Saturday, July 10, 2010

Public Law $chool $alarie$: Univer$ity of Utah $.J. Quinney College of Law



http://www.utahsright.com/salaries.php?city=all&query=hiram+chodosh

Hiram Chodosh, the dean at the University of Utah’s College of Law makes $388,545 in his role. Yes, you read that correctly. The dean at the 42nd greatest, most fantastic law school in the United States – as ranked by U.S. News &World Report – made THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE DOLLARS last fiscal year. This public law school is located in a city with a reasonable standard of living.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/rankings/page+2

According to this listing from USN&WR, there are only 381 students enrolled full-time at the law school.

http://www.obia.utah.edu/content/fastfacts.pdf

In contrast, according to this document, the University of Utah offers over 100 undergraduate programs and 90 graduate programs to over 29,000 students. As of Fall 2009, the total enrollment was 29,284 – with 22,149 undergrads and 7,135 graduate students. This is a major research university, which features the only medical school in the state of Utah.

http://www.utahsright.com/profile.php?id=1017197

Yet, the current president of the University of Utah earned $394,319 for the same year. Being the chief administrator at this large public university allows Michael K. Young to earn a mere $5,774 more than the dean of the college of law, which has only 381 full-time students. I am certainly NOT advocating for this “educator” to earn more income; I am simply pointing out that the dean of the college of law essentially earns the same amount as the university president. On top of this, the university president teaches a course at the law school.

http://www.utahsright.com/profile.php?id=1007747

Associate Dean for Admission and Financial Aid Reyes Aguilar makes $110,558.

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/faculty-profile/?id=reyes-aguilar

“He received a B.A. in political science from Texas A&M University and a J.D. from the U of U. He assumed his present duties in 1992, shortly following graduation. Of his job at the law school, Aguilar says he particularly enjoys the variety of constituent groups he works with, the cyclical nature of the process, and university environment.”

Apparently, he has never had to find a real job since entering law school. Oh well, at least Reyes enjoys the academic environment, right? And that is what counts.

“In addition, he has recently been appointed by the American Bar Association to an on-site inspection team for the provisional accreditation review of law schools.”

Remember this fact, if you decide to defend this man’s role in the law school industrial complex. According to NALP, there were 44,000 JDs for the Class of 2009, and only 28,901 jobs requiring bar passage. And Reyes wants to help the ABA add more law schools?!?! Reyes, make sure that the sites you visit have the following items: couches; several bookshelves; running water; a toilet; a few computers; some printers; and a fax machine. (After all, we don’t want the ABA to lower its “standards” for accreditation.)

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-letter-to-university-of-utah-law.html

Check out my letter to these two men, questioning the suspiciously high employment and starting salary figures on their law school fair recruiting materials.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-from-sj-quinney-college-of-law.html

Here is their response to my email, where they informed me that this was an “inadvertent error” on their part. OF COURSE IT WAS!! What else could explain such a great disparity between the published numbers and the real figures?!?! For $ome rea$on, the “errors” always favor the institution.

http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/

Here is the school’s list of faculty. Now, head over to http://www.utahsright.com/salaries and enter University of Utah with the names of the staff members below – so we can see how well many of the “professors” at the public S.J. Quinney College of Law are doing. Here is a partial listing of “law professors” with their ridiculous, respective salaries:

Robert Adler - $188,924; Paul Cassell - $174,441; Lincoln Davies - $140,057; Robert Flores - $123,189; Leslie Francis - $161,588; Erika George - $142,214; Amos Guiora - $196,872; James Holbrook - $232,297; Christian Johnson - $151,512; Robert Keiter - $263,025; Laura Kessler – 143,418; Terry Kogan - $174,834; Thomas Lund - $170,505; “presidential professor” Chibli Mallat - $295,482; John Martinez - $166,000; Scott Matheson, Jr. – $181,637; Wayne McCormack - $198,468; Nancy McLaughlin - $160,433; Daniel Medwed - $135,952; Christopher Peterson - $158,028; from the law library, Rita Reusch - $158,000; Alexander Skibine - $163,919; Linda Smith - $158,960; Debora Threedy - $181,019; Amy Wildermouth - $145,318; “assistant professor” William McDonnell - $141,096; Harris Sondak - $199,150.

