Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Disgraceful Filth: ABA Task Force Cockroaches Issue 34 Sheets of Toilet Paper, Regarding the Pathetic State of U.S. “Legal Education”

On Thursday, August 1, 2013, the bitches and hags on the ABA Task Force on the Future of “Legal Education” released a “working paper” on the situation. On pages 2, 3, and 23, these tools cried about having only had 12 months to work on this project. At any rate, the portion below is about the only segment devoid of meaningless platitudes, laughable reforms, and $elf-$erving nonsense:

“F. Law Related Services and Employment  

1. Structural Changes in the Legal Employment Market. The economy of law related services and the related employment market have changed sharply over the past five years. This has affected traditional legal services, where hiring decreased, particularly for new lawyers in large firms and (because of reduced revenues) lawyers in government practice. The pace of structural changes that were already under way (for example, use of contract labor and increased reliance on technology to increase productivity) accelerated. These changes have had a substantial impact on employment opportunities for new and recent law school graduates. 

Moreover, there are evident structural changes that reflect increasing price sensitivity by users of legal services, with resulting price competition and changes in the mode of delivery. The developments are likely to continue, with continuing impact on lawyer employment. It seems probable that this change in employment for lawyers is not just a passing phenomenon caused by the Great Recession and must be addressed systematically. The profession is also experiencing a shift in demand from bespoke representation of clients to something that looks more like the commoditization of legal services (i.e., Legal Zoom).

The American market for legal education and legal services is also increasingly affected by forces of globalization. Multiple entities in the ABA and the profession are engaged in evaluating these trends and making recommendations about them. The Task Force has elected not to reproduce those efforts, but does believe that its recommendations are generally consistent with other work under way to address these trends. [Emphasis mine]

Thanks for stating the obvious, douche-bags.  Apparently, it only took these bastards a full year to reach this consensus.  Then again, automation, outsourcing and globalization WILL persist - and increase in scope.  

Back to the ABA Outsourcing Opinion: 

Keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee on “Ethics and Professional Responsibility” issued “Ethics” Opinion 08-451, back on August 5, 2008. This provided the cartel’s stamp of approval on U.S. law firms’ hiring of foreign lawyers and non-attorneys, for the purpose of engaging in American legal discovery. The American Bar Association pigs sure are looking out for the little guy, huh?!?!

Other Coverage: 

On August 4, 2013, criminal defense lawyer Scott H. Greenfield published a blog article simply titled “The ABA Working Paper on the Future of Legal Education.” Check out this stinging portion:

“A few things are clear from the content, and lack of content, in the ABA working paper. The “lost generation,” the kids who came out of law school over the past few years and found themselves saddled with huge debt and no jobs, are screwed. There is nothing in there for them.

The task force adopts the facile position that it’s counterproductive to moralize or blame, which will no doubt be applauded by those who deserve blame, including the ABA. Except the failure to do so avoids the hard task of understanding responsibility, cause and effect and bearing the consequences of the past.

There are parties at fault, and without calling them out for their fault, they get to enjoy the benefits of their selfishness and greed without consequence, as if it never happened. It happened. There is pain to be endured, and it should be meted out according to fault. That won’t happen. And with no price to be paid, there is no reason to suspect the same parties won’t try to spin this to their advantage again. 

One of the most obvious, and critical failings, that the ABA has cranked out more lawyers than society can support, is ignored through some glib “public benefit” language, but while the concept sounds lovely and more than a little Utopian, it fails to deal with the issue of how they’re supposed to eat. It’s a glaring hole.” [Emphasis mine]

Greenfield understands that people need to be held accountable. Hell, according to the July 28, 2013 edition of CBS’ 60 Minutes segment on Yale University’s Infant Cognition Lab, babies as young as six months old also have a highly-developed sense of justice and morality. Of course, the ABA dung beetles and "law professors" would prefer to be held blameless - just as convicted child predators would rather not have their names and addresses placed on sex offender lists.

Conclusion: On page 30, the cockroaches on this American Bar Association panel merely suggest the formation of yet another ABA task force or commission to study this issue further. Yes, that will lead to structural change and results, right?!?! In the last analysis, “law professors” and the ABA swine are too $elf-entrenched to alter the status quo. This garbage paper was issued, in order to give the appearance of doing something about the crumbling U.S. lawyer job market and skyrocketing tuition. 

