Friday, December 27, 2013

Wisconsin Bar Task Force Reports that More Than 40 Percent of Wisconsin Lawyers Would Not Attend Law School if They Had a Do-Over

The Task Force’s Findings: In November 2013, the Wisconsin State Bar issued a 25 page document labeled “Challenges Facing New Lawyers Task Force Report and Recommendations.”  According to the introduction, the task force was appointed by the bar president in January 2012.  Check out the following, from page 7 of the PDF:

“To provide background, more than 9 out of 10 respondents reported suffering tremendous burdens as a result of their debt.  The median cost of a law school education for the respondents was $95,000, the mean was $94,822.  The middle half of respondents ranged in law school costs from $68,000 to $120,000.  About half of all respondents (53.8%) had educational debt before they entered law school with the median value of $20,000.  Overall, respondents reported still owing a median of $90,000 on their law studies.  The survey also confirmed that the overall amount of loans borrowed for law school from 2005 to 2008 had increased by approximately 36.8%.” [Emphasis mine]

On to page 8 of this report:

“While the data suggests that students were less surprised about their debt levels, a much larger percentage  of the respondents (78.9%) indicated that their earnings were less than they expected during law school.  These individuals had an average law practice compensation of $41,591...

Not only was income than expected for most law school graduates, but most (71.4%) said that they had benefits less than expected.  Many attorneys were not covered by benefits.  Fifteen to twenty percent of respondents had their benefits, including health, dental or vision, covered by a spouse or partner.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, what a great return on investment, right?!?!  This is one reason why I ripped Christopher Knorps a new rectum.  The rodent - from a well-off family - constantly bitched about students “expecting six figure salaries.”  In reality, these men and women removed themselves from the full-time work force for several years - and incurred substantial student debt in the process - with the intent to enter a decent profession.

Other Coverage: On December 20, 2013, the ABA Journal published a piece from Debra Cassens Weiss, which was entitled “Would you go to law school if you had a do-over? 40 percent of young lawyers in this survey said no.”  Here is the opening:

“More than 40 percent of young lawyers in Wisconsin would not go to law school if they had it to do over again, given what they know now, a survey has found.

The survey, chronicled in a report (PDF) by a State Bar of Wisconsin task force, found that young lawyers in the state still owed a median of $90,000 for their law school studies. Said one respondent: “I think about my debt several times a day. Unfortunately there is no solution to it, so I just drag this debt around with me, like Jacob Marley was forced to drag his chains around for all eternity.”

About 600 lawyers in the bar’s Young Lawyer’s Division responded to the August 2013 survey. About 72 percent of the respondents had graduated from law school since 2008. Nearly 80 percent reported they were earning less than expected in law school; lawyers in this group had an average law practice compensation of about $41,000.” [Emphasis mine]

Good luck paying off $90K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE loans, while earning $41K per year.  Plus, the latter figure is before payroll taxes, SSI and health insurance are deducted.  Try supporting a family or purchasing a home on that income level.

By the way, imagine if the state bar swine had exclusively surveyed recent law graduates.  Keep in mind that those who attend a Wisconsin law school, and intend to practice there, do not need to take the Wisconsin bar exam.  This at least saves the JD the added stress and financial costs associated with the test.

OLSS contributing author Antiro wrote a December 20, 2013 entry entitled “Wisconsin Legal Task Force Comes Down on the Side of the Reformers.”  Review the passage below:

“The CFNLTF also compiled a survey of 599 young lawyers (about 70% have graduated since 2008), most of which whom worked in smaller firms.  The survey found that more than h,alf had found their loans to have majorly impacted their lives, while a quarter expected to not pay off the debt for 6-10 years, and about a third expected to be stuck with their loans for more than 20 years.