WHO SAYS HIGHER EDUCATION DOESN’T PAY OFF?! It pays off handsomely for the “law professors”. Remember, the law schools get paid up front with federally-backed student loans. They DO NOT care what happens to the average graduate. Paying off those NON-DISCHARGEABLE loans for the next 30 years is your concern – NOT theirs.

Do any of the law school industry apologist cockroaches want to argue that “law professors” – especially those at public schools – are worth these hefty salaries? Is there a reason why the taxpayers should be paying people who teach legal theory at state schools these amounts?!

47 comments:

  1. What kind of statistic would you say is necessary for law schools to accurately convey the opportunities available on graduation? I have been thinking about it for a while, and reporting the percent of students that reported making more than a hundred thousand seems like a statistic that would be hard to fudge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. what a bunch of fucking pigs these people are. the admin can lie about employment & salary figures and nothing happens. Except they get rewarded with HUGE salaries. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fudging the salary/employment numbers is so easy for law school administrators. I remember back in the '90s, BYU Law had an unusually high median salary. Reason: they included Steve Young's (former 49ers QB) NFL $7 million annual salary. So you see, law schools can play with numbers very easily. Unfortunately, Generation Y's reliance on these juked numbers will be their downfall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve Young's very large salary would have had almost no impact on the school's median salary. The school's average salary would have been an entirely different issue. It might have been good to know what a median is before you posted this...

      Delete
    2. Haha... That was funny. I know a handful of lawyers making over 200k yearly who graduated from BYU law.

      Delete
  4. Wow...I thought they were high but I didn't think they were obscene.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The ABA has an "inspection team" for provisional accreditation???

    Well, I guess someone has to make sure the membership dues are collected.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doesn't everyone agree that the feds need to stop guaranteeing these loans?! That's the cause of all this!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Believe it or not, a J.D. is not an automatic right to a $100k/yr salary. What lawyers are paid for is their HARD WORK and DEDICATION. Lawyers are paid for what they DO, not just because they have a J.D. A J.D. simply gives you the opportunity to WORK hard. It does not guarantee a $200k salary, as that is for the individual attorney to EARN! And if the individual attorney isn't willing to work hard, then maybe he shouldn't have all that many clients.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nando, I do have a thought, although I don't know whose position it would ultimately support, yours or mine.

    Here it is: I read your letter requesting an independent audit to Utah Law back in Nov '09. In response, they denied your request. Therefore, why not compel this public law school, by court action if necessary, to be independently audited through either the Truth in Lending Act, Truth in Government Act, GAO principles, whatever.

    I don't even know if I got the names of the laws correct and I especially don't care at this moment to read them to see which one, or whether a similar type of "truth law" might apply. BUT, you can see where I am going with this. It would compel an audit by operation of law. You could enjoin the ABA and/or NALP.

    Also, don't even bother citing the 1992 Todd Bank case. Let's just assume we are not in New York. And no, a "conspiracy theory," while interesting, is not legally valid theory, except maybe at your law school.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No! I won't let you take the "moral high ground" here Nando. I see your good intentions, but I think you are misinformed and unaware.

    Let me explain what I think! I think "employers" (if you want to call them that) are pushing these "no jobs" messages. They are PREYING off of the anticipation that law students have after putting in so much blood sweat and tears.

    This "no jobs" message helps to keep salary expectations under control. AND WHAT A GREAT BUSINESS STRATEGY!!! --> push a ridiculous message that "there are no jobs" and watch em grab the first thing they see for $50k. And really, what would happen if everyone's expectations were set at $150k?

    And that's basically what happens now. Until after 2-3 years when the associates catch on and start saying, "hey, wait a minute. Pay me or else."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Demosthenes, you are/were the reason that law school had a striking resemblance to high school.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Believe it or not, a J.D. is not an automatic right to a $100k/yr salary....It does not guarantee a $200k salary, as that is for the individual attorney to EARN!"

    Okay, when you say things like this, who exactly are you responding to? Who has been arguing that a J.D. entitles the bearer to a job with a six-figure salary?

    "Let me explain what I think! I think 'employers' (if you want to call them that) are pushing these 'no jobs' messages. This 'no jobs' message helps to keep salary expectations under control."

    So...there are actually plenty of salaried positions out there, but employers are somehow collectively "pushing" a "no jobs message" so lawyers will be conditioned to accept less pay?