Law school applications are steadily decreasing, and enrollment at most ABA-accredited diploma mills is declining – even though the admi$$ion$ jackals are becoming less selective. Solid, truthful information about the dwindling U.S. attorney job market, insane tuition costs, and soul-crushing levels of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt is widely available now. You’re welcome, scammers. We cannot expect a solution from the very criminals who are financially ruining legions each year, nor can we anticipate the political branches doing anything significant. Those puppets simply do not have the balls or guts to try and change the $y$tem. The key is for consumers to view law school PRIMARILY as a financial decision.


  1. You're spot on as usual. It's sick how little is done to keep the ABA in check. If not for Nando much of this would have been swept under the rug. Is there any rationale for the ABA to exist?

    It works against the rank and file lawyer (see outsourcing opinion above). They just collect money, implement their far left agenda, rubber stamp law schools and screw over practicing attorneys, particularly small firms and solos. No, guys, unless you get biglaw in 2L your odds of ever being part of the ABA club are remote at best.

    These thieves, charlatans and corrupt cronies are working against you, not for you. Can you imagine dithering about for 12 months then begging for more time? I guess there are catered lunches and dinners involved. Perhaps swank hotels on someone else's dime?

    Never, ever give the ABA money grubbers a penny. Same goes for the crooks at your law school.

  2. Thanks to the internet, the ABA's bullshit "task force" is a non-factor. They can commission as many "studies" as they want, but any prospective law student just has to run a google search on law schools and find the truth. After a few terrifying minutes of research, anyone with a shred of common sense will throw their acceptance letter(s) in the garbage.

    The ABA and law school pigs must solely convince prospective students to attend law school so as to keep the money coming in. These types of reports and findings will never be read by any prospective law student. It's just noise. This generation primarily uses the internet for research and they will find blogs like this that give them the truth about salary/employment data. This report is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction by a once-insulated crowd that is now sweating because enrollment is down and schools are shedding faculty. The pigs have never worked in their lives so what the hell else can they do once they lose their jobs at law schools? Even tenured faculty is in a tough spot. Sure, they can't be fired, but if there is a shrinking pie, their salaries will suffer. It's economics 101. Supply will exceed demand.

    The most important thing to remember is that applications are down across the board which means less money coming in. That's the only thing they are concerned about.

    Again, props to Nando for spearheading this fight. He's been on the internet doing this for 5 years and has never relented, even when applications were still ticking up some of those years. He was in for the long haul and now the tide has turned. It will never go back to the way it was.

  3. "The “lost generation,” the kids who came out of law school over the past few years and found themselves saddled with huge debt and no jobs, are screwed." Nora Demleitner and Hofstra University stole my future doing things this report condemns (reverse Robin-Hooding). There are a lot of other stories out there just like mine. Thank you for this blog.

  4. How much do you think it cost for this task force to spend 12 months "researching" a topic that can be understood after an hour on the internet?

  5. Nando, as an aside, why are you listing Keith Lee and his ABA shill blog "Associates Mind" on your site? That clown has a book coming out soon that is published by the ABA and will encourage thousands of fools into law schools instead of away from law schools, and his blog is basically regurgitating turds of wisdom about how to succeed as a shitlawyer (none of which are true.)

    Please dump him.

  6. You forgot to mention that Hofstra used "bait and switch" scholarships during demleitner's deanship.

    1. Hofstra fell from 89 to 113 in us news this year. Demleitner is even a failure at scamming.

  7. Facebook has also been instrumental getting the message out. I have posted Nandos blog countless times on Social Media for everyone to see and received lots of positive feedback for the posts. People would forward it to their friends and create a chain reaction. The ABA is nothing but a racket that makes their money by having more members and you get more members by having more law schools pumping out more law students. Its no different than being a subscriber to National Geographic. The lawsuits against the various law schools are not etched in the legal landscape for prospective law students to see. Law schools are no different than fly by night vocational degree scams. Pay as outrageous tuition's for a slim chance for a professional career.

  8. Have you seen this piece of trash from GW law professor Lawrence Cunningham. in this post he slams the Working Paper for criticizing law professor status seeking. He writes "Is this the kind of thing the Task Force has in mind in its only concrete specific recommendation for law professors to address challenges in legal education? If so, the Working Paper, despite seeming to be serious in so many ways, is really a bit of a joke." no Professor Cunningham, you are a bit of a joke.

