Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Hideous Anal Cyst and Hemorrhoid Jack Marshall is in Dire Need of a Brain and Genital Transplant

Dumbass Posts an Ignorant Entry About the Legal Job Market, Blaming the Students:


Jack Marshall is such a piece of garbage that one of my adversaries e-mailed me, and told me to nail this bastard. Apparently, a miserable trash pile can sometimes unite others.

My Response to the Chirping Cockroach:


On June 24, 2012, I flushed a humongous turd – by the name of Jack Marshall – down the commode. That entry was entitled “Profiles in Wicked Deceit: Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarm.”

Dogface Reacts in Typical Bitch Mode on October 15th:


“That’s not all. In addition to routinely referring to others, especially law deans and professors, as “cockroaches,” “pigs,” “dogs” and even more denigrating terms ( I, for example, am “a ball-less, spineless, brainless waste of sperm and egg. The man has no character and no integrity. He bills himself as a purported “ethics guru.” Always be leery of these types; by nature, they are mere charlatans who seek to avoid real work. However, this physically and ethically grotesque pig takes deceit and dishonesty to another level.” So unfair. I have never billed myself as an “ethics guru”!), Nando decorates his site with graphic photographs of various forms of fecal matter, including a particularly nauseating shot of the aftermath of explosive diarrhea.”

At least, the foul swine is aware that others know that he is a eunuch. Jack CLEARLY doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. Thousands of recent JDs are unable to land legal jobs, despite their best efforts. Not only is Jack Marshall ball-less and spineless, but the pile of buffalo dung is mentally deficient, as well. When you add those “qualities” to his ugly appearance, you can see why he had to create his own job. Pictures of explosive diarrhea are less nauseating than this man’s visage. That may be a little below the belt, but you don’t have any genitals anyway, Jackass.

Some Basic Facts for the Fat Pig to Consume:


Here is the NALP Class of 2011 National Summary Chart. As you can see, ABA-accredited toilets collectively pumped out 44,495 graduates. However, this gigantic cohort competed for a mere 27,224 jobs where bar passage was required. Keep in mind that not all of the jobs in this category are traditional attorney positions. Scroll down to page two of this PDF. You will note that 13.1% of all jobs were listed as short-term, while 11.8 percent were part-time. Fact: law schools produced FAR TOO MANY grads for the available number of lawyer openings for this specific year.

On June 13, 2010, Brian Tamanaha – now a tenured professor at Washington University - published a Balkinization blog piece labeled “Wake Up, Fellow Law Professors, to the Casualties of Our Enterprise.” Here is one concise description of the situation:


“[F]or the opportunity to enter a saturated legal market with long odds against them, the tens of thousands newly minted lawyers who graduate each year from non-elite schools will have paid around $150,000 in tuition and living expenses, and given up three years of income. Many leave law school with well over $100,000 in non-dischargeable debt, obligated to pay $1,000 a month for thirty years.

This dismal situation was not created by the current recession—which merely spread the pain up the chain into the lower reaches of elite schools. This has been going on for years.” [Emphasis mine]


Take a look at the ABA document “Enrollment and Degrees Awarded, 1963-2010.” From 1980-1981 to 2009-2010 – a span of 30 years – ABA-approved law schools awarded 1,161,863 JDs. Fact: ABA-accredited trash pits have pumped out FAR TOO MANY grads for generations.


The U.S. Bureau of Labor prognisticates that there will only be 73,600 more lawyers in 2020 than there were in 2010.  Prior to this update, the Bureau predicted that there would be 98,500 more employed lawyers in 2018 than in 2008.  Automation and outsourcing, combined with wiser Biglaw clients, are having a huge impact on this "profession." Fact: There is no need for legions of newly-minted U.S. lawyers each year.  The schools are aware of this situation, but they would rather keep the gravy train rolling along - rather than turn down those federally-backed, NON-DISCHARGEABLE student loan dollars.

Former Biglaw associate Will Meyerhofer posted an article entitled “Extremely Versatile Crockery,” on his blog back on November 3, 2010. Read the excerpt below:


"For the record, a law degree is not “versatile.” Being a lawyer amounts to a strike against you if you ever decide to pursue another career.