    Are you being serious, or is this more sarcasm? If you're serious, do you have ANY evidence to back that up? If you're not serious, what's your point? Because I don't get it, and I'm probably not alone.

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Nookular Don: I am not responding to anyone specific, but I am only commenting on my perception of some bloggers' mindsets on here.

    My larger point in stating that "a J.D. is not an automatic right to a salary" points out that a J.D. only establishes your "personal potential" to serve as a lawyer. It is up to the individual to WORK HARD, RENDER VALUABLE LEGAL SERVICES, and PROVIDE EXCELLENCE. The focus shouldn't be upon how much money you can make, but how valuable you can MAKE YOURSELF. If you are truly valuable...then THE MONEY WILL FOLLOW.

    Who cares about some ridiculous law school employment stat? The stat is WAY too general anyway. Everyone before law school already knows or should know this.

    If anyone thinks a lawyer is entitled to a certain salary, or even a job period...I say take a hike! Let the lazy lawyers fall away (AND THEY DO EXIST!!!). For the lazy lawyers are the ones that give the profession a bad name. Survival of the fittest...and they are just more competition anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re: July 10, 2010 6:13 PM

    Has anyone seriously argued in these posts to the effect that attorneys should not work hard? I thought the subject was the misleading stats and overall saturation of the market resulting from that. What does any of that got to do with a willingness to work hard?

    I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anyway, how can we continue to countenance the utter waste and misallocation of resources the current construct of "legal education" offers? What is all this Ayn Randie, free-market bullshit about in the face of UNENDING FEDERAL MONEY making this whole over-saturated pigsty possible?

    Again, I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 12:12p, Who cares what anybody has precisely argued on this blog?! I am asserting a reason why the premise for this entire blog is flawed and misguided in the first place.

    Of course ALL attorneys should work hard, but the fact is that SOME attorneys don't work hard, nor do they provide value, nor do they provide excellence. Why should a "job" be guaranteed for such attorneys who have nothing to offer, despite what their expectations were upon law school matriculation. A J.D. is not a job offer. A J.D. gives the INDIVIDUAL the potential to prove oneself...and then he has to actually PROVE it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 12:17p, If you think uneducated people provide lawyers with a better base of clients than those who have been educated, then you are sadly mistaken. A government that promotes an educated society is a good thing for lawyers.

    In fact, the best base of clients will be educated, have a higher quality of employment, and will have more complex interests which collide with the complex interests of others.

    How many times do high school dropouts decide to ask for legal help with business mergers? Do I have to give the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Tyson

    "Who cares what anybody has precisely argued on this blog?! I am asserting a reason why the premise for this entire blog is flawed and misguided in the first place."

    Are you serious? This is the EXACT definition of a straw man argument, i.e., misrepresenting/changing someone's argument and then rebutting an argument THAT WAS NEVER MADE. No one is really disagreeing with you. You are not asserting a valid premise for why this blog is flawed because this blog HAS NEVER made the premise that attorneys are entitled to six figure salaries and don't have to work hard.

    The point of this blog is that law schools, particularly lower ranked law schools, provide misleading employment statistics to justify unreasonable tuition. Nando has given specific examples, such as law schools counting recent grads not employed in the legal profession as "employed." If law schools were held more accountable and required to accurately represent employment statistics - such as how many studets are actually employed in the legal profession - it's likely less students will enroll in law school. Of course, that goes against the financial interest of legal educators and their salaries will likely go down.

    Also, your argument that "there are plenty of salaried positions out there" is nonsense, and not surprisingly, not supported by any objective data. I am a practicing attorney, and my firm has cut our summer associate program and has a hiring freeze in place. Every other attorney I know respective law firm has enacted similar measures (if not cutting hiring for recent graduates, drastically reducing it). Also, government jobs are no better. Most state and local governments have a budget crisis and have been laying people off. Federal positions are few and far between and increasingly competitive.

    In short, there is ample evidence that the legal sector is shrinking. Just use google and you will find dozens of articles from major news organizations on this topoc. Of course, you'll probably just continue to engage in a straw man argument to make yourself feel smart.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tyson, go suck another bag of dicks. No one is arguing that a JD entitles them to a six-figv salary, bitch.