  9. The pigs know the score. This is a last ditch effort. You can sense the desperation in the letter.

    "Please don't be mean to us and call us names. Don't listen to the mean scambloggers. Especially when they use charts and stuff."

  10. The problem of lawyers having degrees that are useless - that do not help them earn a dime and leave them woefully unemployed - is not limited to recent grads. Grads of all vintages have been screwed by the overproduction of lawyers and the up or out systems of law firms, that put more and more lawyers on the street each year - with no jobs.

    Half a million licensed lawyers who are not working is a lot of people. Another 200,000 ABA accredited law school grads who are not licensed as lawyers is a large number. All in all, only half of all law school grads are employed as lawyers. Of these a third or so are solos and an unknown number are temps or part-time.

    There may be as little as one full time permanent lawyer job for every four existing ABA accredited law school grads in the last 40 years, when you discount solos, or just over 400,000 working non-solos lawyers in the U.S. A third of those are in big law, which does not keep people around. The employment odds for those who do not get big law or cannot spend a career in big law are awful. You have about one full time permanent non solo job as a lawyer for one in every six grads (270,000 divided by 1.5 million). The stats are really worse than that because many of the remaining jobs 270,000 jobs are limited to entry level lawyers, are temporary or are part-time. So you may have as little as 200,000 full time permanent legal jobs outside of big law and solos. With almost 1.5 million law grads of working age, throw the dice, ladies and gentlemen, at your odds of working as a lawyer.

    Talking about a profession with massive built in structural unemployment - the legal profession is it.

  11. I don't know the statistics, but the fact is that most lawyers are solo or work in small firms . . at least from my observations. Most lawyers as far as I can tell are making a living. Maybe not getting rich, but they are at least middle to upper middle class. So being a small time lawyer handling divorces, criminal defense, wills, trusts, personal injury. It all provides a living for many.

    1. To Anonymous 12:46 PM: The relevant statistical data was comprehensively and succinctly set forth by 12:00PM above. Thus, your commentary is nonsensical and simply incorrect, as you disclaim knowledge of the post you were apparently responding to. Your ostrich-like inability to see the facts right in front of your nose is shared by many lemmings who take the law school plunge.

    2. I'm sick of trying to school incurable lemmings like 12:46. So to them I say, "Take the plunge! You ARE special and you'll beat the odds! Go to law school NOW!"

      Then come back in five years and boast about your wonderful "upper middle class" lifestyle. :)

    3. A comment from the OLSS article from August 7.

      'It has been my observation that special snowflakes do not think they can beat the odds but rather that they are wholly above the odds.'

      We can talk sense into some of the lemmings. The dumbshits like 12:46 are beyond help. Let them suffer the consequences of their stupid fucking decisions.

  12. @9:36 am,

    Thank you for pointing that out to me. I have removed the link to his site, from my blogroll. I remember reading some "Associate's Mind" entries that were critical of the law schools, in the past.

    LSTC provided a brilliant synopsis and analysis of the ABA's excrement-covered paper, in an August 3, 2013 OTLSS post labeled "Comment on the ABA Task Force Working Paper." He came out swinging hard at the pigs:

    "Here's the paper: ABA Task Force Working Paper

    Here's my comment: Dogpoop.

    Let's start with a theme that legitimately perturbed me:

    The Task Force has resolved these challenges [you "resolved" them?] by structuring the Working Paper as a field manual for people of good faith who wish to improve legal education as a public and private good...

    Moralizing and blaming are no productive. What is needed instead is a dispassionate and pragmatic examination of the current situation that begins with a presumption of good faith on the part of all participants....

    For the past five years, participants in the system of legal education have responded to the environmental and structural stresses and challenges with good faith and increasing commitment.

    There absolutely is a place for pragmatism and dispassionate evaluation. But there's also a place for anger and moral outrage, and such is necessary to a proper evaluation. This situation has caused a lot of real financial pain for thousands of graduates over the last decade (at a minimum - likely more like three decades). People attended law school wanting to invest three years to have a thirty or forty year career and they wound up carrying the albatross of student loan debt and structural unemployability. If you REALLY want to "solve" the problem, you have to address the problem, and the problem is that real life people have wound up real life broke and real life miserable because this system failed them. If there wasn't passion involved, this wouldn't be a credited topic of discussion among the landed gentry."

