class (at least) lifestyle through their educational debt "investment." Though IBR provides a great measure of relief to those with Federal debt only, what about all those with non-dischargable PRIVATE student loan debt? Why is the government protecting private party interest from BK laws?
Coming in loud and clear. Test Successful. EndTrans.Delete
Hey, idiot as 12:23.ReplyDelete
Unlike your supposed liberal arts majors without better options, I actually have no interest in law school. I was a finance and accounting major, which means I kinda do the money thing. So, let me show you some magic:
University of Kansas (my alma mater) charges out-of-state residents (who make up a surprisingly large chunk of its law school student body - a bit over 35%) $31,474 for first-year tuition, along with around $17,000 for CoL, books, stuff like that. Tuition at the school has, on average, increased 6.7% annually from 2000 to the present, so I applied that rate to tuition and 2% inflation rate to the CoL costs, which may or may not be accurate and frankly doesn't mess with the implications too much either way. This brings 3-year cost of attendance to about $153k, which at a 7.9% interest rate (monthly compounding) results in $1850 a month over a standard 10-year period, and that's assuming you stay totally current on payments and don't get any additional compounding, fees, etc. tacked on. Also, I'm just assuming that summer is taken care of and you're not borrowing that money elsewhere.
Now here's the thing when comparing these scenarios: You don't pay federal or state income tax or FICA on the money you borrow, so you actually have to make more than $22,192 + $21410 (I'm keeping the school's estimate for the sake of convenience less the $1,000 for textbooks, which I assume you won't keep buying just for grins, and also I annualized CoL) to break even. Now it just so happens that I have an excel spreadsheet that generates this information based on earned income less interest expense and standardized and personal deductions (let's be real, most new lawyers won't make anywhere near enough to bother itemizing). By using Goal Seek, I can work back what actual salary you would need to break even. It starts at $50,450 first year and climbs to $62,150.
Fifty grand. To BREAK EVEN. No savings, no six months of expenses in case of temporary unemployment, nothing. Breaking. Even. Also, keeping CoL at the school's peg adjusted for inflation was likely generous since it assumes no professional expenses or anything of that sort. If I tack on another couple grand a year for professional expenses, well.. I probably don't need to tell you.
But mister no law school and no undergrad debt? I worked his number, too. To get the same result, he needs to make $24,500 his first year, and truthfully his capacity to cut his income is probably much greater because if you do some blue collar job you typically don't need to look sharp all of the time. Which is more likely? Unskilled guy does some BS blue collar job and gets $25k or maybe a bit less, or KU law grad gets $50k fresh out the door when according to LST only a bit more than 30% of the graduates were known to have pulled that off in 2010?
Too long, didn't read.Delete
Do you know-- a no collage diploma guy, as a computernist programmer , has 20 years experiences, makes 130,000 a year. .......go figures you are JD grad.Delete
JD grad, NO LICENSE? even worse , no hope to be a legal adviser. ABA/ STATE RULED , CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE IF NO LICENSE. WHAT SHIT IS THAT?
It's no use explaining explaining to these people who think they're gonna get a BigLaw job, pull in 160K their first year, and make partner and pull a million and play golf with the captains of industry. 300K in debt is a meaningless number to those who've never earned money and have had to pay bills. Likewise, 80 hours a week of work is a meaningless number to those who've never worked more than 40 hours a week.ReplyDelete
I would say that near half of the students at many TTTTs are in late twenties, or early thirties. We appreciate the amount of debt, and had worked 40, 50, 60, and even 80 hour weeks. We were still taken in by the scam never the less.Delete
Perhaps it is the job numbers that people are willing to ignore? It takes willfully ignoring the cost and the employment outcomes for many people to go to law school now. At least the correct information on employment is starting to percolate out.Delete
I don't care what any judge says, these schools lied deliberately to get people to borrow money and go to law school.