    You even admnit this:

    "12:12p, Who cares what anybody has precisely argued on this blog?! I am asserting a reason why the premise for this entire blog is flawed and misguided in the first place."

    Read: who cares what anyone has argued on this blog. I'll make up, in my little mind, what I think they mean, and then go after that.

    Again, go suck another bag of large dicks, Tyson. Oh, and make sure to wipe your face with a towel afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tyson, would you care to argue that these public law school "professors" should be making in excess of $199K, $232,000 and $263K per year? (After all, this entry focuses on the pay of public law school teachers.) Are they working so hard that they are truly worth these ridiculous amounts? Are they truly preparing their students to be legal practitioners?

    Before you stick your head up your rectum one more time, let me inform you that the University of Utah's legal clinic is pretty hands-off.

    So, is this the "free market" at work? The reality is that many of the people in law school administative offices are essentially worthless. But some of them still end up making six figure salaries. Explain that situation, Tyson. Remember, there is not always a correlation between "hard work" and compensation.

    Why else would someone who writes an occasional (NON peer-reviewed) article in some obscure law journal command a $150K salary? Honestly, how many people read law review articles? Also, most tenured law profs teach between 4-6 hours per week!! How does that light workload justify such a high salary?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @2:59p: "You are not asserting a valid premise for why this blog is flawed because this blog HAS NEVER made the premise that attorneys are entitled to six figure salaries and don't have to work hard.

    The point of this blog is that law schools, particularly lower ranked law schools, provide misleading employment statistics to justify unreasonable tuition."

    If regular logic won't solve an issue, it is probably even less helpful to engage in academic rhetorical logic, however I do challenge your "strawman" categorization of my argument:

    Specifically, you claim that misleading employment statistics are the point of your blog, yet you also claim that "lawyers are entitled to six figure salaries" is NOT a premise of this blog.

    I disagree and think it is a MAJOR premise of this blog. Salary data is included within "employment statistics," and this blog has gone into great painstaking detail to express a sharp dissatisfaction with actual legal salaries. For, if this blog were satisfied with actual legal salaries, then there would be little reason to impeach the "misleading law school-reported salaries" in the first place, especially since any discrepancy would have a de minimis disappointment to general law graduate expectations.

    I am not saying your premise is valid, actually quite the opposite. I am just asserting that it IS in fact a premise, by strongly supported inference. Therefore my assertion that a premise of this blog is that "attorneys are entitled to six figure salaries" (*) is not that of a "strawman."

    * I do agree that no-one has used the "six-figure" term, however, by using it myself, I was meaning to use a figure which, to me, represented the word, "high" salary. You can argue this point if needed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @3:29pm: "Again, go suck another bag of large dicks, Tyson. Oh, and make sure to wipe your face with a towel afterwards."

    Will this get into the doors of Comedy Central? Quite possibly. Will this get into a Federal App. Ct.? Not so much. This provides no support for any argument whatsoever. Normally, I don't point out things quite this obvious, but with you, it may be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @4:37pm Nando: I agree it is very high, possibly inflated. However, why do sports figures continually get paid so much? Well, try giving the New York Yankees $50k each and see what kind of a team you end up with. Georgetown Law wouldn't be Georgetown Law if in a few years, they only paid instructors $60k yr. The bottom line is that the market is demanding it.

    And the bottom line is that SOMEWHERE in this industry, people are going to get paid very very well, while others are not. If you take the money out of the hands of the professors, then the "prestigious career capstone" jobs will simply become maybe Federal Appellate Litigators. Regardless, there will always be a top and a bottom.

    And I also think that there are more forces at work than just "the law schools." The Law schools are only one cog in this big machine.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tyson-

    You are just agitating for the sake of agitating. You never respond to the topic of a given entry. You are all over the place. I would flunk your posts for non-responsiveness alone. You have some of the worst legal reasoning I have ever read, especially from someone who CLEARLY thinks he his smart

    You said, concerning entitlement to a high salary upon graduation being a premise of this blog:

    "I disagree and think it is a MAJOR premise of this blog"

    Your reasoning?

    "I am just asserting that it IS in fact a premise, by strongly supported inference."

    You are referring to YOUR inference. If you want to know what others infer, ask them! That is more indicative of what they think rather than trying to infer (rather poorly) from their posts.

