Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Washington and Lee School of Law Gets Flushed by University Administration and Members of the Board of Trustees


The Garbage Pit’s Announcement: This certified trash heap issued a press release, labeled “School of Law Strategic Transition Plan,” on February 9, 2015. Here is the text, in part:

“Washington and Lee School of Law
Strategic Transition Plan 

In response to the changes in the legal profession and legal education nationally, Washington and Lee's School of Law has adopted a proactive approach to stabilize the school's enrollment and financial structure without sacrificing its special strengths. The University's senior administration, in consultation with a working group of faculty and administrators within the law school and a task force of trustees, has developed a strategic initiative that is now being implemented after being presented to the Board of Trustees at its winter meeting this month. 

As outlined in the bullet points below, Washington and Lee's law school intends to protect its core values, including its emphasis on educating students for professional integrity, as well as its defining characteristics of personalized attention, strong student-faculty relationships, and an innovative curriculum. At the same time, the financial framework will enable the school to return to self-sufficiency by the 2017-18 academic year. 

Highlights of the Plan 

Beginning with the 2015-16 academic year, the school will enroll entering 1L classes of about 100 students, resulting in a full-time student body of about 300. For comparison's sake, the current law school student body is 374 and includes the largest third-year class in school history. The Class of 2017, which entered last fall, had 101 members… 
The current student-faculty ratio (9:1) will be preserved, but with smaller enrollments the allocation for faculty compensation will be reduced by about 20 percent (equivalent to six positions) and will be achieved through attrition over the four-year period. In addition, some senior faculty salaries will have a one-time salary reduction of 2 percent with salaries frozen for all faculty during the three-year period. 
• Six administrative and staff positions will be reduced over a five-year period, and there will also be budget reductions for visiting and adjunct faculty.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, thieves! For too long, you vultures have fed on the flesh and futures of lemmings. Now, that you have gorged yourselves – and the potential pool of victims continues to shrink – you are forced to undergo some serious cuts.

Actually, it appears that the univer$ity’s senior administration and the board of tru$tee$ made this decision for you, bitches. Isn’t it great to see that potential law school applicants are now starting to resemble “sophisticated consumers”?!?! 


Other Coverage: On February 19, 2015, Paul Campos wrote a Lawyers, Guns & Money entry entitled “Washington and Lee Law School cuts salaries, downsizes faculty and staff, invades corpus of endowment.” Check out his analysis of the situation:

“Prior to last year, the school’s total JD enrollment was consistently between 390-405 JD students, so this plan represents about a 25% reduction in the student body relative to historical norms. 

W&L got a lot of good press a few years ago for transforming their third year of law school into an “experiential” externship-based program. The program didn’t result in more jobs for their graduates, however, and now the school’s central administration is bringing down the budget hammer. 

Similar stories are now playing out all over legal academia.” [Emphasis mine]

I know how much “law professors” love to claim that attorneys and law students suck at math. However, the administration, tru$tee$ and business consultants at the parent univer$ity have some arithmetic skills. After all, they are planning to reduce overall SOL faculty compensation by about 20% – as a way to offset an enrollment drop of 25 percent. If the cockroaches were in charge of cuts, they would try to trim their salaries by about 1/10 of that amount. Plus, they would also try to maintain their foolish journals and wasteful clinic offerings – at the same time.

Conclusion: As you can see, the trash pit will charge $45,110 in tuition alone – for the 2015-2016 school year. Fees will add another $1,107 to this big-ass figure. It is also currently rated as the co-43rd greatest, most magnificent and sensational law school in the entire country – by US “News” & World Report. Sadly, waterheads are still applying to, and enrolling in, this pile of excrement. Hell, if these commodes charged $78K per year, in tuition alone, idiots would still seek admission. 

Keep your eyes open for other college$ and univer$itie$ to cut the fat among their law faculty, in upcoming months. For decades, these corporations – even the ones designated as “non-profit” - have relied on the law schools as cash cows. You can bet your ass that the main heads of these supposed “in$titution$ of higher learning” will not bleed money – in order to keep the pigs afloat. By the way, these men and women are smart enough to realize that the national decrease in law school applicants is not a temporary trend. Do you really picture these shrewd administrators bailing out the swine for SEVERAL years, in the hopes that the law schools will eventually see an increase in enrollment?!


  1. The slow-roasting pigs at Washington and Lee could reduce their payroll by 20% immediately, and not a single member of their faculty would or could leave. They have no other options. However, the grossly overpaid deans know that reducing faculty salaries would draw attention to their own gargantuan salaries and pitiful performance, so they take it easy and bleed the endowment instead. Meanwhile, tuition is $45,000 a year, the jobs aren't there for JD graduates, and the so-called experiential learning has nothing to do with legal practice.

    I predict that two years from now, Washington and Lee will be lucky to get 80 students who pay $15,000 a year. The whole plan is almost guaranteed to fail.

    1. I think almost any law school could reduce faculty salaries by 20% without losing a single professor. Even if a professor did leave, I guarantee there would be hundreds of qualified applicants in line to fill the vacancy.

  2. "Attrition" makes it all sound so normal and in the ordinary course of doing business.

  3. In January, 2013, Prof. William Henderson, relentless self-promoter and purported most influential man in legal education, endorsed W&L's ballyhooed "practicum" (aka simulation) 3L year in the following terms:

    "To use a simple metaphor, W&L is tooling around in a Model-T while the rest of us rely on horse and buggy."


    Apologies for the crudeness, but it looks like Henderson's Model-T has turned out to be a model turd.

  4. $46.2K in tuition and fees per year for the privilege of attending the 43rd most preſtigious law school in the nation. It would take a special kind of stupid to pay full fare at this place--and that's what they're counting on.

    1. "$46.2K in tuition and fees per year for the privilege of attending the 43rd most preſtigious law school in the nation."

      Hey, it's better than going to Santa Clara!

  5. How many law schools will Nora Demleitner be allowed to destroy. First Hofstra. Now W & L.

    1. I think we all know what her next stop will be. Chicago!

    2. Demleitner is obviously trying to work her way up the scam pyramid, just like Brian Leiter did.. After a while, they get so pretentious that they don't want to teach mere law students any more. They want to teach future law professors, which is the heart of the scam.

      If Dean Dem had done e decent job at WashLee, maybe scrapped the sim games and balanced the budget, she could have moved up to some place like Duke or Michigan. However, it's harder to succeed as a dean than as a pontificator...er, a professor. Her career as a dean is over. They're just waiting for her to resign.

      I do think that Nora has a future as a law professor. At the highest levels of the scam, schools are eager to reward former deans for their loyalty to the scam. Also, at that level, if you publish, it literally makes no difference what else you might have done. Chicago was even willing to hire a moral leper like Brian Leiter. Demleitner, who has far better social skills, could easily find herself teaching at Yale within a few years.

  6. This is hilarious. Washington & Lee has been put on an allowance just like they were an eight year old or an old man with dementia. How humiliating. I bet Demleitner is seething.

    1. I wonder if Demleitners husband keeps her on an allowance too.

    2. I found it hilarious that Demleitner wasn't even mentioned in the announcement. I had to check if she was still the dean.

      She obviously knows how to publish, but that doesn't make a third-tier law school attractive to paying customers any more.

  7. Demleitner is getting what she deserves. She was a scam dean at Hofstra who cost hundreds of students their financial futures.

    1. And what is she now? Is she a scamdean?

      And what is she doing now? Is she costing hundreds of students their financial futures?

  8. The ABA is set on an agenda to implement the LLLT (Limited License Legal Technician) everywhere once they have "proved" that it "works" in Washington state (by whatever haphazard standards they use for that criteria, "working" most likely meaning getting as many practitioners as possible to work for free while the bankers who lobby the ABA are entitled to make millions per year). Here's a bright idea... how about allowing ATTORNEYS to provide payment plans for those that cannot afford to pay their fees all at once? This is what I've been doing, since there is a dearth of jobs everywhere for law graduates. If clients are not even willing to work on a payment plan, then the problem is not with overpriced services, the problem is that the clients simply do not want quality and professional services for a price, and they should be pro se and accept the consequences. As a practicing attorney who owns a law firm I am already making plans to LEAVE THE LAW FIELD due to this terrible LLLT reform which will soon eat away at bread and butter cash business for recent law graduates, which helps fund the more complicated lawsuit work. LLLT is nothing more than a collaboration between insurance companies and misguided overzealous defenders of the poor to squeeze out consumer and plaintiff lawyers so that insurance companies no longer have to deal with lawsuits seeking damages. The original problem for lawyers was too many new law students that have created a market oversaturated with attorneys. Now that we're finally stopping that problem thanks to the "scam blog" movement exposing the law school and student loan scam system, the ABA is now finding a replacement to fill its coffers by creating a whole new licensing scheme. Good attorneys who spent years acquiring their degree will be driven from the market into other fields, and all that will be left for consumers is desolation, since they will only be able to choose from less qualified candidates to advise them on the law who obtained nothing more than an associates degree. You can count me as one of the many attorneys heading for the EXIT doors now from this disaster of a profession.

  9. And then there's this gem:

    "The State University of New York-Buffalo Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law said they would admit students from their respective undergraduate colleges based on their grade point average and scores on standardized tests other than the LSAT."


    Before long, all you'll need to get into law skule is the ability to sign a promissory note.

  10. Law has to be the MOST SELF LOATHING of the professions. It is literally the SERPENT THAT EATS ITS OWN TAIL! I have never seen a profession so perfectly destroy itself and its own younger naïve members as law. How can truly nothing be happening to protect its own younger generation? These deans and judges are living in a fantasy world!

    1. This. There's s Star Trek episode where Riker is on a Klingon ship serving as the first officer via the usual cultural exchange crap (which Roddenberry loved..) and he's in the mess and one Klingon says to him, "Look around. Do you see any old warriors?"

      Well, in law, look around. How many younger lawyers are out there? You can't afford to get started facing 6 figures of non-dischargeable debt. Plus, the established attorneys with money and cases in the pipeline to pay for their business and provide advertising bullets will eat you alive.

      Those attorneys who manage to land in corporations or gov. service. Fine. They really aren't practicing law, IMO. They're shuffling some papers on the taxpayer's / shareholder's dime. That's nothing. And its a very small percentage of lawyers out there.

      Younger people simply can't get established. They leave law in (used to be...) 5 years. That was when I got out close to 2 decades ago. Now. I'd say it's like 1-2 years. No one has time. Time to look. Time to do anything. Yeah, IBR / PAYE... Controlled default. Try buying a house. You still can't really grind a practice shackled with that kind of debt.

      Now, as to 1:14 PM: I believe he or another person also posted this news on OSTLSS. Pay close attention, it's important. The ABA is working even harder to eat the young / non-biglaw attorneys out there.

      Look around. Do you see many established, successful younger attorneys out there?

      The legal field is in economic free-fall and I see no signs of this slowing anytime soon. We're essentially teetering on the perimeter of the Pit right now and the cracks are all around and showing. But, IMO, the fall and the bottom haven't shown themselves yet. This is only the beginning of the beginning of the correction.

    2. 10 points for the Star Trek reference!

  11. The ABA is a corrupt guild that only protects the interests of BigLaw and law school professors. Everyone else is expendable, collateral damage or cannon fodder.

    The LLLT proposal will be rubberstamped into approval in the same manner that Opinion 08-451 was passed without objection. That was the opinion that gave legal process outsourcing its blessing while robbing young lawyers of work. Who benefited from Op. 08-451? Biglaw since they were able to pay rupees per hour while overbilling their clients hundreds of dollars per hour. The ABA is the sworn enemy of every young attorney and solo practitioner out there. By giving these rats money, you are essentially funding their war on YOU!

    1. If everyone normal working lawyer out there stopped paying their voluntary dues to the ABA, by some miracle they might listen for once. Please stop being sheeple everyone! Stop feeding the monster that is eating you alive, write letters of disgust to the ABA and don't pay them another dime until they represent all of us. They want us to take a pay cut, then so should they!

    2. Hate to say this, but most normal working lawyers aren't members of the ABA-I don't belong, and I don't know a single lawyer who does. How do you think they come up with that average salary for lawyers they publish? It's not from us deputy DAs/PDs and small law practitioners.

    3. Does it even really matter? UPL is never punished, and lawyers don't have any sort of real advantage to having licensure, if anything it is actually a significant liability because of C&F, dues, etc.

      Technically all the license does is allow you to appear in court on someone else's behalf. That's it. And that's only in state and higher levels, at lower levels anyone can appear for a client.

      So really, the work this LLLT will replace is work that can already be done by non-lawyers to begin with. Maybe it cuts into some paralegal's workflow. Which is itself a dubious certification.

      The field is worthless as a whole. The only reason people who aren't at the top stay in it is because it's pretty tough to get out of the legal field, because of the very real JD Disadvantage effect (there is a blog to that effect as well).

  12. W & L's strategic plan - as Campos notes - involves ***increasing tuition at 2% annually, each and every year.***

    W & L full cost of attendance for 3 years today = $192,000.

    W&L is literally BANKING on Grad PLUS loans remaining uncapped, so they can continuously increase tuition / full cost of attendance.

    But, Grad PLUS is NOT going to remain uncapped.

    Grad PLUS is in political cross-hairs like the New America Foundation cannot go a day without publishing something in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Bloomberg.

    The popular proposal is to cap Grad PLUS at 150k per student.

    Bonfire of the law schools is coming.

    150K cap cuts the revenue legs out from under every toilet. Heck, the AVERAGE indebtedness coming out Tijuana Jefferson School of LOL is 182K with some high 80% of the class taking the average.


    1. I will add, it's not just some Think Tank (New America) that wants to cap / axe Grad PLUS - it's a bunch of Republicans with Lamar Alexander being the most vocal.

  13. Every young lawyer should absolutely get out of law while he still can. The powers that run the profession have been bought off by the republicrats ( I don't trust either party) and the establishment to consolidate power to the upper echelon as with every other industry. It was only a matter of time before this happened. The people at the very top will stop at nothing to "reform" (rig) the system into their favor and put the middle and lower tiers at a disadvantage to themselves. I hope everyone enjoyed the party while it lasted into the 80s perhaps, but this party is decidedly OVER.

  14. The Washington Supreme Court proved they are aliens from another world when they approved the LLLT program. No self respecting lawyer would have approved this piece of **** wannabe license.

    1. If I am understanding this correctly... if all the states follow Washington and implement the LLLT, you basically now only need to go to community college for 2 years to practice law? Hah!

  15. Anyone know how much Demleitner is making?

    And how much she made at Hofstra?

    1. She just stepped down as Dean and W & L...

    2. Campos says she made $400K in 2010 at Hofstra. Based on other data, I'm guessing she made 450K to 500K at WashLee. She actually jumped ship to WashLee for the prestige, not the money, but she expected more money anyway.

      Now, after a paid sabbatical at whatever salary, she'll probably make 350K a year as a professor while she enjoys the view at Washington and Lee.

    3. Getting well-paid. End result: Destroying people's futures and lives. Gotta love 'Merica.. The Almighty Dollar really does rule. And all under the guise of public service and Education is Good! Love it..

  16. http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2014/03/this-is-how-a-top-law-school-plummets-17-spots-in-the-rankings.html

    Back on March 26, 2014, William Peacock posted a Greedy Associates post entitled "This is How a Top Law School Plummets 17 Spots in the Rankings." Enjoy the following:

    "Seventeen spots.

    Just last year, we were speculating on how Washington and Lee was managing to thrive in an otherwise dismal market for law schools. Though most schools were plagued with plummeting enrollment and demand, my dear W&L accidently enrolled its largest class ever, thanks, it seemed, to a higher than expected yield rate (the percentage of students who accept the school's offer). Many were suggesting that the school's practice-based third-year curriculum was the reason for the spike in demand.

    Plus, the school was riding high in the rankings, recovering from a dip that began with the recession (and purely coincidentally, my enrollment) to return to its perennial status as a mid-20s school.

    Now, after a seventeen-spot decline, it's tied at 43. How?

    About That Class Size

    Professional poker players often talk about being able to handle the swings -- from hand to hand, one's luck can vary wildly, but over time, statistically, it'll even out.

    W&L had a surge in enrollment last year. The following fall, the school had the most dramatic drop in class size in the country. Was it a reflection of demand? Possibly. Or was it, as Dean Nora V. Demleitner asserts in a letter sent to alumni yesterday morning, simply the school's choice to enroll a smaller class to average out to historical norms? (The school averages about 130 students per year, and the previous high was 147 in 1990.)

    Either way, the smaller the student body, the more likely the statistics are to take an odd turn."

    Yes, I’m sure the pigs at Wa$hington and Lee Sewer of Law happened to “accidently” enroll its largest class ever. It seems much more likely that the swine made a conscious decision to admit more students – including those with borderline credentials and lower test scores – because they wanted the cash.

    A few ABA-accredited diploma mills chose to accept fewer students, in an attempt to keep up their rating. The leaders at this dump clearly took the former path. Now, their commode’s reputation is taking a further hit – and the parent univer$ity has made a decision to reduce first year enrollment and to cut the fat from the law faculty. You brought this upon yourselves, gluttons.


  17. 2:46. Agree with spirit of your post and loved the Star Trek reference. As an Assistant District Attorney I can say we work pretty hard and try to help victims of crime work through a very tough period in their lives. At any one time I carry 55 cases . . . hardly shuffling papers on the government dime. Still like your post!!

    1. I can see where I lost points on law school exams.

      Working as an ADA or PD, of course, is real in-the-trenches law. I wasn't thinking of that when I said government attorneys. I had, in mind, some folks I knew who sat around in their agencies and did pretty much nothing all day and were paid well for it. Ironically (cough!) most were women. The token male in the group was the one who was the most junior (or least senior..) and guess who did most of the work..

      I suppose I have a disdain now for these types of 'lawyers'.

  18. Unauthorized Practice of Law is a joke law that is on the books but rarely enforced.

    In my jurisdiction, there is a paralawyer (she was a lawyer in Brazil but not licensed in the U.S.) who practices immigration law. Everyone in the Federal building knows she is not licensed, yet she is permitted to accompany clients into immigration interviews. This paralawyer drives a BMW 750i and lives in a $2M property. Many lawyers have complained about her but nothing has been done. She is politically connected and all the immigration officers love her (rumor has it, she hooks them up around X-Mas time).

    The only time I ever saw authorities go after someone for a UPL violation was when a notario tried to poach business from a Biglaw firm. So you see boys and girls, the authorities will allow unlicensed people to compete with you sans the licensure and ethics requirements but when that competition encroaches on Biglaw, all bets are off. This proves once again that the cards will always be stacked against solo practitioners.

    1. You know, UPL is a misdemeanor and rarely punished. However, in a good tort case, let's say for harassment or emotional distress, wouldn't a concurrent misdemeanor add to the presumption of malice?

      Let's say a thuggish law professor with a history of instability and verbal abuse were to misrepresent himself as a lawyer, and then threaten to sue a woman in order to inhibit her academic speech. Don't you think that the added recklessness of flagrant UPL would be good for some extra punitive damages? I hope some clever US lawyer figures it out and files a huge countersuit in an Illinois state court. Should be quite entertaining to watch, and after the huge verdict the judge may ask the DA to initiate an investigation into the law professor's criminal behavior.

  19. According to Paul Campos, Nora Demleitner has "resigned" from Washington & Lee "no doubt in the wake of a friendly chat with the university’s president."

  20. So let's see if I understand the ABA position. Legal services for people getting divorces are too damn expensive. (probably true)

    In Washington State, we'll create a bunch of LLLT's to pick up the slack, so some of the pro-se's who are bothering judges can go hire a LLLT instead.

    So since we've resolved that the lawyer market isn't meeting a particular need, we'll replace the lawyers and tell the law schools to stop graduating as many JD's because they've now become redundant.

    Oh wait, we're not going to tell the law schools to do anything that would interfere with their gravy train!

    No matter how you juggle the numbers, the ABA could limit the number of law school grads from ABA schools each year from anywhere from 22,000 to 30,000 without creating a lawyer shortage, or affecting the ability of John Public to find an affordable lawyer. But the ABA will never take this step.

    1. There's a thread over on JDU and someone did the math and claims something like 10k new lawyer positions in the past 6 years.

      If that's correct, you can literally graduate 2k a year and still have a full 20% surplus haha. And that's not even taking into account all the lawyers that already exist and could take those positions.

    2. Who did the math on that was American Lawyer Magazine.

      What they did was plot in a chart the total employment in the "Legal Services Sector" as reported by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      Here is the link to the American Lawyer article:


      You can do the math for yourself by placing the cursor over any point in the chart and getting the total number of jobs.

      Also, note: the "legal services sector" includes all manner of non-lawyer jobs, including paralegals, secretaries, process servers, etc.

      So, yes Q4 2009 - today the Bureau of Labor Statistics says 10k jobs were added, but the industry is still 60,000 jobs fewer than in 2007 before the crash.

      The schools are outright lying through their teeth about the number of people they've placed in lawyer jobs over this period of time.

  21. I recommend to everyone who reads this site, especially the ABA pigs who troll here, to read the US Supreme Court decision FTC v. NC dental board to see how a real trade organization behaves. Nc dentists tried to make teeth whitening of all things solely the province of dental offices. We can laugh about the fact that the hygienist is the one doing the work etc etc but when the FTC put the smack down on the licensing board they took it all the way. The dental board lost (as well they should have as essentially anyone with a six hour training course could do whitening) but the bar could take a page from this play book instead of considering this limited license garbage.

  22. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/02/troubles-washington-lee

    On February 20, 2015, Paul Campos followed up his stiff left jab with an overhand right – on his piece, “More on the troubles at Washington & Lee.” After giving us some history on this in$titution, Campos imparts this knowledge:

    “As for the law school, it too played the ratings game very well. Although it’s not and never will be nearly as elite an institution, comparatively speaking, as the college, the law school almost always showed up in the 20-25 range, even though few of its graduates actually got prestige-oriented legal jobs. (In recent years about 15% of the class has gotten either big firm jobs or federal clerkships, which is a very low figure for a top 25ish law school).

    The law school has traditionally had about 390-400 students, with entering classes of around 120-125, supplemented with a couple years’ worth of transfer students. Three years [ago] it ended up admitting a class of 187 for some reason (my guess would be money), but over the last couple years the law school has struggled badly in the context of a cratering applicant pool at both the national and local level.

    Th[e] last couple of admissions cycles have been a bit of a disaster for the school, as it ended up enrolling a combined total of only 212 students, despite slashing admission standards (the median LSAT fell four points in just two years) and throwing massive amounts of cash in the form of tuition discounts at the applicant pool. The school got only 10% and 11% of its admits to matriculate this year and last, which, along with a sudden plunge in the rankings, from 26th in 2013 to 43rd this year, are no doubt the proximate causes of the university administration’s displeasure (The fall in admissions doesn’t seem to have much if anything to do with the fall in the rankings, as the school’s ranking didn’t slip until this year, while admissions cratered in 2013).

    The law school’s financial situation can be sussed out readily enough from its 509 disclosures and the university’s reaction. The school is netting about $9.8 million in tuition this year after discounts, charging an effective tuition of around $26,000, i.e., about 58% of its advertised sticker price of more than $45,000. The endowment is throwing off around $4.5 million, and I’m guessing annual giving is around $750,000, since the school is supposed to increase that figure (how is a good question) to $1.5 million going forward, and a pledge to double annual giving sounds like what harried administrators would most likely do in these circumstances. Thrown in another million bucks for grant money, ancillary income etc., and the law school is probably generating about $16 million from all sources, give or take.

    We can also figure on the back of this particular envelope that the law school is being told to cut about two million dollars per year in operating expenses. Six faculty positions add up to around $1.3 million per year (based on an average tenure track compensation package of $215,000 in salary and benefits; in FY2013 three senior faculty were getting around $300K in compensation), while the 2% salary cuts for a few senior types are a few tens of thousands of basically symbolic dollars.

    The administrative position cuts probably add up to around 400K to 500K, and cutting operations by 10% will save another 350K or so. All told that adds up to little more than two million per year in cuts, which can be added to around four million per year in increased revenue that is supposed to balance the budget[.]"

  23. Now, look at the conclusion from the February 20, 2015 piece from Campos:

    “Small elite colleges have relatively high indirect costs, because they don’t benefit from economies of scale, and because institutions with access to a lot of money spend a lot of money — they’re “non-profits” after all, which means all revenue is internalized.

    This probably means that W&L’s administrators expect the law school to fork over several million dollars per year over and above the school’s direct expenditures, and that this expectation isn’t even a product of trying to use the law school as a cash cow, to cross-subsidize other parts of the institution, but simply a product of the overall cost structure of the university.

    In any case Washington & Lee is in one sense a rather special case among law schools. No other elite liberal arts college has a law school attached to it, and W&L’s law school will never be nearly as prestigious an institution, relatively speaking, as the larger institution of which it’s a part (The category of elite law schools is limited to 14, and 14 only, and despite W&L’s success at gaming the rankings no one has ever considered it to be anywhere close to that magic circle). In other words, the only substantial benefit the college was getting from the law school was that at one point the latter actually made money for the former.

    At this moment, I suspect the college’s leadership is rather regretting having to manage what is something of an expensive white elephant, and that this regret is taking the form of very concrete financial demands. It will be interesting to see what happens if the law school finds itself unable to meet those demands.”

    I’m not a Star Trek fan, and I despise Star Wars, but to quote Spock:

    "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."


    Why the hell should pretentious cockroaches who “work” 4-6 hours per week rake in $200K+ per year, off the federal taxpayer, while the students incur outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a mere chance to enter this GLUTTED and dying field?!?! Can anyone with an IQ above room temperature – and a conscience – make a cogent argument or defense of this garbage?

  24. I wonder if lawyers will start limiting their services to the same type of thing these limited license people do. That is essentially charging pro se litigants about generalities of the law and filings. I'll bet you could make some $$$ by charging low rate and high volume and then you don't have the attorney client relationship that makes people work for free while the client promises to pay while writing their bar complaint. Bet $100 bar would say that if you are a licensed attorney you can't limit your practice this way.

    1. "work for free while the client promises to pay while writing their bar complaint"- I LOVE IT! So true!

  25. And so ends the career of one of the most incompetent law school deans ever. Nora Demleitner!

    1. I just saw the article at taxprof.

      Boo-hoo! Being on a forced plan and no more Play Time isn't fun anymore! Notice how the people in charge manage to avoid all responsibility for any negative consequences, in fact spinning the negatives into positives?

      Oh yes..

      Time for a sabbatical! - to avoid all the change as it's happening and let everything shake out without being in the crosshairs.

      My prediction: On to other greener pastures. Standard Operating Procedure.

      Being a Dean just.. isn't fun anymore!


  26. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/02/washington-lee-law-school-cuts-salaries-downsizes-faculty-staff-invades-corpus-endowment

    Take a look at this thread, from the comments section on the February 19, 2015 entry from Paul Campos. On the same day, at 3:42 pm, user “Barry_D” wrote the following:

    ““Six administrative and staff positions will be reduced over a five-year period…”

    That means schmucks; no VP/Dean/Assistant Dean/Associate VP to the Assistant Dean will be harmed.”

    This provoked this response from accountholder “BJN” – on February 19, 2015 5:37 pm:

    “Again, people are seeing a giant corporate law school where there isn’t one. The “deans and administrative department heads” lists 8 people. All law schools saw a lot of bloat over the last generation, but this case isn’t a morality play about executive greed like Jefferson. This is a small, mid tier law school getting obliterated by the environment in legal education right now.”

    “Law Spider” then provided this observation, on February 19, 2015 at 10:33 pm:

    “The legal market is certainly the larger problem. But when I graduated from law school in the mid-1990s, there was only the Dean and 3 Assistant Deans, and IIRC, the head of career services. 8 is a lot of people to just sit around discussing which lower peon will do the actual work.”

    The pigs at the top look out for each other, i.e. their fellow academic thieves. It’s a great $y$tem for the filthy swine. Don’t count on any law school administrators to throw themselves out of a 12th story window any time soon.

  27. As posted earlier "attrition makes all seem so normal."

    (But the top gets protected, the adjuncts and hourlies get SMASHED, and so goes America.)

    Philip Nolan

  28. Is Nando eligible for a Pulitzer or Nobel by proxy? Time to start the campaign.


Web Analytics