Sunday, May 24, 2015

Attention, Dolts: CNN and Bloomberg Report That There Are Too Many Damn Lawyers

Courtesy of CNN: On May 22, 2015, Benjamin Barton – “law professor” at the University of Tennessee – wrote an op-ed for CNN. The article was entitled “The fall and rise of lawyers.” Look at this opening:

“The American legal profession has faced a tsunami of bad news since 2008. White-shoe, corporate law firms have faced waves of layoffs or even shuttered their doors. While the very top firms are rolling again, the 50 years of explosive growth that started in the 1960s are now a memory. 

But at least corporate lawyers have had recent glory days. Solo practitioners, the largest single group of American lawyers and the heart and soul of the profession, have struggled for a quarter of a century. 

Since the 1960s the IRS has collected and published income levels for all American lawyers filing as solo practitioners. In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average earnings of all 354,000 lawyers who filed as solo practitioners that year. 

And the bad news has just started for these lawyers, who now face new competition from online providers of legal services such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer. 

Law school applications have plummeted. If the current trend continues, fewer students will apply to law school in 2015-16 than enrolled in law school in 2010-11. Law schools are closing campuses, merging and buying out faculty and staff.” [Emphasis mine] 

Later on in the piece, Barton added:

“Fortunately, except for in-court representation, computerization is on the verge of bypassing the legal profession altogether and solving these problems. Start with the basics of American law – statutes, regulations, and reported court decisions. 

Nonprofits and government entities have put almost all of the raw materials of American law online and Google and other search engines have made that law easier to find than ever. An American with a smart phone now has more access to legal sources than most lawyers or judges did fifteen years ago.” [Emphasis mine]

How do you like, Dumbass?! For centuries, lawyers were able to charge a premium for their services, since they had access to information – such as statutes, case law, property records, and other data – that was largely unavailable to the average person. Now, anyone with an IQ above room temperature and some curiosity can easily find these sources. As such, they don’t need to spend big sums on attorneys, especially since this is a GLUTTED field.

This “law professor” is spelling it out for, lemmings. The fact that Cockroach Barton is still a willing participant in the law school scam shows that he doesn’t give a damn his students or graduates. It also speaks volumes about his supposed “integrity.” However, this “educator” is furnishing some truth. If you are not attending a top law school, then you are looking at the following options: toiletlaw, low-paid legal aid positions, non-law jobs, and returning to your prior industry or work – with your tail in between your legs. Do you still want to incur an additional $140K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for these odds, mental deficient?!?!

From Bloomberg: On May 13, 2015, Natalie Kitroeff’s article, “There Are Too Many Lawyers, Say Law Firms,” was featured in BloombergBusiness. Look at the following segment:

“Work-life balance has traditionally been an unfamiliar concept at big law firms, but that might be changing. A majority of managers at firms say they employ too many lawyers and those lawyers are not busy enough, according to a survey released Tuesday by consultancy Altman Weil. 

Among the 320 managing partners and chairmen Altman Weil polled, 60 percent reported that overcapacity was making their firms less profitable. At large firms—more than 250 attorneys—the problem was even worse: 74 percent of leaders said idleness was hurting profit.” [Emphasis mine]

Keep in mind that 1,067 law grads, from the Class of 2013, were hired by firms of 251-500 attorneys. Another 3,980 JDs from this cohort landed in offices of 501+ lawyers. That combined figure represents less than 10.8% of the JD Class of 2013, i.e. 5,047/46,776! Yet, these firms, each and collectively representing the wealthiest criminals in the country, claim that they have too many attorneys on staff.

Per the U.S. Department of Labor: Head to the link above real quick. This is the Occupational Outlook Handbook entry for lawyers. It is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Read the portion below:

“Job Outlook 

Employment of lawyers is projected to grow 10 percent from 2012 to 2022, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Competition for jobs should continue to be strong because more students graduate from law school each year than there are jobs available.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you understand the implications, waterhead?!?! If you cannot figure out that there are too many lawyers in the United States, then how the hell can you be expected to represent paying clients on legal matters? 

