Sunday, July 24, 2011
Profiles in Passing the Buck: ABA “President” and Mouthpiece Stephen Zack
Pig Boy’s Correspondence With Barbara Boxer
On March 31, 2011, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer demanded that the ABA provide accurate info to law school applicants.
On April 27th, ABA head Stephen Zack replied to Boxer’s request. It contains little of substance. Take a look at this platitude:
“No one could be more focused on the future of our next generation of lawyers than the ABA and the legal profession for whom we speak," Zack wrote. "An interest in pursuing justice should not leave someone with a life shadowed by overwhelming debt."
Of course, the puppet does nothing to lessen the debt burden of recent law grads. In the next paragraph, Zack adds:
“Much of the issue is about students making informed, smart choices, and the ABA distributes information that can help.”
Do you see how this tub of lard puts the onus entirely on the law student?! What a beacon of integrity and ethics, huh?!?!
On May 20, 2011, Boxer issued this follow-up letter to Stephen Zack and the ABA. Here is an excerpt, where the senator mentions the need for independent oversight of law school data:
“It is troubling that the recommendations do not address the need for independent oversight of the data law school deans submit to the ABA and publications like U.S. News and World Report. The Section’s recommendations would allow law schools to continue to submit unaudited data, despite the fact that a lack of oversight has been identified by many observers as a major problem.” [Emphasis mine]
Spineless Zack’s Interaction With Charles Grassley
On July 11, 2011, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley sent this five page letter - which includes 31 questions for the ABA - to Zack:
“Given the questions being raised by the increase of the number of law schools, the increase in graduate debt, and the decrease in graduate job prospects, this raises concerns regarding the ABA’s internal controls. As the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I have an interest in the health of the legal profession. To the extent that taxpayer dollars are used, I also have an interest in ensuring that the students who take out federally-backed loans are in a position to pay back their loans and that the default rates on these loans do not increase.” [Emphasis mine]
Here is a portion of the ABA’s July 20th tepid response to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley. Again, Stephen Zack repeats his earlier “stance”:
“In this response yesterday to Grassley, Zack said the ABA shares the senator’s concerns. “No one could be more focused on the future of our next generation of lawyers than the ABA,” Zack wrote.
But in this accompanying memo to Grassley, the ABA’s law-school accreditation section said it does not believe law schools offer scholarships as a “bait and switch.” If students lose scholarship funding, it is a result of their failure to maintain sufficiently high grades, the group said.”
That is a huge surprise, isn’t it?!?! Apparently, it is okay for "professional schools" to accept far too many students, for the available number of career openings. Furthermore, this empty suit does not care if schools continue to cook the books, in an attempt to attract more applicants.
Someone Grab Zack a Fresh Tampon
Here is a video of Stephen "Pass the Buck" Zack:
"Well, we always need new lawyers. The question is, uh, "Do the people going to law school really understand, uh, what the future of the practice holds in store for them?" What are the real economics of the practice? Everybody watches, uh, LA Law and Boston Legal, and they see in the newspaper reports about these massive salaries paid by Wall Street firms. $160,000 starting salaries.
Well, the truth of the matter is that the mean salary of lawyers around the country is $62,000. And before there is a commitment to, uh, take loans that can be in excess of $100,000, uh, you have to understand what the real economics of the practice of law might be for you, as an individual. And we're asking law schools to better inform potential applicants as to what the real cost of legal education, uh, will be.
For example, you know, what their hourly, uh, credit cost is. And what the standard of living in their given areas would cost over a three year period. So they can evaluate for themselves whether it's worth it to them, and what their liability and risks are, uh, when they graduate."
Once again, you can see that this cockroach is more than happy to place all of the blame on law students. His mother must be very proud. (Yet, shills such as Kimber Russell believe that the ABA should reform the $y$tem.)
Conclusion: In the final analysis, Stephen Zack is a political hack and gutless tool. He serves the interests of American Biglaw. This man does not represent law students or small-time lawyers. Stephen, make sure to check with your bosses - before addressing the following issues: JD overproduction; skyrocketing law school tuition; and the shrinking legal job market.
Posted by Nando at 5:13 AM