Your information is very informative, Thanks for sharing....ReplyDelete
Sorry to inject some actual facts into this pity-party, but the number of law schools per capita is only slightly higher than it was in the 50s and 60s.ReplyDelete
Degrees awarded by ABA law schools in 1964: 9,653Delete
US population: 192 million
Degrees awarded by ABA law schools in 2011: 44,458
US population: 310 million
Nice job with trying to put the reformers down while making yourself look like the uninformed person that you are. You should try to open your mind to reality instead of living in whatever the world was like back when you went to school.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
DANG IT LAW PROF, you know lawyers caint do math!ReplyDelete
To 04:37 A.M., what the numbers mean is that the number of lawgrads/capita 2011 is about:
THREE TIMES what it was in 1964.
So, to 4:37 A.M. in response to your argument that law SCHOOLs per capita haven't changed much, I can only ask, what does that have to do with the price of Black Pekoe in the Forbidden City?
"Just how do i start finding a career?"ReplyDelete
Here is just how: Visit a leading university and acquire a's and b's. Search for a great university and obtain best levels. Or even possess reliable job cable connections. Unless you belong to some of those classes, you aren't getting employment. Today return to ingesting.
I THANK YOU law prof. TOLD THE TRUTH , NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.ReplyDelete
LAW PROF. IS FIRST AND ONLY ONE TOLD THE JD GRADS who had been trained for 3-4 years facing big problems .
NO one , even judge, even ABA/ STATE SUPREME COURT PANELS are silent for law grads, the worse being made is ABA/ each State prohibited law grads ( who has no license) CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. YOU see? Such inhibition violated US Constitution---FIRST AMENDMENT--FREE SPEECH.
They ruled--- no licensed , can not present client in the court which I agreed. Beside that, the law grads shall have rights to give anyone a legal advice the needs because we had been trained in the law school for 3-4 years under intensive courses.
Shall we REVISE this ruling?---SOUNDS IT NEEDS.
THANKS LAW PROF. INFORMATION. It helps to calculated what a disaster of the law field, a prohibition by ABA/ STATE COURT.ReplyDelete
NO ONE HAS really see through the ABA/ STATE panels ruling on JD GRADS. Someone had posted it -----ABA/ EACH STATE inhibited JD grads can not give legal advice unless licensed.
What is FIRST AMENDMENT OF US CONSTITUTION?
DO THEY FORGOT WHAT IS THAT WHEN THEY(ABA/STATE) MAKING SUCH RULE??????????
I am planning on majoring in Sociology and Anthropology, then I want to go to Law School. Can anyone tell me what are the best law schools are good for this? and what types of lawyers would be a good match for me?ReplyDelete
phlebotomy training in albama
I would be pleased if all WebPages provided such articles.ReplyDelete
get a job now
this is very good idea any person visit this site and collect more and more information.
LAW PROF. IS FIRST AND ONLY ONE TOLD THE JD GRADS who had been trained for 3-4 years facing big problems .ReplyDelete
NO one , even judge, even ABA/ STATE SUPREME COURT PANELS are silent for law grads, the worst being made is ABA/ each State prohibited law grads, J.D. ( who has no license) CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. YOU see? Such inhibition violated US Constitution---FIRST AMENDMENT--FREE SPEECH.
Each person can give a legal advice , even 3 years old child too. The mater is the person takes in or not. i.e giving medicines input, the matter is the person will take it in or not. i.e. advice person eating taco bell will get slim/fat, the matter is the person will take that advice or not. SO, paralegal, J.D giving legal advice does not constituent illegal . ABA/ State set such rule purposely, strip down the people's knowledge . , to abetting only license attorney twist the law as wants. What / where ethic rules? Is ABA/State permit them to twist?
ABA is a profit association does not have authority to accredit each law school, .....only State can do. But whether grads from accredited law school or not, if once been in and paid tuition , .trained as set for credits, graduated from it, the title of J.D.earned. As a professional with other fields degree grads. Giving a legal advice who needs is certainty.
The rule came down from ABA/ State to PROHIBITED J.D. of free speech on legal issue ,..... is lunatic, unreasonable, unacceptable. We need to revise it.