So why do people keep insisting it’s an “extremely versatile degree”?

A bunch of reasons.

Law schools are in it for the money. Teaching law doesn’t cost much, but they charge a fortune – made possible by not-dischargable-in-bankruptcy loans. That makes each law school a massive cash cow for the rest of the university. Money flowing from the law school pays the heating bill for the not-so-profitable Department of Neo-Structuralist Linguistics. [Emphasis mine]

Should you take the word of a man who has worked in Biglaw and is now in a different professional career, or go with a fraud and liar who runs a website devoted to “ethics”?!?! Fact: a law degree is not highly versatile, and non-legal employers view JD applicants suspiciously.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarms has no balls, brains or backbone. He shills for the law school industry, without even bothering to learn the facts. Instead, Marshall relies on straw men “arguments.” Then again, the ugly rat realizes that the truth runs contrary to his position. As such, the cockroach has no integrity or moral standing. Hell, farm animals have more dignity than the piece of trash known as Jack Marshall.

If you truly want to provide the neighborhood children with a traumatic experience this Halloween, then make sure to grab an Uncle Fester/Jack Marshall facemask – and prowl the streets. Don’t be surprised, however, if women start beating you with their fists or with rocks. A mother’s instinct kicks in when you see such a horrific image approaching one’s children.


  1. Someone should jerk off on his forehead.

  2. Correction: Uncle Fester was not as ugly as this fellow.

  3. Jack "mustard tooth" marshall just got pwnd!

  4. That dude's head is huge. Ten camels could jerk off on his forehead.

  5. My daughter applied to over 300 companies (law firms, nonprofits, she even applied to legal aid). She kept most of the rejection letters in a filing cabinet. She showed me quite a few. The ones outside of law didn't want her. So much for law degrees helping out there. After all that, between owing $130,000 and the stress of the bar exam, legal aid offered her a position at a salary of $32,000 per year.

    Now she works at an insurance company in the claims dept. It was almost a whole year of looking. Finally she broke down and asked her uncle if his employer had any job listings. I guess this piece of shit thinks my child should've taken the legal aid gig for peanuts.

  6. Hey Nando,

    There's something I don't understand. Why do scambloggers (and Tamanaha, apparently) include LIVING EXPENSES when they are tallying up the law schools' misdeeds? I mean, granted, the tuition is criminally high, but wouldn't the students have to pay for food and shelter even if they stayed away from law school? Some ZIP codes cost more than others, but there are many students who go from NYC to attend law school in cheaper markets such as Charlottesville and Ann Arbor. Isn't the issue of living expenses a wash?

    1. I think the issue is that living expenses usually add to your loan balance, which then accrues interest/penalties/collection costs/etc. etc. Even if you were unemployed and your living expenses went on your credit cards, at least they'd be dischargeable in bankruptcy (or maybe you'd be eligible for food stamps or other aid).

    2. Fair enough, I guess, but that's more the fault of the lenders than the law schools. Of course, a saavy student would convert the living allowance to cash, immediately use it to pay down 15K-20K of the principal, and secure housing separately, preferably with savings or even income. Leave tuition out of it for a minute - it's hard to feel sorry for someone who LIVES off of borrowed money.

    3. What savings or income? Law students are prohibited by ABA rules from working in 1L and most do free internships or clinics at some point. How many are going to have pre-law career that allow significant savings? What is this "secure housing separately" nonsense? How do you expect students to eat? And why are they borrowing to pay down principal? If they have the assets, they wouldn't be borrowing as much to pay tuition. You're living on Mars.

      A lot of people also leave gainful employment that would not have otherwise to attend school, so yes, living expenses should be included as a cost of attendance. If they're only living on borrowed money because of the fraud, then why wouldn't you feel sorry for them?

    4. LOL, if I'm living on "Mars," it must be a pretty sweet place, because I graduated owing nothing EXCEPT tuition (and not even the entire amount, since I was able to live on significantly less than the recommended room and board. BTW, it only took me 4 years to pay my loans off).