    The ABA dung beetles do not want the law school scam to be seen as a moral issue. After all, that would lead to justified anger from the financially ruined students and graduates. The American Bar Association pigs would likely tell rape victims not to wear provocative clothing, and not to become upset. In the past, they would have told black men and women to engage in calm, nonviolent protest. Hell, they would have told the slaves to suffer in silence. Remember, these pieces of trash – whether academics or judges/bagmen for Industry – want to maintain the status quo.

  13. Lol at all the fuck boy losers on this site. Believe themselves to be sooo smart but probably couldn't break a 150 on the LSAT and are crying because they had to go to Cooley. Well gentlemen reality is a bitch. It's not enough to say you're better than all the aspiring law students out there, you actually need something to prove it. And if all you have for that is a blog entry well then....

    1. A blog with over two million views you mean? ;)

    2. 3:18, I have no doubt that unlike me and all of the other losers on this site, YOU have what it takes to be successful in the law and achieve, at the minimum, a very comfortable upper middle class lifestyle while doing interesting work in an admired field. Long-winded way of saying that YOU SHOULD GO TO LAW SCHOOL. Don't wait... don't hesitate... Go NOW, GO! GO!!!

    3. ^Talking to yourself again, Christopher Knorps? Got some more sock puppets, faggot? Focus on the NY bar exam and then go to California.

  14. It is not Cooley. I went to a top undergrad and law school, as did my family members. We know many many unemployed and underemployed lawyers from our colleges, law schools and our lengthy big law careers. Even a number from Harvard and Yale Law Schools. Some of the unemployed are young grads, and some older grads, and some lost jobs somewhere in between. Going to Harvard or Yale does not protect you from having to be an involuntary solo.

    The employment statistics for a top law school are good one year out. They may be pretty good for people in their 30s or early 40s. But the older you get, even from a top law school, the less a chance you have of working.

    The ABA report does not directly address the huge oversupply of lawyers or even recommend longitudinal studies of lawyer employment. Those studies are needed.

    There is a huge built in structural unemployment risk for almost all law school graduates, no matter how good their academics. It is really important for the federal government with its unlimited loan program and really limited career information given out to students who are taking on life altering debt not to send large numbers of people into careers where they are going to fail. In law large numbers of people will fail because the extent of the oversupply of lawyers reaches far beyond the problem of only half of first years getting jobs. Law school is a lottery ticket to failure- earlier or later- for most people. Not everyone, but most people, even with top academics and LSATs. The career jobs - full time and permanent - just do not exist in very large numbers. It may be only a couple of hundred thousand of these jobs outside of big law and taking out solos. That is not very good - 1.37 million people outside big law (assuming big law has 130,000 lawyers) competing for probably a little over 200,000 real jobs. And the oversupply is getting worse each year.

  15. Law students are described as risk averse. These are people who want a consistent paycheck in a professional job. They have not run businesses before. And they usually have no sales ability.

    And they are expected to drum up business in biglaw. If they can't do that, then out the door they go. If they go the solo (or shitlaw firm) route, they need to become savvy businessmen. And they better be able to sell their balls off. Plus, they need to make themselves stand out from the masses of lawyers in the area. Good luck with that. Fuck, good luck getting a small business loan when you already owe a nondischargeable mortgage.

  16. If people understand that most lawyers either don't work at all, or as Elie Mystal of Above the Law puts it, need to run their "own small business" - as a solo, they are not going to rush into law school.

    It is hard to get to even a 2-10 man firm. No one wants to partner with you unless you have business for yourself and maybe for them.

    You also to form a business - an LLC or LLP- and pay filing fees and in New York State publishing fees to not be a solo. Ethics rules require a formal arrangement to partner. Then you need a tax return for the LLC and to pay regular fees to the state keep registered. This is all before you earn a dime. The liklihood is that if you get a partner, that partner will have gone somewhere else soon. You can undo the LLC for an additional fee and look for someone else. Wonderful ethics rules - they keep the competition away from established firms because it is expensive and burdensome to do business as a lawyer in a new firm. Another ethics rule finishes off new lawyers - you cannot solicit non lawyers for business unless you know them well.