I'm not going to continue to summarize the survey results much longer; it's exactly what you would expect: most found their pay and benefits to be lower than they expected, most didn't learn about the difficulties facing lawyers until they were already enrolled in law school, and most who went to law school "wanted to help others or serve justice."  It's encouraging that the State Bar of Wisconsin is paying attention to the future of the legal profession, and while many in the legal ed reform movement have been beating these particular drums for a few years, it is clear that the momentum is clearly in our favor.” [Emphasis mine]

Conclusion: Law school is a piss poor “investment” for those who are not wealthy or seriously connected, i.e. the vast majority of students.  Head to the FinAid Loan Calculator, provided by Pussy Mark Kantrowitz.  Enter the loan amount of $90,000 at an 8.25% interest rate.  If you were to take 30 years to pay off the loan, you would have paid $243,410.31 in total.  The monthly payment would be $676.14.  In the event that you paid this amount off in 20 years - at the same interest rate -  you still would have made $184,045.85 in cumulative payments.  

Hell, you would be fortunate to make the monthly $676.14 monthly payment, on the longer schedule, if you are making roughly $40K per year.  After taxes and insurance are taken out, you would be looking at around $28K-$30K in net salary.  Your minimum annual loan payments - under the 30 year plan - would eat up $8,113.68 of that amount.  That doesn’t leave much for food, shelter, or other bills.  Of course, the law school pigs do very well under this arrangement.  They are paid up front, in full - while you are left holding the bag for the next 20-30 years of your life.  Their unjustified pay is in no way tied to the students’ job prospects or outcomes.  Heed this warning, Lemmings.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

First Tier Toxic Sewage: University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Tuition: Full-time law USC law students will be charged $52,814 in tuition, for the 2013-2014 school year.  To put this into perspective, full-time tuition at first-ranked Yale Law School is $52,400 - for 2013-2014.  Does anyone with an IQ above 60 believe that these two schools are in the same league?!?!

Total Cost of Attendance: According to this same document, those first year students living at home will incur an additional $15,061 in expenses - whereas off campus students will face an extra $25,861 in costs. Hell, the swine don't even include the cost of insurance.  As such, the commode lists the total, estimated COA as $67,875 and $78,675, respectively.

Seeing that ABA-accredited diploma mills only base living expenses off of a nine-month school year, we will need to prorate the following items: board; miscellaneous; and transportation.  After making these adjustments, on-campus, first-year students attending full time will have a total estimate of $71,058 - and full-time, first year USC law students living off campus will have a total COA amounting to $85,478!  That is simply outrageous.  Anyone who defends the law school pigs is lower than dog excrement.

Ranking: Based on the latest ratings scheme by US “News” & World Report, this private toilet is listed as the 18th best law school in the entire country.  That doesn’t stop the swine from charging more - in tuition - than Yale Law School.

Published Employment Placement Statistics: The law school notes that 85.5% of its Class of 2013 was employed within nine months of graduation.  Keep in mind that this includes all types of jobs, I.e. attorney positions, non-law, full-time, part-time, short-term, and long-term.  If you are selling insurance or teaching grade school, as a member of this cohort, then you are considered “employed.”  Yes, that is super-fantastic, huh?!?!

Average Law Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the USC Law Class of 2012 who incurred debt for law school - as $138,858. In fact, 81 percent of this school’s 2012 class took on such foul debt. Remember that this figure does not include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

University Administrator Pay: In order to see how the pigs are doing, in contrast to the debt-strapped students, we head to the 2012 Form 990 for Employer ID No. 95-1642394, i.e. the Univer$ity of $outhern California.  Surprisingly, no member of the law school faculty made it on the list of highest compensated employees - for the tax year ending June 30,  2012.  Then again, look at the following TOTAL COMPENSATION figures that this “in$titution of higher learning” lavished on its sports programs - starting on page 127 of this PDF.

Then-head football coach Monte Lane Kiffin raked in $2,594,091, while his father, Monte George Kiffin, made $1,791,555 in total - as assistant football coach.  Athletic director Patrick Capper Haden rolled around in $2,247,678.  Lastly, Kevin O’Neill, head men’s basketball coach, received $1,717,749.  Heading to non-athletic department officials, you will see that Chrysostomos Nikias made out with $1,439,126 in loot - as university “president.”  However, the school paid its former “president,” Steven Sample, a total of $1,815,643 - apparently to sit on his old, wrinkly ass.  Does that mean that he is performing more “work” than the current rodent in charge?!?!

Garbage Opportunities: As a student at this overpriced toilet, you will have the unique opportunity to write onto the “world-famous” Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice!  From the mission statement:

“The Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice (RLSJ) promotes the discussion and examination of issues lying at the intersection of social justice and the law. RLSJ publishes legal narratives and analyses of case law and legislation that address the law's interaction with historically underrepresented groups and highlight the law's potential as an instrument of positive social change. These narratives and analyses borrow from the perspectives of a wide range of disciplines. The goal of RLSJ is to influence the development of the law in ways that encourage full and equal participation of all people in politics and society.”

Yes, what woman will be able to resist a student editor of this TTT publication?!?!  Employers - especially all of those “social justice” law firms - will be scrambling over themselves, in an effort to gain your services.  [Disclaimer: Nothing of the sort will happen.]

As a USC law student, you can also participate in the Space Law Society.  Here is the description:

“Space Law Society is an organization formed to promote an understanding of space law, encourage participation in its development, and coordinate collaboration between students and professionals in space-related industries. As an organization, we organize social activities, educational events and discussions. We also arrange a team to compete in the international Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot competition.”

One would think that an accredited law school - especially one that is supposedly the 18th best in the nation - would be embarrassed to offer such nonsense.  By the way, who the hell knew that there was a space law moot competition?!?!

Conclusion: USC Gould Sewer of Law is a grossly overpriced, private toilet located in the LEGENDARILY FLOODED California lawyer job market.  According to Economic Modeling Specialists Inc., this state is the SECOND MOST GLUTTED attorney market in the country.  If you don’t have excellent connections before entering, then you will not be served well by incurring an additional $165K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.  Keep in mind that Biglaw is not secure.  If you manage to land an associate position, but can’t bring in major business and move your way up quickly, you will likely be out on your ass within 3-5 years.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Great News: First Year Law School Enrollment Hits a 36 Year Low!

The Report: On December 17, 2013, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog published Jennifer Smith’s article, which was entitled “First-Year Law School Enrollment At 1977 Levels.”  Look at this opening:

“First-year enrollment at U.S. law schools plunged to levels not seen since the 1970s, as students steered away from a career that has left many recent graduates loaded with debt and struggling to find work.

The American Bar Association said on Tuesday that the number of first-year law students fell 11% this year. So far, 39,675 full-time and part-time students enrolled in law school, nearly 5,000 fewer than in 2012.

That’s one student shy of 1977 enrollment levels, when the ABA reported 39,676  first-year students. The lowest previous tally was in 1975, when 39,038 students entered their first year of law school and there were only 163 ABA-approved schools (the current count is 202).

The 2013 drop extends a decline that is now in its third year. More than 52,000 would-be lawyers entered their first year of law school in 2010, an all-time high. Many of those students were thought to be seeking shelter from the economic tumult of the recession.

But even then the job market for newly-minted attorneys was contracting.

Many big law firms laid off junior lawyers during the downturn and slashed expenses as clients facing their own financial troubles pressed for discounts. Some lower-level legal tasks that firm associates used to do, such as document review, are now increasingly farmed out to contract attorneys or legal outsourcing companies that can do the work more cheaply.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, law school cockroaches.  In the end, you greedy bastards brought this upon yourselves.  At any rate, this is a significant development.  The general public is catching onto the scam, thanks to our collective efforts.

Other Coverage: Mark Hansen’s piece, “Law school enrollment down 11 percent this year over last year, 24 percent over 3 years, data shows,” appeared in the December 17, 2013 edition of the ABA Journal.  Check out the following excerpt:

“Law school enrollments nationwide are down 11 percent this year from last year and 24 percent from 2010, new figures show.

The nation’s 202 ABA-accredited schools reported that 39,675 full- and part-time students were enrolled in a first-year J.D. program this fall, according to figures released Tuesday by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

That’s a decrease of 4,806 students from the fall of 2012, when 44,481 students began their law school studies, and a decrease of 12,813 students from 2010, when an all-time high of 52,488 first-year students were enrolled in an ABA-accredited school.”

Now, even the law school pigs are agreeing with the scam-bloggers that the commodes have been enrolling too damn many students:

“David Yellen, dean of Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, says while the figures are not surprising, it is "still kind of stunning" to think that law school enrollments have declined nearly 25 percent in three years. "The last time fewer than 40,000 students were enrolled in law school was in 1977," he says.

Yellen also says that while he thinks 52,000 new law school enrollees a year is too many, we're now at the point where we might want to ask whether the market correction has gone too far and is being driven as much by negative publicity as anything else.

However, new applications are projected to be down another 10 to 15 percent in the coming year, he says, "so we're definitely not at the bottom of the cycle yet." [Emphasis mine]

How will the jackals be able to lower their ridiculous costs?!?!

The Pigs Have Been Forced to Trim the Fat: Back on July 15, 2013, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog featured a post from Ashby Jones and Jennifer Smith, which was labeled “Amid Falling Enrollment, Law Schools Are Cutting Faculty.”  Review this portion:

“Law schools across the country are shedding faculty members as enrollment plunges, sending a grim message to an elite group long sheltered from the ups and downs of the broader economy.

Having trimmed staff, some schools are offering buyouts and early-retirement packages to senior, tenured professors and canceling contracts with lower-level instructors, who have less job protection. Most do so quietly. But the trend is growing, most noticeably among middle- and lower-tier schools, which have been hit hardest by the drop-off.

Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., for example, has shrunk its full-time faculty about 18% since 2010, and the school is exploring ways to further scale back its head count. Ten faculty members have retired since the school began offering early-retirement incentives in 2011, and four more have accepted agreements and plan to retire in the coming academic year.” [Emphasis mine]

We have seen the stories at various diploma mills and trash pits. For instance, VermonTTT Law Sewer was forced to cut faculty, staff, maintenance and cleaning services.  This past July, $eTTon Haul Univer$iTTy SOL announced a 10% reduction in faculty compensation.  Last week, on December 12th, Paul Campos noted that TJ$L was cutting jobs and trimming the operating budget by nearly 10 percent.

Conclusion: Due to our work in getting the message out, applications to ABA-accredited law schools are down.  The bitches and hags are now admitting a higher percentage, but this cannot prevent a big-ass drop in first-year enrollment.  The cockroaches are getting desperate, which is why you are seeing so many op-eds from “law professors”/parasites telling people that “Now is a great time to apply to law school.”  In the final analysis, the rodents will do and say anything in order to avoid having to find a real job.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

First Tier Pile of Bear Feces: University of California, Los Angeles School of Law

Tuition: California residents attending this commode on a full-time basis will be charged $45,225.75 in tuition - for the 2013-2014 school year.  Out of state, full-time law students at UCLA will be pistol-whipped with a big-ass tuition bill of $51,719.75 - for 2013-2014.  Yes, that is one hell of a bargain for the students, right?!?!

Ranking: According to Vagina Bob Morse of US “News” & World Report, UCLA Sewer of Law is the 17th greatest, most spectacular and amazing law school in the United States.  Don’t be fooled by this rating.  You need to focus on the job outlook facing the toilet’s graduates.

Employment Placement Statistics: The Employment Summary for the Class of 2012 shows that there were 333 total members in this cohort.  Employment status was unknown for one graduate.  As such, the pigs published a nine-month rate of 91 percent, i.e. 302/332.  Of course, this figure includes non-law jobs, part-time work, and temporary assignments.

UCLA $chool of Law hired 40 grads from this class in university or law school-funded positions!  Of that amount, only nine of those jobs were long-term and full-time.  Furthermore, 28 of those jobs were garbage posts, i.e. short-term and part-time, designed to bump up the trash can’s placement rate.  Without these 40 BS jobs, the placement rate for the UCLA JD Class of 2012 would have been 78.9%, i.e. 262/332.  What a “prestigious” in$titution, huh?!?!

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the UCLA Law Class of 2012 who incurred debt for law school - as $109,539. Hell, 82 percent of this school’s 2012 class took on such toxic debt. Remember that this figure does not include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Administrator and Faculty Pay: Let’s see how well the pigs are doing, in contrast to their debt-strapped recent graduates.  For this info, I cite to the figures - for 2011 - compiled by David Lat in his May 30, 2013 entry, “How Much Does Your Law Professor Make? UCLA Law Edition.”  He states that he received the data from the Sacramento Bee.

“Here are the ten highest-paid faculty members at UCLA Law:

1. Rachel Moran (dean) – $427,825.01
2. Seana Shiffrin$369,024.00
3. Kirk J. Stark$358,346.61
4. Steven A. Bank$358,183.13
5. Stephen M. Bainbridge$356,619.39
6. Jennifer L. Mnookin – $348,490.82
7. Kal Raustiala – $344,069.04
8. Sharon Dolovich – $336,199.01
9. Devon W. Carbado – $323,208.49
10. Mark Greenberg – $320,519.51” [Emphasis mine]

TTTT Law Journals: Take a look at the numerous offerings of politically correct academic journals at this public dump.  Here are just a few examples: Asian Pacific American Law Journal; Dukeminier Awards Journal for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law; Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law; and the Women’s Law Journal.

Now, take a look at the following description:

“The National Black Law Journal has been committed to scholarly discourse exploring the intersection of race and the law for thirty-five years. The NBLJ was started in 1970 by 5 African-American law students and 2 African-American law professors. The Journal was the first of its kind in the country. The Journal has aimed to build on this tradition by publishing articles that make a substantive contribution to current dialogue taking place around issues such as affirmative action, employment law, the criminal justice system, community development and labor issues. The Journal has a commitment to publish articles that inspire new thought, explore new alternatives and contribute to current jurisprudential stances.”

Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature believe that being a student editor on any of these fifth-rate law journals will help anyone land a decent legal job?!?!  Academics love to espouse liberal ideas, but in the end they don’t really care about anything other than keeping their grossly overpaid positions.

Conclusion: The Univer$ity of California, Lo$ Angele$ $chool of Law is a gamble - for the students.  ABA-accredited diploma mills are run for the benefit of the  “professors.”  Based on this chart from Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc., California has the SECOND MOST GLUTTED lawyer job market in the entire damn country.  Good luck trying to eke out a living, while paying back your massive student loan, on a $40K annual salary in pricey Southern California, Bitch.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Rutgers University School of Law-Camden Knowingly Admitted Students Who Didn’t Take the LSAT; The Pigs Receive a Slap on the Wrist from the ABA

The announcement: The American Bar Association cockroaches issued a December 4, 2013 press release labeled “ABA accreditation committee sanctions Rutgers University School of Law-Camden.”  Read the portion below:

“The Accreditation Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar today reported that it has sanctioned Rutgers University School of Law-Camden for violating the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

The committee found that Rutgers-Camden violated Standard 503, which requires law schools to use a valid and reliable admissions test, and Interpretation 503-1, which requires law schools that use an admissions test other than the Law School Admission Test to establish the test’s validity and reliability in determining an applicant’s ability to complete the J.D. program.

Rutgers-Camden operated an admissions program, without obtaining a variance from the ABA, that allowed some applicants to use a standardized graduate admissions test score instead of an LSAT score to gain admission to the law school. The school subsequently qualified for a variance but elected to suspend the program.

The accreditation committee imposed a public censure on the law school, which must post the censure document prominently on its website home page for one year. The censure is also posted on the website of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

The committee also imposed a $25,000 monetary penalty based on the benefit the school received from operating the program.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that immense $25,000 fine is sure going to deter other ABA-accredited filth pits from engaging in the same conduct, right?!?!  What the hell is the point of having “standards,” when the punishment for violations of said regulations amounts to a mere slap on the wrist?!  By the way, if the school admitted 70-80 students under this scheme, then the pigs received a few million dollars in federally-backed student loan money.  I know that "law professors" love to state that all lawyers suck at math, but you would need to be a waterhead in order to think that a $25K fine - for receiving millions - is adequate.

Other Coverage: On December 5, 2013, the Philadelphia Inquirer published reporter Jonathan Lai’s piece “Rutgers-Camden law school fined over avoiding LSATs.”  Check out the following excerpt:

"In a three-paragraph statement, the law school said it had violated procedural aspects of the bar association's standards.

"We were negligent in failing to seek a variance, regret and apologize for this procedural violation and accept the ABA censure as appropriate," the statement reads.

Between 2006 and 2012, the law school admitted dozens of students who took tests other than the LSAT. In 2009, the bar association sent a memo to all accredited law schools clarifying its policy requiring the LSAT, except with prior arrangement." [Emphasis mine]

Yeah, sure you bastards were negligent - and Salma Hayek just scratched her name into my back!  $omehow, this conduct is ALWAYS an “error” or an “accident.”  It’s also uncanny how these “mistakes” benefit the law school swine every single damn time.  By the way, does anyone with an IQ over 80 believe that the administrators at RuTTger$ Univer$iTTy Sewer of Law-Camden were not aware that they were admitting dozens of students who had not taken the LSAT, without first seeking a variance from the ABA?!?!

On December 4, 2013, the ABA Journal posted Mark Hansen’s piece, “Rutgers School of Law-Camden is fined $25K and censured for accrediting violations.”  Here is his concluding paragraph:

“The committee also fined the school $25,000 for the benefit it received from operating the program without the required variance.  That money will be used by the section to help enforce the standards.”

According to the commode, in-state residents attending full-time for the 2013-2014 academic year 2013-14 will be charged $22,746 in tuition. Non-resident, full-time law students at this notorious trash heap will be ass-raped to the tune of $34,478 in tuition - for 2013-2014.  Essentially, the pigs will be penalized the cost of a single year of one New Jersey resident’s tuition.  The ABA report noted that the school admitted between 70-80 students without an LSAT.  Yes, that will teach the bastards a lesson, right?!?!

Conclusion: The criminals at the American Bar Association CLEARLY DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about law students.  The schools are run for the benefit of the failed lawyers known as “professors.”  During orientation, the bitches and hags constantly tell their victims that this is a “noble profession.”  If you believe that academic nonsense, then you should not be allowed to make any decision that might impact another person.  In fact, if you buy the rats’ drivel, you should be declared mentally unfit to enter into a contract.  

In the final analysis, the Rutgers University Sewer of Law-Camden already had a reputation lower than rat piss.  As a result of this worthless penalty, the rodents will likely lower their admi$$ion$ criteria even further - in order to maintain enrollment.  The ABA merely decided to hand down this “punishment,” because the cockroaches felt that they had to do something - so that they could “show” the public that they do enforce their “standards.”  Apparently, RuTTger$ would have been fine had the dolts simply applied for a variance in advance.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the supposed 91st greatest law school in the country admit students who have at least a 2.5 undergrad GPA and a 148 LSAT.  I can see it now: "Okay, so this guy provided a picture of his girlfriend's feet on his Personal Statement.  However, he did graduate from University of Phoenix and he has a 2.8 UGPA."

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Profiles in Academic Excrement: Ryan Calo, Assistant “Law Professor” at the University of Washington

The Bastard’s “Argument”: On November 24, 2013, a sewer rat called Ryan Calo wrote a piece for Forbes, with the idiotic headline “Why Now Is A Good Time To Apply To Law School.”  Before listing his three $elf-$erving reasons for applying, Cockroach Calo states that his remarks are addressed to “those who think they want to be lawyers someday and are simply not pulling the trigger on applying because of all the bad news.”

In the swine’s own words:

“1. Fewer applicants means schools compete fiercely for decent students.

A law school faced with fewer applicants must either lower its admissions standards or shrink its class size. (University of Washington, where I work, has chosen the latter.) Regardless, schools are competing feverishly for good students. An applicant who, a few years ago, would have been wait-listed at a top twenty school, may now find herself with a scholarship. A smaller class size, meanwhile, unless offset by layoffs or a long hiring freeze, translates into more individual attention for the students that do enroll. 

2. A lot of law jobs will be opening up over the next five to ten years.

My parents are part of a large generation so large they are known as the Baby Boomers. My father retired last month and my mother plans to retire soon. Even if people work longer than in the past, many (many) people will be leaving the workforce in the next five to ten years. Some of these people will be lawyers. The demographics are such that knowledgeable folks like the head of the Washington Bar Association are predicting a market gap. They worry that future demand for legal services will not be met by a dwindling supply.

3. Reports of the death of the legal market are greatly exaggerated.

One premise of these predictions is that clients are moving away from relying on enormous law firms that bill them by the hour. A second is that technology is changing the face of legal services in ways that eliminate lawyerly tasks, such as the drafting of a will.

Both of these claims are true. I just don’t know what they prove.” [Emphasis mine]

Analysis: Let’s break down this academic thief’s “case” for applying to law school now.

Regarding point one, Aaron Nathaniel Taylor - “professor” at Saint Louis University Sewer of Law - made the same weak-ass argument back on October 11, 2011.  In that NaTTTional Juri$TTT opinion piece, he stated the following:

“And if applications fall again during the 2011-2012 cycle, as predicted, applicants will find themselves in a very favorable environment for gaining admission. At some schools, applicants who would have been considered “borderline” just two years ago might be shoo-ins for admission this year. So the strategic benefit of applying during a string of down years is worth ample consideration.”

Take a look at this Average Law Student Indebtedness chart, provided by US “News” & World Report, for the JD Class of 2012.  Keep in mind that these figures do not account for interest that accrues while the student is enrolled.  They also exclude student debt from undergrad.  How in the hell does the typical unconnected law student benefit by incurring an additional $120K-$180K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt?!?!

Check out this Oregon State Bar bulletin labeled “Restaging the Third Act: Baby Boomer Attorneys Diversify Career Option as They Reach Their 60s.”

In short, older attorneys don’t retire.  This is white collar work, consisting mostly of shuffling paperwork.  The article notes that old-ass lawyers do the following: reduce their work schedule and hours; continue as independent consultants; and work from home.  Again, we are talking about greedy Boomer pigs who do not want to see their income shrink.

Calo’s second “argument” is comical.  In fact, I had to suppress my laughter.  Ryan, if you truly believe your own drivel, then you need to be committed to a hospital for the clinically stupid.  Your argument is akin to the following: “You should climb into a lion cage at the zoo.  All of them will be well fed.  Many of them will be old and weak.”

By the way, Ass-Hat: are those Washington State Bar cockroaches aware that Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. showed that their state has the 20th most GLUTTED lawyer job market in the country?!  In particular, Washington will have an estimated 619 annual attorney openings from 2010-2015.  In 2009 alone, 935 passed the state’s bar exam.

Lastly, Calo’s third point is a straw man.  None of the scam-bloggers has stated that the legal market is dying.  We have simply pointed out that it is GLUTTED.  This means that tons of law graduates each year are competing for fewer attorney jobs.  For example, the JD Class of 2012 had 46,346 members - all competing for a total of 28,567 positions where bar passage was required!  Do you see how that impacts students, dolt?!?!

Hell, you accepted reality and admitted that fewer Biglaw clients are relying on the billable hour and that technology is eating away at lawyer tasks.  If you cannot figure out the effects of these two developments, Ryan, then you have no business teaching others anything.

Conclusion: Ryan Calo DOES NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about you, the law student or recent graduate.  He doesn’t care what happens to you upon graduation.  If you end up in doc review, selling insurance, waiting tables, or serving up lattes, it does not concern him in the slightest.  Note that this rodent DID NOT ONCE MENTION student debt, in his entire piece.  He merely wants to spread the lie that now is a good time to apply to - and enroll in - law school.  Remember, this jackal makes a living off of fools’ decision to attend his commode.
Web Analytics