      Riddle me this, "Doc" (and pffft, Doctor of AIDS, perhaps): how do you *****EAT***** when you AREN'T in law school? Since the idea of saving money or paying for things out of pocket is plainly foreign to you, I imagine that you put that food on the table by using an EBT card, or adding it to one of your eight nearly-maxed out credit cards. FINE. Who told you that you couldn't continue that lifestyle once you entered in law school?

      And your bullshit ABA prohibition on "working" in law school made me laugh. Maybe the ABA made some impotent recommendation, but al least 1/4 of 1Ls work their way through law school. If you can point to an instance where even one of them was ever expelled or disciplined for this supposed "violation," please link to the story below and shut my mouth, LOL.

      You sound to me like a career loser who has built up a treasure of excuses. Tell me, does that "employment prohibition" apply to YOU for life? Somehow I am sure that it does.

    5. The practical truth is that very few people can save $40-60k to cover living expenses; those who do likely have little need for a JD and would be better off investing for retirement. Very few are lucky enough to live with their parents or other relatives. I'm sorry if you refuse to believe this, but law school imposes serious limitations on one's ability to generate present income, and often results in leaving consistent, bill-paying work. The people who set loan amounts realize this, which is why it's included as educational debt.

      Congratulations, you're a special snowflake. Where I went, I had to quit my full-time job and after depleting 4 years of savings, had to borrow about 40k for living expenses. COL varies widely. If you go to school at a large public in a mid-sized flyover city, you can probably live on 10k a year, less if you can find free housing. If you go to a school in NY, Boston, Chicago, or DC, you will cut it close with 20k/year.

      Additionally, working enough to pay living expenses on a break-even basis in a large city will likely cost the student academically and professionally, as they'll have to turn down internships/externships and it will take a miracle for their grades to reach the top half.

    6. You sound pretty "special" yourself. This isn't all that complicated, people: if you can't even afford to pay for your own food and shelter, then don't borrow a ton of money to cover those expenses, and don't borrow any for tuition, either.

      Was there any loan money left over after you paid for your tuition and housing? If there was, you probably used it to make a down payment on a brand new car, didn't you? Some "living expense," LOL. And now you want the taxpayers to eat those costs. Why should the they do that, exactly?

    7. I saved every penny I could for when I would be unemployed/studying for the bar. My car is 10 years old and was paid for in cash.

      I'm not sure why you're so dismissive and insulting of people who aren't blessed with financial resources by age 30. Given how often you check this blog, I can only assume you're a law professor or Jack Marshall. But thanks for playing.

    8. LOL, you would know. And aren't you departing from the norm a little? Usually the person who loses the game is one who RECEIVES the thanks for playing. In this case, you are offering them - what gives?

  7. Sadly, most people don't understand the current student's plight. People would rather pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for getting lucky in life instead of try to extend a hand or actually think about an unpleasant situation.

  8. A small request

    Could you please PLEASE take down the picture on this post? I can (sort of) handle the pictures of trash and dung. But I can't bear to look at this one. Where did you find a picture of shit with eyes? That's just too far.

    I just lost my appetite and it's dinner time. Thanks for that.

  9. So I read this clown's blog and I can see why he got into ethics: this is a painfully dull man. If he were a smidge stupider, he would be listing The Onion as an "unethical website" because they write satirical news stories. To make it worse, he seems to be center-Right and we have a zillion center-Right blogs as it is. The only thing that distinguishes the guy is that he is a lawyer and a company man unwilling to see that his industry is hopelessly corrupt....Jack Marshall sees Occupy Wall Street as bad, Wikileaks as unethical, and Third Tier Reality as a scam. He doesn't understand muckraking because he lives in the muck.

  10. Given this guy is uglier than sin, but that is a low blow. Even if he doesn't have nads. That is harsh. Stick to the facts. They're on your side.

  11. The fact that a man with his ethical standards has his looks proves that, perhaps, there is justice in this world after all!