  17. The part about moralizing is the most frustrating part of the ABA paper (which may have been taken down -- the link was broken when I tried it again).

    I can't quote it exactly, but they say something about how unhelpful moralizing is, and how what is *really* needed is the presumption of good will on the part of all, which will ENABLE legal educators to engage in a dialog about finding solutions.

    The language implies that moralizing is preventing reform. But, if this is the case, why weren't there reform efforts before the scamblog movement took off? There wasn't any moralizing then, and the ABA had zero motivation to change the status quo.

    In reality, moralizing is the ONLY reason the ABA ever bothered to put out even this paper. Without the moralizers, there wouldn't even be empty talk of reform.

    But, somehow they argue that if the moralizers now go away, reform will happen faster. Somehow I doubt that. If the criticism stops, they will go back to the status quo. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior -- and in the past, a lack of moralizing and blame has meant a lack of action.


    The American Bar Association also lists several of its policy positions and white papers, on the page cited above. Take a look at the following:

    “American Bar Association Policy Positions and White Papers on Homelessness and Poverty

    Policy drafted by the Commission on Homelessness and Poverty and adopted by the ABA House of Delegates:

    • Principles for Veterans Treatment Courts (February 2010)
    • Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (February 2010)
    • Decriminalization of Homelessness (February 2007)
    • Principles for Homeless Courts (August 2006)
    • Expanding the Federal Definition of Homelessness (August 2006)
    • Uninterrupted Educational Access and Stability for Homeless Children and Youth Final Recommendations
    • Section 8 Low-Income Housing Voucher Recommendation (2003)
    • Homeless Court Program (2003)
    • Anti-Predatory Lending (2002)
    • Digital Divide (2001)
    • Due Process for TANF Recipients (2001)
    • Native American Children and Title IV-E of the Social Security Act (2001)
    • Access to Mail Delivery for People Who Are Homeless (August 2005)
    • Affordable Housing Trust Fund (February 2005)”

    The bastards are ostensibly concerned with the homeless and poverty-stricken. Notice a hyperlink to a paper on anti-predatory lending. For $ome rea$on, these pieces of garbage have not drafted a position paper on banksters, lenders and college$ and univer$itie$ preying on LEGIONS of student debtors, each year. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ABA has a policy position paper regarding nail salons and pedicures.

    Take a look at the white paper labeled “An Analysis of the Law Regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships.” It was prepared by something called the ABA Section on Family Law Working Group on Same-Sex Marriages and Non-Marital Unions.” According to the front page, it was revised and updated through March 2005.

    As you can see, the ABA pigs have their pet political causes. They seemingly care about every disenfranchised group out there, with the exception of broke-ass college grads and debt-strapped, unemployed and under-employed JDs. In their eyes, the students are “informed consumers” who should have known better than to believe the law schools’ published lies. Then again, the rats need to give the appearance of doing something useful – since a “legal education” supposedly confers “a private and public good.”

    1. As per Nando's point, the "elite$" of the "profe$$ion" love to demonstrate their collective self-conception(s) of their superior morality, social concern, etc for causes and issues that cost them nothing to trumpet. Their talk is cheap, valueless in fact.

    2. Yep. It's pretty sick.

      Wealthy T14-grad law professors enroll poor, underpriviliged kids into toilet law schools and slap them with six-figure debt (and no better job prospects) in the name of social justice and equality. That's about as hypocritical as it gets.

      Perhaps the worst part is that so many law professors are willfully ignorant of their upper-class status and actually think of themselves as humble public servants. They criticize "the wealthy" without realizing that they are part of that group.

    3. Since the ABA has sanctioned a great many law school grads direct entry into poverty, perhaps the homeless programs can benefit the NYLS and Brooklyn Law School grads that are known to pandhandle. For once, the ABA has shown some foresight.

    4. All systems in this society are based on self-censroship, avoiding elephaants in the room, etc.
      I just had my whole career flushed down the toilet because of a bad reference. All apps (electronic) in my field demand both the college number and all references from all experiences. Ridiculas!