    Additionally, employment stats are clearly having an effect on prospective law students. By your logic, discussing them means the blog author automatically thinks lawyers deserve salaries as advertised. I dont think the author has ever said as much, but I encourage you to try to find evidence of that.

    STOP TROLLING. You obviously want to drive home the point that this generation and/or most people need to embrace darwinism, capitalism, and never expect ANYTHING to be handed to them.

    WE

    GET

    IT

    Start your own blog and stop leeching off of this one for self-aggrandizing intellectual purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "...you also claim that 'lawyers are entitled to six figure salaries' is NOT a premise of this blog.
    I disagree and think it is a MAJOR premise of this blog."

    There is a huge difference between, on the one hand, believing that a J.D. *entitles* me to a job paying a six-figure salary, and on the other hand, believing that a J.D. provides me with a reasonable opportunity to compete with others for a job with a six figure salary. Do you understand the distinction?

    Misleading salary stats have little to do with an attitude of entitlement, as you claim. They do, however, have quite a bit to do with people's expectations regarding the level of pay they might reasonably expect to make at actual jobs they have a reasonable chance of obtaining (yes, through a competitive process). THAT is the major premise of this blog (I will defer to Nando if he wishes to correct me on this point).

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nando, please discuss your opinion on the following Bureau of Labor Statistics' report, especially the part predicting a 13% increase in demand over new lawyers from 2008-2018.

    http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm

    Personally, I think it means that if 98,500 new attorney positions are created in the 10 year span covering 2008-2010, there will be an oversupply of 351,500(given that law schools produce 45K grads per year). Accordingly, only less than 22% of law grads will be absorbed by the demand in the legal market, meaning 78% of law grads will not have employment opportunities in a legal career. Personally I think the BLS numbers are optimistic, but even so this is a pretty grim outlook for law grads, especially when you consider about 10 or so TTT/T law school are about to open in the U.S. within the next couple of years.

    What are your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  27. These ass-hats are certainly not 'worth' such high salaries. They teach legal theory, people. WOuld you pay someone who teaches auto mechanics at the local community college $150K for teaching his or her students only about the aeordynamics of automobiles? This shit is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Quoting Tyson – from 9:02 am on July 11th:

    “@Nookular Don: I am not responding to anyone specific, but I am only commenting on my perception of some bloggers' mindsets on here.”

    Tyson stated the following at 1:33 pm on July 11th:

    “12p, Who cares what anybody has precisely argued on this blog?! I am asserting a reason why the premise for this entire blog is flawed and misguided in the first place.”

    You are creating a straw man. If you are indeed a third year law student, this does not reflect well on the quality of your legal education. Frankly, your flawed arguments indicate that you are incapable of basic reading comprehension.

    For YOUR benefit, Tyson, here is the basis premise of this blog: There are too many law schools, which are producing FAR TOO MANY JDs and attorneys for the available number of lawyer and law-related positions.

    Furthermore, the law schools are feeding off of misperception, the anxiety of college grads, and the federally-backed student loan scheme. The schools also engage in INTENTIONAL manipulation of their employment placement and starting salary statistics – for the primary purpose of attracting more applicants and students. This has been documented on many sites, including ATL, JDU, WSJ, National Public Radio, and law.com, not just on these scam-busting blogs.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127041058

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/04/north-dakota-law-tops-harvard-in-us-news-ranking/tab/article/

    http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/law-professors-part-of-the-problem/

    In the final analysis, at this point in time, law school is a foolish financial/career decision for the VAST MAJORITY of students. I see the common refrain from lemmings on TLS, i.e. “But I hate my %$*^%##$ job! It is dead-end, boring and I need to do something more fulfilling in life.”

    Well, the reality is that most workers are not fully or mostly content with their jobs. (This has been the case for centuries.) They work because they must pay for the necessities of life, such as food, shelter, heat, insurance, etc. Adulthood entails many responsibilities, Tyson. Paying bills is not fun. The nature of work is often mundane. However, you – as a responsible adult – must suck it up and find a job, pay your bills, put food in your fridge and take care of your living expenses. If you have children, a spouse, or own a home, your responsibilities and obligations increase. When you have reached these life milestones, you do not have the luxury of saying, “This job sucks. I am going to quit tomorrow, and find something else.”