  12. For further proof that Jackass Marshall has no integrity, check out the following post:


    On April 5, 2010, New York criminal defense lawyer Scott H. Greenfield wrote a "Simple Justice" entry labeled "Jack Marshall Can't Take a Joke." Here is an insightful portion:

    "This leads me to Jack Marshall's Ethics Alarms. where he argues that Eric Turkewtiz's April Fools Day joke isn't merely ethically dubious, but:

    No doubt about it, the Times was fooled, and should have checked the story. Then again, lawyers like Turkewitz are forbidden by their ethics rules (Rule 8.4, to be exact) from engaging in intentional misrepresentation or dishonesty, and there is no April Fool’s Day exception. The Times and other trusted Turkewitz to behave professionally and ethically, and he did not; and he is criticizing them? Web hoaxes are unethical, always, every day of the week, and web hoaxes perpetrated by lawyers are professional misconduct[.]

    Well, not exactly. Actually, not even close. To avoid any potential allegation of misrepresentation, let me be more specific: Marshall's dead wrong.

    Eric offers his own explanation for why Marshall missed the boat, but because such knee-jerk punditry so completely misapprehends the nature of the a lawyer's ethical duty, and itself is likely to mislead people, some further discussion seems warranted. I didn't fight to establish that lawyers don't give up their right to free speech upon admission to the bar only to have self-proclaimed ethicists seek to turn us into truthy automatons.

    We're still human. We are not, by dint of Rule 8.4, forbidden from telling our spouse that those pants don't make her butt look fat. And we can have some fun by playing April Fools jokes without risking disbarment. Marshall's absolutist assertion is just plain wrong."

    As an April Fool's joke, Turkewitz told the New York Times that he was named the official White House law blogger. Yes, that is correct. This prank nearly drove Cockroach Jack Marshall to the psychiatric ward. Marshall made a complete fool of himself, in the process. He appears to be a genuine expert at being stupid.

    As Strelnikov mentioned earlier, Jack Marshall is painfully dull. He goes nuts because an attorney pulls a harmless prank, but the piece of trash does not view the law schools as unethical. He is oblivious to the situation facing legions of recent JDs, i.e. THERE SIMPLY ARE NOT ENOUGH LEGAL JOBS. Plus, the pigs keep raising tuition at astonishing rates, despite the shrinking job market. If Marshall had an IQ above 80 – and the willingness to look for the truth, rather than spout nonsense – then he would figure this out in ten minutes.

    Greenfield lands one more uppercut to Cockroach Marshall’s gigantic, bald head – with his conclusion:

    “It's unclear what makes Jack Marshall an ethicist, beyond the same qualifications that make someone a social media guru. But if one is going to set oneself up as an authority on a subject like ethics, then it's incumbent upon such an expert to do a far better job of thinking than appears here. Of course, if Marshall is only posting these provocative half-baked accusations to draw business to his ethics consulting firm, well then, maybe his superficial and mistaken opinion on the Turk's prank can be better understood.

    But would that be ethical?”

  13. On April 5, 2010 at 10:17 pm, Idiot Jack Marshall posted this wordy, meandering response to Greenfield's article:

    "Eric’s defense compared intentionally deceiving his readers and the media—and crowing about it---to lawyer advertising, a completely false comparison. You, like Eric, seem to also confuse the right to make a false statement under the Constitution with the ethics of doing so, which is completely different. The anti-gay fanatics who disrupt military funerals are, the courts say, within their rights, but it sure is unethical conduct. Sorry: lawyers can’t, for example, surreptitiously tape a conversation according to many Bar Rules, because it is “misrepresentation,” even though it may be legal for them to do so.
    Your over-the-top argument that my assessment “would impose bizarrely unrealistic and simplistic ethical proscriptions that would strip lawyers of their human nature, to mention their freedom to have some fun“ is really laughable, especially since my own niche in the legal ethics training world is that my seminars include humor and whimsy. I’m saying that lawyers don’t have the option of setting loose web hoaxes. The Horror. Your defense of “No one was harmed, nor was there any potential for harm” is 1) a hoary rationalization that appeals to consequentialism. Whether someone is harmed by an unethical act comes down to moral luck; it has no bearing on the ethics of the act itself. 2) You’re wrong. Ask the NYT if someone was harmed. Ask the people who had to take the time deny the story. Time is money, and mistakes are credibility. 3) I write about the ethics of humor and comedy frequently, as I have written comedy material for a living in the past. Whether a hoax is funny or not, however, is irrelevant to the legal ethics issue.
    Finally, though I am used to people who have nothing better in their arsenal to use the “self-appointed ethicist” canard, it’s a pretty pathetic tactic, and unjustified. You are welcome to my full CV if you can lift it; I have made my living teaching, studying training and testifying on legal ethics for more than a decade. Ethics Alarms is not directed primarily at a legal audience, because there are many fine resources on the topic. I’ve been reading similar gratuitous insults all day, yet none of the insulters have managed to come up with an ethically valid defense for what Eric did, just rationalizations and non sequiturs."

    This turd cannot even make sense, when defending itself. Marshall claims that law schools help people communicate effectively. He must have missed that day in class. Greenfield dispatched Ass-Clown with the following reply 29 minutes later:

    "I have to give you credit for your perseverance in the face of universal condemnation. Missing from your effort is the ability for self-examination. Screaming "I'm right and everybody else is wrong," is not an argument. Screaming "the fact that everybody else disagrees with me proves that I'm right and everybody else is wrong," is also not an argument. It's a cry for help. Remember, self-absorption isn't the same as self-examination."

    On April 7, 2010 6:56 am, Scott decided to slam Moron’s head into a car door:

    “Possibly, though it's hard to believe that he's grown so disconnected from rational thinking that the weight of universal condemnation didn't have some impact.”

    Perhaps, nothing can penetrate Marshall's massive dome. Hell, he likely suffers from "Homer Simpson Syndrome" - where his brain is cushioned by an extremely thick layer of water. There certainly is a strong physical resemblance, and both are dense pigs. At least, the fictional character Simpson can take a joke.

  14. The ABA loves to suck law school cock. Law schools are run for the faculty....fuck the profession and the law grads.

  15. This jackoff doesn't even practice law. He doesn't keep up on trends like automation either. What would he know about the job market? It's easy to say 'If you can't find a legal job, it's on you' when you've been out of the game for so long.

  16. Some of my professors in law school had never been admitted to any Bar, much less practiced at all. Hence, their ignorance to the realities of law practice today (most lawyers are solos who make a pitifully average salary at best and the fact is, a law degree closes every career door out there, except the lawyer one). This guy has got "ivory tower obtuseness" written all over him. As one of the comments to his article stated, why are there so many paralegal ads out there warning that "lawyers need not apply" if there are so many opportunities out there for JD's?

  17. The one good thing this ugly motherfucker Marshall has going for him is he doesn't need to shell out any cash for a Halloween costume.

  18. Are there some JD rated ladies who want to sit on this piece of shit's face. (He probably has not got any action for decades so you would give him some major favor. No, seriously, can you picture yourself having sex with this goblin?) This is the second of only two useful applications of his enormous head. Sitting on his face and jerking off on his forehead. He certainly would get more business selling those two services than teaching "ethics". Ethics my ass, asshole. Bottom line - he is one hideous motherfucking son of a bitch. His parents must have been drinking for a week strait before conceiving this victim of abortion. Fuck, I would consider myself being handicapped if I would look 1/16 like he does. I would apply and get social assistance if I would look like Marshall. I hope Jack was sterilized for public policy reasons. Can you imagine how his offspring could look like? Fuck me, this is a scary thought even on a Halloween night.

  19. Holy christ this guy is a special little snowflake. Check out the comments section:

    "I’m unique; so are you. My eployment prospects are not governed by what happens to anyone else or predicted by them. This mindset is part of the problem."

    "no stat can tell you how you will fare in the job market, and no intelligent, responsible person should believe they can."

    " Employment stats don’t tell me a thing about my personal chances. I’m not a generic graduate. Neither are you. My odds of getting hired are not the odds of a generic group, so I couldn’t care less what those statistics are, with or without school hires."

    How does he say this shit with a straight face?! How does anyone take this loony seriously?

  20. How many children last night got scared shitless when this asshole answered the door for trick or treat?

  21. http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2010/04/jack-marshall-the-elmer-gantry-of-ethics.html

    Another solo practitioner and blogger blasted Jack Marshall in the face with a medicine ball back on April 8, 2010. Criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett authored a piece labeled “Jack Marshall, the Elmer Gantry of Ethics.” Review this brutal opening:

    “Ethics “expert” Jack Marshall conceded that he was wrong about Eric Turkewitz’s April Fools’ Day hoax. Which was good. Better, I thought, to sometimes be wrong and realize it than always to be right. A very simple apology should have followed: Dear Mr. Turkewitz, I was wrong. I screwed up. I have no idea what I was thinking. I cannot overstate the magnitude of my error, and hope you will forgive me. If you would like me to remove the offending posts, I am willing to.