  19. Graduates from top law schools, who work in Big Law, are living on borrowed time.

    I've attended a few alumni socials for graduates of Small Ivies (Middlebury, Williams, Bowdoin). Half the law graduates at these events have lost their positions as attorneys. They had impeccable credentials, such as graduating summa cum laude from undergrad and scored 170s on their LSATs. They went onto T6 schools and received offers from Cravath, Sullivan and Cromwell, Jones Day and other BigLaw firms. Despite all the hard-work, law firms have an "up and out" system. Associates have a 2 year life expectancy and then they receive the pink slip so that a law firm can replace them with the next crop of bright eyed, bushy tailed graduates.

    Prior to 2008, these laid off BigLaw attorneys could find positions at other firms. However, the recession has forced corporate clients to cut costs and push back on legal fees. All corporate firms are shedding associates. Government agencies aren't hiring because of austerity. Therefore, a lay off is the kiss of death to a legal career.

    Where are legal castaways now? Working in the PeaceCorps, teaching English in Japan and networking with college buddies as they try to break into a middle class corporate job. But they have $100,000 in student loans which is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

  20. Agreed with biker. Even if you get that wonderful in house job and it works out for several years, things get in the way. A new CEO or client that you work with comes in, the direction of the company changes so they need someone expert in something you have not done a lot of, someone other than you gets that promotion, you get old and the group gets young, so you are not longer a "fit" and people are no longer "comfortable" with you. One way or the other, jobs tend to end for reasons other than poor performance. With big law firms pushing out up to 10,000 lawyers each year in the U.S. alone, when that push comes from your in house job, you won't be marketable. There is always a surplus of young people coming from a top law firm who have only had a few jobs, and those people look better than you do - they haven't obviously been fired.

    The glut created by the up or out system is something that needs to publicized so people going to a T6 or T14 understand the risk they are taking. There is a big risk of not being able to use that T6 law degree for as long as a lawyer wants to work or should work and in any event of not being able to be a lawyer for 40 years, or even 5 years.

  21. The info's out there. The scam's well documented. If you go to law school now (or in the last 3 years) you are officially stupid.

  22. Now, speaking about stupid...well, no, RETARDED people. Where is our favorite cocksucker-cockroach Christopher Knorps aka Mr. Infinity aka 18 percent? I smell stench of shit. He must be somewhere around here.

  23. The ABA has shown its true face with this "Task Force" report. They're not going to anything. They're not interested in "reform". They don't even know what the problem is.
    Their "solution" is more so-called practical training at the law schools, which as has been amply demonstrated doesn't do anything. Law firms don't give a rat's ass is you took a more "practical curriculum" at a second or third tier toilet.
    Now it's up to Mr. Market to do his thing, and even more viciously than he has been working in the past several years.
    Tens of thousands more will hit the bread line. Finally - finally - the word will get around that going to law school is like going to beauticians school or paying your own way for an Art History Ph.D. Undergraduates will make fun of pre-law lemmings. Smart parents will buy their kids nice cars as an inducement not to go to law school.
    Applications are already down by half at a lot of lower toilets. Next year it will be worse, and worse the year after that.
    Mr. Market will will force the true toilets to go total open enrollment, and then cut enrollment by a third to one half. After that he will flush a lot of schools down the drain.
    The second tier, though, will survive with the usual gimmickry of cutting enrollment and digging into endowments to fund scholarships.
    Mr. Market is slow, but inexorable. He will get the job done - forget about the ABA.
    If you want to se what the ABA is about, go look at the program schedule for their conference currently being held in SF. They just want entertainment and travel and mingling with Biglaw on someone else's expense account. They don't a rat's behind about anything else. They don't stand for anything.

    1. The sad thing is that Mr. Market will start crushing the law schools just in time for the Boomers to have cashed out.

      It's like a lot of other professions. The teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. of the boomer generation got generous salaries, benefits, and pensions. Those unsustainable benefits are being funded by current taxes and are bankrupting states and municipalities, who will have to be much more frugal with the next generation of employees. But the boomers don't care--they are cashing out as we speak.

    2. Did you actually expect these Charlatans to do anything? Wake up, man! The only way to make the ABA do anything is to have a competitor. They have such a cozy monopoly they lack any incentive to take action or provide service to the rank and file schlubs that pay their way.

      Just curious, does the ABA take any Federal or State $$$?

  24. The ABA's meeting in San Fran this year? I guess they can't always hold their meeting Hawaii or Puerto Rico every year. Fucking dogs.


    As the commenter from August 8, 2013 at 7:45 am noted, the link to this worthless paper is not working. If you head to the page below, you receive the following message:

    “The Page You Were Looking For Cannot Be Found

    American Bar Association > Tools

    return to previous page

    Our apologies

    This page is not available.

    Please visit the ABA homepage or use our search.

    Report This Error:

    If you would like to report a broken link on our Web site, please contact the Service Center at”

    What do you expect from a group of ball-less pigs with ZERO INTEGRITY?!?! The sewer rats on the ABA Task Force on the Future of “Legal Education” spent an entire year on a white paper. This panel was comprised of ABA cockroaches, retired and active “judges”/politicians in black robes, business men and women, academics, and private lawyers. The document was made publicly available on August 1, 2013. Within a week, the link was taken down.

    If you want to read this 34 page document, then you will need to use this cached link below:

    1. My god, I can almost smell those rancid cunts through my computer screen.

      The ABA is a sick fucking joke. Cancer cannot come quick enough for those vile humans.

  26. Fridays Wall Street Journal just published an article about the most prestigious law firm laying off partners and tightening its belt

  27. God bless you Nando. Your blog just saved a very good friend of mine from otherwise taking the suicidal plunge into law school (he has a nice civil service job in law enforcement).

  28. Nando is spot on. As well as a prior blog poster regarding costs of operating a legal practice. I hate the blame is just on ABA but individual state bars are also to blame for complexity of law office management/excess regulations that take away form one's ROI. Issues to fix are restrictions on multi-state practice, and a need to modify rules regarding client funds since this the only business in the world that has so many rules around getting paid, to the point so many are having to jump hoops just to get paid or else risk disbarment. Why? From Yoko, f/k by the google moniker Poorgrad.

  29. I was in a busy family courthouse yesterday to give moral support to a relative that is going through a divorce.

    Yes there were lawyers in the courthouse and walking around and with their clients.

    And there were also judges in some of the small courtrooms throughout the building.

    And the schedule for the day's legal proceedings was on the wall in the lower lobby.

    As I was waiting and with nothing to do really I stared out the window of a "waiting room" and observed the juvenile detention center complex that was next door to the courthouse, including the hoops of barbed wire and a high, green colored fence that reminded me of the kind of a fence they place around a golf driving range, only without barbed wire on the top.

    It was all so dreary to look at.

    But the law goes on, and I was reminded that there are lawyers that do in fact work, and it was very easy to spot the people that were the lawyers by their dress, of course, and also by their general demeanors which all seemed vaguely harassed and preoccupied.

    Although they were dressed in suits or formal clothing, the lawyers that I saw didn't really appear spic and span and natty, but rather kind of crumpled and worn overall.

    What I failed to do was look at the shoes that the lawyers and judges were wearing.

    If you ever want to get a clue as to how well someone is doing financially, look at their shoes, or at least that was the advice of grandpa Zebulin Walton.


    On August 2, 2013, "Antiro" at OTLSS published an entry entitled "ABA Task Force releases Working Paper on the Future of Legal Education." Check out the following segment:

    "Cross-Posted from TaxProf:

    A quick summary: An ABA Task Force focused on the future of legal education has been studying the crisis featuring legal education and have released a "working paper" that so far serve to introduce their preliminary findings, with the finished product and recommendations to be made a few months from now.

    As AboveTheLaw noted, "Essentially, the document says, 'Wow, the scam blogs were totally right.'"

    For instance, the working paper describes the perverse "Reverse Robin Hood" policy surrounding "merit" scholarships perfectly on page one[.]"

    To the commenter who posted at 8:18 pm,

    I am glad to hear that outcome for your friend. In the end, if people rationally look at law school STRICTLY as a financial decision, then they will likely make the right choice. Unfortunately, too many people inflate their own abilities, while also underestimating those of their classmates.

    @JD Junkyard,

    It is good to see that you are still following the blogs. When you have a moment, email me sometime.

    Lastly, the link to the ABA’s working paper, issued by the ABA Task Force on the Future of “Legal Education” is still not working. Apparently, the bitches and hags are having too much fun in San Francisco. If any of those pigs get drunk and run over by a cable car, make sure to send me the link.


Web Analytics