    Also, MANY lawyers HATE their jobs, i.e. the stress, the deadlines, the constant self-doubt, the lack of job security, the cutthroat competition, etc. Hell, just look at your “law professors” if you want to see lawyers who could not leave the “profession” fast enough.

    If you want to direct your ire towards those with entitlement issues, I suggest you head over to TLS and chide those lemmings for their mentality. THOSE are the people who are expecting to land Biglaw jobs, upon graduation. Those are the ones who are EXPECTING to land in the top 5%-10% of their law school class.

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

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'd like to know how much some of the other deans are making. Lemmings will misinterpret this and say, "wow, even if I don't practice law, I could make it big in academia."

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. Goddamn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war, our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. "

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sweet gawd! $388,545? I knew the figure would be high, but daaaaaaaaaammmmmn! Is this a top flight law school or something? I have not heard much of this school.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @10:31, Exposing the Law School Scam has covered this report on his blog. Here is my crack at this BLS prognostication.

    First, government statistics tend to be overly-optimistic. After all, these thieves and incompetents seek the confidence of the public. The fact that this report only sees an increase of 98,500 lawyer jobs - over the span of ten years - is cause for great concern. The salary figures appear to be a bit high, also.

    Second, seeing that the law school Class of 2009 was 44,000 "strong", we can anticipate about 450K new JDs between 2008 and 2018. The ABA is constantly approving more toilets, so this should cause an increase in the number of JDs awarded/handed out every year. I certainly do not see law schools, on their own, limiting or decreasing their class sizes.

    Just look at the number of JDs pumped out over the last ten years.

    http://nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummaryChartClassof09.pdf

    http://www.abanet.org/legaled/statistics/charts/stats%20-%207.pdf

    IN THE LAST FIVE academic years combined, ABA-accredited law schools have handed out a total of 217,661 law degrees. In the last ten years, a total of 411,234 men and women have graduated from ABA-accredited law schools.

    Third, some trolls have the (clueless) temerity to say, "Look, plenty of Baby Boomers will leave law in the next ten years." Actually, many of them will continue to practice until the day they die. I have seen plenty of fossils roaming the courtrooms of this nation. MANY of these people have not earned enough money to maintain their lifestyle. Thus, many will continue to represent clients, until they are well into their 70s and 80s.

    Plus, if your plan for success is contingent on a generation of older lawyers dying out, you are pretty much screwed. The fact remains that the law schools are producing far too many lawyers for the number of available attorney positions. And Biglaw is starting to limit the number of new associates it hires. Also, many U.S. firms are happy to hire a bunch of foreign attorneys and non-lawyers to conduct American legal discovery work.

    In sum, even if the Department of Labor is correct, the number of law graduates - from 2008 to 2018 - will FAR EXCEED the number of available attorney positions. (There is also a chance that the BLS may be off a little.) Perhaps, this graph needs to be published more often on these scam-busting sites. Nothing else seems to penetrate the minds of most lemmings.

    ReplyDelete
  34. nando, keep this blog up and you'll be found on the side of the road. Single car "accidents" happen more frequently than one would think, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I suspect the ABA is going to spin the story below into a "we need more law schools and lawyers."

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463456123&Pro_Se_Representation_Is_Up__and_Thats_Bad_Say_Judges_in_ABA_Survey

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Nando, your beloved alma mater was recently featured on an article involving a bright young woman who wants to throw away her future at the "vastly underrated" Drake. I did not know that Drake had a speciality in elder/disability law as she wants to be the voice for the old and disabled. Ms. Klatt has accepted that she will be indebted for life to pursue her dream. Sigh.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1202463454284&Law_School_Applications_on_the_Rise

    ReplyDelete
  37. I've gone from leaning heavy toward going to law school to not planning on going without a full ride somewhere. But it's not because of this blog, which I read for pure entertainment value - it's because I cannot justify the cost vs. expected salary. I'll finish off my science and math teaching certifications - where there IS a massive shortage - and go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Almost forgot this...

    Tyson - you're a jackass. I don't care for Nando or many of the other "scambloggers" on here - but it is good for pure laughter at their sense of entitlement and bitterness that comes through on their blogs and comments. However, you one-up them in your arrogance and snobbishness. I've worked with fourth graders that make better arguments than you, and quite frankly, you can go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ July 13, 12:54pm: Well, if you can't em with logic, you're just gonna call em names!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks for proving the person's point, tyson. They called you arrogant and snobbish, and you respond with an arrogant and snobbish comment.