Conclusion: In sum, not only are solo practitioners typically broke bastards, but there are too many attorneys in Biglaw firms. That is according to the managing partners and chairmen, not some random scambloggers. At this point in the game, if you choose to apply to and attend a non-elite law school now, then you truly are a mental deficient. Not only should you be strapped down with ridiculous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. You ought to be beaten to a bloody pulp – with bamboo sticks. In the final analysis, no one forced your moronic ass to go to law school.


  1. Nando,

    I work in a V25 biglaw firm and I want to offer the following observations:

    1. Biglaw is desperately looking for work. You unemployed attorneys think you know what desperation looks like? Take a look at biglaw business development, all competing for the few clients willing to pay our preposterous billing rates. Trust me when I say that you unemployed attorneys and biglaw feel the exact same thing, just in different situations. You're both competing for a limited supply.

    2. Biglaw has a TON of overpromoted overpaid people who need to be demoted (and since that's not realistic) fired. The partners and seniors are all doing junior associate work and slipping it by clients who can't review the substance of a bill.

    3. Our moronic HR folks and their recruitment of new graduates don't have a clue what the business is doing or what we (don't) need. They just shove new hires into the firm and act like they did us a favor. That's another thing, biglaw has a ton of completely and I mean completely unnecessary administrative staff. There's like one for every attorney!

    4. As a result of the above, and because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, the trend is down for biglaw. New biglaw hires have always known their time is limited, but now they're only going to work one, maybe two years before biglaw kicks them out so they can give jobs to the next set of graduates.

  2. It is very hard to attract business in big law or mid law. Nowhere to go to get enough work to keep everyone busy.

    Someone made the point awhile back, that you cannot just sign up for an extra shift in law.

    The buyers of big and mid law services simply don't need to buy. They can wing it and do without.

    In medicine and education, the government is paying the freight so to speak for much of what the workers are earning, or forcing private employers to pay the freight through tax penalties. So there is built in revenue.

    There is no source of built in revenue in law. Demand is discretionary, and most people/ companies don't need lawyers for most things.

    Go on the websites of major corporations or the internet. See how few law jobs are advertised. See how many of the open jobs are for temps, with no employee benefits and no job security. Compare that to 1.3 million lawyers in the US.

    Most people going to law school, even a top law school, are buying a lifetime of futile searches for work. They may get work some of the time in varying degrees. The by line is a lifetime fighting one's own unemployment or underemployment, and the problems are systemic. The demand for lawyers is not there relative to the outsized supply of lawyer workers.

  3. And doctors and hospitals also have built in revenue from insurance. If you're sick (and this happens a lot over the course of one's life) and insured your insurance will pick up most of the bill.

    There's no such thing for law. (The closest thing you get is prepaid legal.) And like the guy above said most people and companies don't need a lawyer. Those that do maybe need a lawyer's services once (twice at most) in a lifetime.

  4. This article from Professor Barton is very timely and raises a several important questions.

    First, with the demise of the solo practitioner (and by extension small law firm practice) where do consumers of legal services typically offered by those providers go? Individuals and small business owners with a modest (under $100K) contract dispute, an off the path estate planning issue which requires expertise or a family law issue with some complexity such as a child custody matter, have no where to go. Solo practitioners who could competently handle a broad cross section of low to mid tier transactional or litigation work for affordable prices have been purged. I am candidly surprised there are still even as many as this article reports filing income tax returns. The bottom line is that with advances in technology, changes in the law that eliminate the need for lawyers in various practice areas which had traditionally been served by solos, too many people seeing their disposable income pinched and the era of family owned businesses coming to a close, the natural client base for these solos has dried up.

    Second, will the legal profession get better (become more efficient due to attrition) as the article suggests? As a founding partner of a regional civil litigation practice, I am not optimistic that legal consumers will be better served 20 years from now. At least in our town, the only persons (entities) with access to the courts or quality legal services are large corporations or extremely wealthy people, individuals who have a claim that can be handled via a contingency contract (bodily injury or employment grievance) or the indigent who are appointed counsel. Everyone else is basically out. And the trend of increasingly sparser access to legal services will only worsen.

    Those consumers with the financial resources to hire lawyers are in the power position: Buyer's market, demand more for less, demand more value, faster and better. And those of us in the profession of trying to gain their business better adapt or else we will face the fate of the solo practitioner.

    However, for those consumers that have a real need for legal services, but who do not have the money to hire lawyers, the addition of several thousand more young lawyers each year does them no good. This un-served market needs expertise but does not have the money to pay for it and the throngs of new law graduates are ill equipped to be of any real service to them.

    The economic realities that has so indiscriminately wiped out an entire sector of the legal profession, are pounding on the doors of mid-sized regional firms (150+ lawyer shops that service several cities in close geographic proximity) and are eyeing all major global firms who all recognize that a domestic practice by itself will not run the trains, as international expansion is the business success plan de jure for all of the Am Law 100. These huge law firms who see only 13% of their hires ascend to equity partners are trying to figure out how to land new clients, increase revenues and what to do with the tens of thousands of non-equity (experienced long staying) partners who have no books of business. That class of lawyer is under-producing and in the new normal of requiring a solid client base to retain favor with your respective firm, will imminently see the ax falling hard. Where are all these displaced non-equity types with no clients going to go?

    So, for the prospective law student, my suggestion would be to carefully examine what it is that you truly want to do with your life. The satisfaction of helping others, solving problems and being of true service to those in need can be achieved in many fields outside the law. I would strongly encourage those prospective law students to consider alternatives. Now is simply not a good time to be going to law school.

    1. "However, for those consumers that have a real need for legal services, but who do not have the money to hire lawyers, the addition of several thousand more young lawyers each year does them no good. This un-served market needs expertise but does not have the money to pay for it and the throngs of new law graduates are ill equipped to be of any real service to them."

      Bang. This was my thinking back, the end of my 2L year around 2003, when the scam was fully sinking in. I went from special snowflake to "how is this sustainable?" Little did I know how willing ScamDeans and LawProfs were to essentially lie for dollars.

    2. Unmet medical needs: let's charge the taxpayer, and also make mandatory health insurance for everyone to cover it!

      Unmet food needs: let's charge the taxpayer, and also set up charitable organizations and subsidize farmers!

      Unmet water needs: Let's make a city/municipal water system and then make it available to everyone! We'll charge the taxpayer!

      Unmet educational needs: Let's make a school system, charge the taxpayer to pay the teachers and personnel, and even make it mandatory to attend! Further education can also be provided by taxpayer backed loans as well as grants and the like!

      Unmet transportation needs: Let's set up a heavily subsidized public transportation system, backed by the taxpayer!

      Unmet legal needs: Those attorneys should work pro bono.

  5. Kids are fucking stupid. James Earl Jones the voice of CNN could tell them there's too many fucking lawyers. And you know what? The dumbshits would enroll in TTTs anyways.

  6. Experienced lawyer: Kiddies, there are too many lawyers. Even biglaw has too little work for too many lawyers. Spending $100k on a law degree is idiotic. It's financial suicide.

    0L: huh? But I'm gonna work real hard during law school. I'll be a success. Wait, just you watch.

  7. The JAG Corps is NOT an option either. I work for the Coast Guard and we took seven, count'em 7 lawyers and had 150 applicants. Two selectees had prior service which gave them a significant advantage. It is worse on the civilian side for government attorneys, We receive 100 applicants at a minimum for each position and many applicants are desperate to get out of Big Law. Please don't view the JAG corps or government service as a safety net.

    1. Does JAG favor any particular resumes at this point, i.e. is rank of the school important? Back in the day, you could get in from a TTT being mediocre in your class. At this point, I'd guess standards are considerably tighter?

    2. I suspect JAG has always been more selective than the law schools tout because they generally lied about everything. DA's offices and government positions were never easy to obtain either.

      Things probably did get worse from 2008 onwards. But I have my doubts that any positions have been easy to get since the mid-70s or so.

      The only newer thing about the law school scam is the insane debt totals. The career outcomes have been poor since the 70s, when the glut really began and then accelerated onwards through the decades after.

    3. The standards for JAG are higher because of the volume of applicants. When I joined the JAGC in 1980 I went to Richmond Law. I would not stand a chance today. My perception is that prior service, enlisted or officer counts for so much.

  8. love watching this trainwreck. fortunately for me, as a tax-focused CPA, i was wavering back and forth from 2011 to early 2013 and anguishing whether I should leave big4 for LS for biglaw to be a tax attorney. paul campos and ITLSS was the most intricate insider view. destroyed my concept of willpower/character as a powerful determinant in one's success. the seismic structural change in the legal industry is pretty incredible. unfortunately, mainstream media still promoting bullshit like How To Get Away With Murder.

  9. Nando, you have done an excellent job with this one. It made me laugh, and that's rare because I'm dour.

  10. Loudmouth New York Italian bastard # 56,891May 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM

    Quit yer bitchin'. There's lotsa successful Italian American judges and lawyers. Maybe it's because we know if want something you hafta go out there and get it. It's not gonna be handed to ya.

  11. It was $29.00 an hour a year ago. $25.00 nowadays in midtown NYC. $20.00 next year?
    See NYC Craigslist of May 22, 2015.
    Attorneys for Document Review Project Starting 5/26 (Midtown)
    compensation: $25/hr
    Epiq Systems is seeking attorneys for a document review project scheduled to start on 5/26 and run for at least 4 weeks. No prior document review experience is required. Candidates must be admitted to practice in a US jurisdiction and be available to work Monday-Saturday; 10 hours/day. Please send resume as an MS word attachment.

  12. Doc Review in New York for $25/hr?! That is pretty awful. If anyone reading this is a 0L, consider another industry that can use your analytical skills: Read Zero to One, read the New Yorker profile on Mar Andreeson.

  13. Great string of articles coming out lately. Especially the Charleston one. A picture is worth a thousand words and the one Nando posted was perfect. A bunch of old white guys meeting in some boiler-room and threatening to shut down the school if they don't get the cash. Strip away the glossy admissions brochures and luxury facilities. This is what law school is all about - shearing the cash off the sheep.

    1. You are an idiot. You belong where you are.

      Those founders aren't the problem. The problem is unlimited government education funds. Your overlord government decided that education was a "priority," and decided to take money from working americans and pay it to anyone who owned a building that had the words "law school" on it.

      "A bunch of old white guys".... what does being old or white have anything to do with it? You sound like someone who should be "Occupying" some place (aka~be a homeless bum). If those guys did close the school, that would be the best thing they ever did for the students. It would save them time and money (and I think a graduates student loans are forgiven if their school closes...I WISH my school would close). I don't mean to insult you, but what you said was ignorant, racist, and geriaphobic. Most of all it was wrong because those guys are kind of the good guys in this situation; they are pretty much openly treating law school like the scam that it is, so everyone knows.

      Remember, those founders are behaving like rational economic actors; the problem is that the government is making the money available.


    On May 22, 2015, JDU poster “cloudynflorida” started a thread labeled “The Fall and Rise of Lawyers.” However, focus on this excellent response from “stevelaw” – from May 24, 2015 at 12:15 am:

    "Since the 1960s the IRS has collected and published income levels for all American lawyers filing as solo practitioners. In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average earnings of all 354,000 lawyers who filed as solo practitioners that year."

    - CNN article

    Read this the other day and have been meaning to see what the JDU'ers had to say.

    That quote says it all for me. The only reason to go through the rigamarole of law school and the followup nonsense of being a practicing attorney is the promise of a big paycheck.

    That promise is long gone.

    $49,130 on average and that's not to start? Read my lips: LAW SCHOOL IS NOT WORTH IT! There are countless 9-5 day jobs that will pay you that, respect the concept that your nights and weekends belong to you and your family, allow you reasonable vacation and sick leave and won't lead to you having a nervous breakdown.

    To reiterate the points that many young lemmings aren't listening to, if you go to law school:

    1) Upon graduation, you'll owe massive debt.

    2) You'll compete for jobs with massive numbers of older, more experienced attorneys who have years of practice under their belts.

    3) A job that pays less than $49,000 a year and requires you to work round the clock while your boss and clients insult you and your work product is literally the best you can hope for.

    4) But chances are you won't even be "lucky" enough to get that.

    5) What's more likely to happen is that you'll ride the pine on your parents' couch while all of your high school and college friends who you balked at for going with status quo jobs are making money, buying their first homes, and starting families.

    6) You'll keep trying for a law job. Obnoxious established attorneys with stacks upon stacks of applications from experienced attorneys will deem you underqualified.”

  15. Here is the rest of this spot-on analysis:

    “7) When you throw your hands up in the air and give up on the legal profession in search of any job that will pay you, the hiring decision makers in the non-legal job market will spot your JD and assume a) you're overqualified and will either leave the job to become a highly paid attorney or there must be something wrong with you if you're not cashing in on your golden JD ticket (they have no clue about the JD job market crisis and that you'd kiss their feet if they hire you to be their bathroom attendant)

    8) You'll try to get unpaid experience but attorneys are businessmen who don't have time to provide free training and the glut of experienced attorneys in the job market means that the concept of older lawyers taking younger under their wing and showing them the ropes of the profession are long gone.

    9) You'll hide in the corner at every family gathering to avoid having to explain to your Aunts/Uncles/various relatives why you "simply don't just hang up your shingle" as if spending a bunch of money you don't have to start a major business that will require you to be in charge of major decisions affecting the lives and/or property of your clients without any prior experience is a reasonable proposition. (Your family won't get that. They think law school is a trade school. You sat in a building marked "Law School" for three years, ergo, you must know how to be a lawyer.)

    10) Welcome to the life as a post-law grad. Welcome to the overqualified/underqualified trap.

    We older folks had no idea about this stuff way back when. You younger folks have all the info laid out in front of you.”

    Still want to take the plunge, waterhead?!?! With all of the information out there regarding the law school scam, if you fail to land a good job after earning a TTT law degree, then you have no right to complain about your sad or pathetic circumstances. You have chosen to ignore reality, because you felt that YOU would personally succeed where thousands of others failed.

    1. Things are even worse than that.

      That $49k is for all solos, including the extreme outlier high earners. We already know all about that from the cooked law school statistics that pulled the same thing.

      Campos estimates it's really $35k without those outliers. And then you have to factor in how many of those include older attorneys, who have the experience and clientele and had law firm experience and contacts before going solo? It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of younger graduates, say people under 35 years of age, are going to be near the bottom of that average.

      So what's the true average for the under 35 group? $30k? $25k? Worse?

      And then start factoring taxes, business expenses and the like, as well as the stress, and it's really not a pretty picture.

      38 Year Solo was exposing a lot of this before he was chased away by yadroc the damaged troll. Unfortunate.

      On these comments we've also seen a handful of HYS grad Biglaw attorneys basically admit that after a few years their careers were essentially over and they haven't been able to get back in.

      It is a very grim picture out there. It's a wonder attorneys aren't grabbing pitchforks and torches, or the modern equivalents, and doing something about their predicaments. But I suppose it's easier to shame and control an "educated" class of people.

      At the least, the lemmings must stop going. How much human capital must be destroyed before someone steps in and stops this mess? It appears human capital has zero value, and clearly this "education" does not add any value. If there was any value, the government may have thought it fit to actually tap into it in some way, but clearly it does not need to do so nor does it have an inclination. It seems everyone involved in the scam, except the lemmings themselves, expects the lemmings to just be quiet and disappear afterwards.

    2. Well now, the phrase "yadroc the damaged troll" can truly lift one's spirits.

      My bar review course instructor used "yockle and grotz" to represent a plaintiff and defendant is all his examples.

      I use "gonzo" in conferences with clients to describe someone who is not particularly helpful. "Brains of a tomato" also sends the same message. They love it. Folks love it when the see you are just a person like them (albeit having horrible judgment in becoming a lawyer-but they think you made a good decision-reinforced by their perception and the actual reality-that you are helping them).

      gribble is right in his analysis. The new solos will be competing with people like me. I happen to prefer solving problems, not battling pointless, expensive battles. I have so much experience. I am good at it, and have had many attorneys compliment me on my approach.

      I had a case where one child had inherited the parent’s entire estate, three other children having been left out. I represented the child who inherited all. That child told me that mom left all to him, so that he could divide it equally among all 5 siblings. Mom thought that would be easier than hiring a lawyer. My client was on good terms with all of the siblings but one. That one, was a cantankerous, irritable individual who had a “good ole boy” attorney.

      (For those of you who are young lawyers, in the interest of client confidentiality, protecting client’s secrets, etc., I change sufficient facts so that no one can identify the actual parties. The facts necessary to make my point are retained.)

      Over the course of the probate process “yadroc the irritable” would harass my client, who would then meet with me and declare that that sibling would get no (voluntary) share. I would explain that the parent wanted an equal split, that my client would not feel right about not following the parent’s direction, and that the irritable sibling was simply a mess whose aggravations should be ignored. Ultimately my client “did my client’s duty” and everyone got an equal share.

      Throughout the whole probate process, the “irritable’s” attorney would call with demands (which he made clear were his client’s only and contrary to the attorney’s advice), and I would explain that it was my intent that no matter how hard his client tried to prevent his own inheritance, I intended to see that he got it because it was clearly in my client’s best interest that that be done. This went on for about 8 months.

      Some years later, I ran into the irritable’s attorney. He looked at me with his Lincolness eyes and said he “really respected how I handled the case.” (I prevented his client from killing his own case.) It is the highest compliment I have ever received. Everyone got what they should have. My client did my client’s duty, and I KNOW that my client would have felt guilty and dishonorable, if that had not been done. The irritable got an inheritance and could not accuse my client of failing to follow the parent’s wishes. It was all the right thing to do.

      (It would be a bit more readable if I could use “he” and “she,” and so on, but the confidentiality concerns…)

  16. Well, looks like Joshua Adams skipped out on his loans:

    He's living in Kiev. In the end, the taxpayers subsidized Joahua Adams to live in NYC for three years with nothing to show for it. Of course, the pigs at Crooklyn got their fat pay day. Now, Adams most definitely will stay abroad and the taxpayers will never recoup their money. What an amazing system we have.

  17. Applying to law school today is the equivalent of nursing school. when are the feds going to stop feeding this beast?

  18. Law schools are evil, lying, scum bags. They are run by faculty for the benefit of faculty. It is all about maintaining their jobs and lifestyles, at the expense of the truth, law graduates, and the profession. They are the scum of the scum. Used car salespeople are much more ethical.


    Hell, back on December 21, 2014, Bloomberg published an article entitled “America’s Chronic Surplus of Lawyers.” Look at this killer opening:

    “The legal profession has fallen on hard times in recent years. Big firms, such as as Dewey & LeBoeuf in 2012, have gone under. Others, including Thacher Proffitt & Wood, have been downsized and absorbed by stronger competitors.

    Now the law schools themselves are having trouble. Enrollment for 2014 was the lowest since 1973, according to figures released last week by the American Bar Association. The number of full- and part-time students, at 37,924, was down 28 percent from 2010, the all-time peak.

    We shouldn’t be too surprised. The idea that law was a surefire, recession-proof path to success and financial security may have been a misconception all along: The U.S. has regularly had a surplus of lawyers.

    In fact, the profession was viewed as troublesome from the early days of the Republic. After the Revolution broke out, Patriot legislatures sought to purge “Tories” -- those loyal to Great Britain -- from public life. Unfortunately, a significant number of lawyers happened to be Loyalists, and by the time the cleansing was complete, the number of attorneys qualified to practice law had seriously decreased.

    Replenishing the ranks would be a challenge. Law schools didn’t exist, and most people admitted to the bar got their legal education by shadowing an established lawyer. This system left much to be desired: the lawyers in training -- known as clerks -- often ended up doing the 19th-century equivalent of photocopying and other grunt work.

    At the same time, barriers to entry into the profession were pretty low: most states had laws requiring that lawyers complete a clerkship, but little else.”

    Now, in order for *a chance* to enter this GLUTTED, garbage “profession,” one is essentially required to incur an additional $120K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. In essence, this is the cost of entry to sit for a bar exam in the United States. That is the equivalent of shelling out $500 on dinner for a pretty woman who is not the slightest bit interested in your sorry ass – while purchasing her a new car, as well. Who in their right mind would even consider such a foolish gesture?

    If you do not understand that the U.S. lawyer job market is GROSSLY OVERSATURATED and SHRINKING, then you are too damn dumb to make toast. You would likely burn your crummy apartment – or your mother’s house – to the ground, if you attempted to make breakfast. In the event that being a lawyer is your “dream,” you need to get a life, moron.


    Nando and readers PLEASE PLEASE carefully read this amazing opinion that just came out. First few pages are gold.

  21. This is amazing. What a toilet this school is.

    For those considering law school, check out


Web Analytics