    But . . . no.

    Instead Marshall writes a muddled post (I challenge you to understand what he’s saying on the first reading; I read it twice, and I’m still not sure) purporting to explain how he “Became an April Fool and an Ethics Dunce.” In the lengthy post beginning, “I’m not going to spin this,” he tries to spin it: his error (alleging publicly that another lawyer’s April Fools’ Day prank violated that lawyer’s state’s ethical rules) “was the product of a toxic mix of factors, prime among then being that I didn’t review my own files.”

    His own files?

    In his email to his critics announcing his flipflop Marshall had written:

    Let me say, as if anyone will believe me, that I’m not doing this because I have been beaten into submission. I finally was able to check my facts the way I should have in the first place. I had a theory, and stated it as an assertion, and that was just wrong.

    His facts?

    Jack Marshall didn’t just state his theory as an assertion; he belligerently tried to defend it against all comers. I asked Marshall via email, “What facts made the difference?” and got no response.”

    The pig has no balls and no dignity. Hell, the bastard deletes comments when posters do not agree with his idiotic claims.

    Later on, Bennett points out the following:

    “Part of Jack Marshall’s problem, as Mike has suggested at Crime and Federalism, is that Marshall apparently had no friends willing to cut him down and, as a pathological narcissist, if he ever had any such friends he wouldn’t have listened to them anyway. Instead of people who will challenge him, his writing attracts ignorant sycophants like Glenn Logan, who even now thinks that Marshall was right and has been treated unfairly.

    Jack Marshall had falsely and publicly accused an ethical lawyer of violating a disciplinary rule. He had been corrected by Carolyn Elefant, Scott Greenfield, and Eric Turkewitz, and had written another blog post, sneeringly condescending:

    Some fellow lawyer-bloggers rushed to his side, collectively applied their full ethics comprehension and rhetorical skills and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt…..why so many lawyers are desperately in need of ethics training[.]”

    With his appearance, arrogance, and low intelligence, I would be surprised if this primate has ANY friends. In the end, you are a joke and an ethical fraud, Jack. Make sure to schedule that ball transplant surgery soon, dumbass.

  22. Take a look at the comments below, which appear on the April 8, 2010 Bennett post:

    "Colin Samuels says:

    9 April 2010 at 12:38 pm

    I comment here that it’s to Jack Marshall’s credit that he didn’t delete the offending posts and now he seems to have done just that to the most offensive of the lot (and with more than a hundred comments). Tremendous. Before you say anything, I’m going to write my “I was wrong about Jack Marshall and you were right” apology post. First, though, I need to review my files.


    Patrick says:

    10 April 2010 at 6:40 am

    He has now deleted the offending posts, and the comments.


    Antonin I. Pribetic says:

    9 April 2010 at 3:09 pm

    “Sorry, the page you are looking for does not exist” message should be amended to read:

    “Sorry, the ethicist you are looking for does not exist, never existed and will never exist, but never fear, CLE courses in existentialism are now available at 1/2 price.”


    Jack Marshall is a cockroach. When you turn the lights on, this bastard runs for cover. Yes, he truly embodies "ethics," correct?!

  23. Law school is a bad, bad decision right now. With automation and predictive coding, I can;t think of a worse time to apply.

    The fact of the matter is this. If you really want to go to law school and you don't care how much it costs, there's a school somewhere that'll take you. That should tell you plenty about this shitty fucking profession. If you really, really want to be a veterinarian or a dentist, you still gotta have skills and the talent.

  24. Don't look now but it appears that everyone's favorite denouncer of the scam blog movement, namely Jack Whittington, has failed the Texas bar exam for a third straight time. Assuming he took the test in July 2012, his name does not appear on the TX pass list released today.
    Tough times for this proud alum of Tulsa law who had such sage and unsolicited advice for everyone who could stand to listen on how to succeed...all you have to do is work hard.

    What a nitwit.

  25. @8:05AM

    I can understand failing the Texas bar exam once for being hungover, sick or in a coma. To fail it twice or three times makes this Whittington fella a certified moron. Keep taking the bar'zam Jack. Maybe you will nail it on your 15th try.

  26. Firstly, I would like to establish that this guy is, indeed, an assclown. I have a broader purpose to this post though:

    Nando, I appreciate you presenting contrast to the lies purported by the law schools. I withdrew from a low-ranked Tier 1 school (mentioned on this site) as a 1L when the bubble was bursting 2 years ago. I pursued an impractical career, and now find myself unemployed and reexamining my options.

    My criticism is that this site and others focus on law schools and the legal field to the exclusion of all others. I fully agree that the lies told by the education peddlers in order to collect tuition are probably worse for law school than anywhere else. However, if your concern is truly for the financial welfare of others, (1a) why do you present this evidence in a vacuum? (1b) Why not direct would-be-law-students to the values of the tech-sector or engineering degrees or medical degrees? Personally, I think most would-be-law-students aren't tech-savvy and don't have the intellectual capabilities for such challenging fields or rigorous educational systems as engineering or medicine. Most also likely lack the hustle to make something of themselves in this job market with a similarly oversold MBA - or with just an undergraduate degree.

    (2a) Assuming the above, what is a good career for such individuals? (2b) Are you aware that the insurance industry is the most abominable (and largest scale) scam of the modern era? (2c) How can you contextualize the collapse of the legal market within the realities of the well-documented Global Financial Crisis that has decimated the financial and real estate markets (among others)?

    Finally, I know that these schools operate under the presumption of providing lucrative (read: Big Law), full-time legal employment, but (3a) what was your salary (ballpark) and general field prior to entering law school (and prior to the Global Financial Crisis)? (3b) What is your salary and general field now? (3c) What would you have done instead, and what do you estimate your salary and field would now be had you not made the error of attending law school?

    Nando, I would appreciate a response on each of these points. Also, I support your message, but think that providing context could provide a more constructive, and persuasive, argument.

  27. Law school is a gamble. I see too many idiots giving up good jobs (and careers) for the risk. I've seen people with decent salaries and young kids take the plunge. And the lawprofs don't have a conscience about financially ruining these young f-a-m-i-l-i-e-s.

    And for what? A chance to work in a shitty, contracting field? My cousin makes $80K in mid-mgt at a sales firm. This sonuvabitch aleady took the LSAT and chasing his dream. (Course when you ask him what he plans to do with a law degree he can't give you anything specific.) He won't tell anyone what his score was. But his roommate tells me he saw a printout of it and the guy got a 153. Where's that gonna land him? TTTville, that's where. I went to a top 20 law school (no big shakes) years ago, and I never practiced law. And I passed the NC bar on the first try. What are his chances?

  28. Keep fighting the good fight and keep exposing these criminals.

  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  30. Once a D-Bag, always a D-Bag. You're a non-entity now Nan-Doo-Doo. Go hang out with yer Butt-y Painter and take pictures of poo.

  31. Nando,

    Can you start posting pics of big, juicy cocks instead of feces?


    The Cocksucker

  32. To the piece of human waste who posted at 4:42 pm and 5:06 pm,

    The next time Jack Marshall pounds your ass from behind, make sure that he uses his fist - or a toilet plunger. You are beyond pathetic. If you don't like the blog, then don't visit! Does that sound simple to you, borderline retard?!?! Did that penetrate your tiny brain?!

    Your comments have been "censored" due to the worthless content, bitch. Go file a complaint at the local court over this "violation" of your First Amendment rights, waterhead. Let me know how well that works out for you, cockroach. When the psych ward allows its residents another hour of internet time, try and come back with something substantive.

    It is well past time for you to make the case for law school, i.e. WHY is it a good investment? Provide some actual facts, mental midget. Also, make sure to follow all of your doctors' prescriptions, and do not cut the dosage in half without their permission. Do you understand that, you piece of trash?!?!

  33. Jack Marshall is the ugliest piece of shit to ever appear on this site.


Web Analytics