    Nice going! (sarcasm)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Off topic,

    I ran across this article from a female partner at Paul HasTTTings:

    http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2010/07/paul-hastings-hp.html

    I find it ironic that this lady is dispensing career advice while featured in a photo that has her sporting a turquoise leather sports jacket with a zipper to boot and bahamian matching turquoise beads. If this lady came into our office wearing that ensemble, she would be sent home regardless of whether she were a partner.

    ReplyDelete
  42. When was the last time U of U's law facaulty has been tested for substance abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  43. To the mental deficient who posted a response to another commenter, on November 7, 2012 8:50 pm:

    For your benefit, here is an illustration of mean, median and mode:

    http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

    "Find the mean, median, mode, and range for the following list of values:

    13, 18, 13, 14, 13, 16, 14, 21, 13

    The mean is the usual average, so:

    (13 + 18 + 13 + 14 + 13 + 16 + 14 + 21 + 13) ÷ 9 = 15

    Note that the mean isn't a value from the original list. This is a common result. You should not assume that your mean will be one of your original numbers.

    The median is the middle value, so I'll have to rewrite the list in order:

    13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21

    There are nine numbers in the list, so the middle one will be the (9 + 1) ÷ 2 = 10 ÷ 2 = 5th number:

    13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 16, 18, 21

    So the median is 14.

    The mode is the number that is repeated more often than any other, so 13 is the mode."

    The median is the average, bitch. Do you understand that simple concept now, loser?!?! YOU should learn meanings and terms BEFORE you look foolish. Most people learn the differences between mean, median and mode early in middle school - if not earlier. Have a bad day, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  44. To the cockroach who posted at 11:03 am today,

    You may know a handful of BYU-educated lawyers who are making $200K per year. Then again, you may have fabricated the story. You have anecdotes whereas I have hard facts, figures and evidence. Who comes out on top in that contest, Bitch?!?!

    MANY recent graduates of J. Reuben Clark and S.J. Quinny are working in non-law positions. The Utah lawyer job market is oversaturated, mental midget. Without any prompting, several colleagues have informed me that roughly HALF of each toilet’s new grads are looking frantically for work, months after receiving their law degrees. I rebutted your anecdote with an actual one that was relayed to me by licensed Utah attorneys. Now, I drop the hammer on your pathetic ass, dung beetle.

    http://www.economicmodeling.com/2011/06/22/new-lawyers-glutting-the-market-in-all-but-3-states/

    Check out this article and graph from Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. The entry is entitled "Data Spotlight: New Lawyers Glutting the Market (Updated)." It was published on June 22, 2011. Look at this opening, douche-bag:

    "For a while now, major media outlets — and a legion of bloggers — have reminded us that the job market for lawyers is lousy. Some law schools, in light of the dimming employment prospects for graduates, have resorted to grade inflation and other methods to, as The New York Times noted, “rescue their students from the tough economic climate — and perhaps more to the point, to protect their own reputations and rankings.”

    Just how bad is the job outlook for lawyers? According to our quick analysis, every state but Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., and Nebraska produced more — in some cases, far more — bar exam passers in 2009 than the estimated yearly openings for lawyers in those states. The same glut holds true when comparing law school grads, via IPEDS from the National Center for Education Statistics, to the same opening estimates. 1 And when you take into account nuances with the D.C. bar and how Wisconsin operates (see more below), there might not be any states with a shortage."

    Do...you...understand...that, waterhead?!?! Or do I need to spell it out for you with Crayola on posterboard?!

    Here are the numbers for Utah, ass clown:

    2010-2015 Estimated Annual Openings: 308
    2009 Bar Exam Passers: 401
    Surplus: 93

    This glut was accomplished even though there are only two law schools in the entire state, moron. In fact, both commodes feature somewhat smaller class sizes than most ABA-accredited diploma mills. Keep in mind that EMSI is unaffiliated with the ABA or law school critics, i.e. in stark contrast to “law professors” and deans, these economic analysts have no incentive to fudge the data. You are welcome for the brutal beatdown, idiot.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics