Sunday, May 10, 2015

Do the Charleston in Order to Celebrate the Demise of Fourth Tier Charleson School of Law!


http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150506/PC16/150509575

Excellent Development!: On May 6, 2015, Diane Knich’s piece “Charleston School of Law may not enroll new students in the fall,” appeared in the Post and Courier. Check out this beautiful opening:

“The Charleston School of Law has been trudging along on life support for months, but could it be about to take its final breath? 

While students were taking final exams Tuesday, George Kosko and Robert Carr, the remaining owners of the troubled law school, released a statement that said they might not enroll a new class of students in the fall. 

American Bar Association and state rules prohibit the school from simply closing its doors. If the board decides to close the school, it would have to submit a “teach-out” plan that details how students who already are enrolled would finish their education programs. 

Some students said they were confused about what the statement meant, and they found it disturbing that owners would release it in the middle of exams. 

In their prepared statement, Kosko and Carr said they could not in good faith enroll another class when “like last year, the school is spending more money than is coming in.” 

They also said they cannot assure the students that they will be able to use federal student loans for their full three years, and are not sure the school will be able to maintain its license and stay open.” [Emphasis mine]

The fact that the owners of this independent toilet released this news nearly four months before the start of the 2015-2016 school year strongly indicates that they are in serious financial trouble. Hell, if they felt that they had a chance to make this experimenTTTT work, then they would have at least waited a while longer before making this announcement.

By the way, look at this penultimate paragraph:

“Law school owners and InfiLaw representatives have said the school is in a financial crisis due to declining enrollment and the owners taking $25 million in profit out of the school between 2010 and 2013.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, the pigs simply took the money and ran. What “honorable” men, huh?!?! Then again, “higher education” in the U.S. is ALL about getting your hands on big piles of federal student loan dollars. The pupils are a mere means to an end.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/07/charleston-school-of-law-may-suspend-enrollment/

Other Coverage: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a Jacob Gershman article entitled “Charleston School of Law may Suspend Enrollment” – on May 7, 2015. Take a look at the following portion:

“Just over a decade after getting off the ground, Charleston School of Law says last year’s incoming class last may be its last. 

The South Carolina school’s two remaining owners said Wednesday that they “cannot in good faith enroll another class” while losing money and lacking confidence that it could maintain its license to operate. 

“We are heartbroken with this situation,” Robert Carr and George Kosko said in a joint statement. “This has been a wonderful ride, and we have always done what we thought was in the best interest of the school and the students.” 

Their statement suggested that the decision wasn’t final, saying they would provide an update next week. The school’s announcement was reported Wednesday by the Charleston Regional Business Journal.

One of the school’s five original co-founders, Ed Westbrook, stepped down from Charleston’s board in March, according to the paper. Two other co-founders have retired[.]” [Emphasis mine]

Yeah, sure you cockroaches put your students' interests first - and I'm on short list for the Fields Medal.  Although, I am sure that you swine enjoyed the ride, at the expense of your students, graduates, and federal taxpayers.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad-debt-rankings

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Charle$TTTTon Sewer of Law Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $147,031. Fully 85% of this garbage pit’s 2013 cohort took on such toxic debt. Don’t forget that this amount does not even include undergraduate debt – and also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, if this ABA-accredited dung heap shuts its doors, it will be cause for celebration. Look at the debt figure above, for JDs from this pile of exrement. Do you think for – one damn second – that CharlesTTTTon SOL graduates are finding jobs that allow them to reasonably pay back their student loans?!?! At least, the owners/pigs made a ton of cash, and that’s what matters, right?!

64 comments:

  1. I predict a different ending. I see a masterful plot evolving here. Infilaw and the owners are manipulating information to play on fear. Infilaw says they are not going to buy back the school, the owners are threatening to close the school hence the faculty, the town, the students and the creditors are going to fear the worse for their jobs, their future and the economy. So everyone agrees on keeping the school open. The faculty, the town, the creditors, the students make concessions, and Infilaw comes back stronger, buys back the school with more leverage, appears as a savior and makes money with federal loans while the owners laugh out loud. Remember Thomas Jefferson LS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bwhahaha! Really? Google "Florida Coastal" Gainful Employment. Do the same for each InfiScam school and for Charleston Law. Those webpages are to comply with a new regulation...

      The Gainful Employment rule is a new Dept. of Ed. rule that cuts off federal loan monies to schools whose graduates have poor Debt : Income ratios. GUESS WHO HAS POOR DEBT : INCOME RATIOS!

      Infilaw was screaming in the press that the GE rule would shut them down if it applied to them. Up until I saw the profusion of websites on for-profit law schools to comply with this rule, it was not clear that the rule would apply to law schools. IT DOES.

      I've got this feeling Infilaw is going down, and soon.

      WOO HOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUSTICE.

      Delete
    2. Justice? Justice would be if they had to repay every penny they've stolen over the years from their naive 22 y/o lemmings, with a punitive payment as punishment on top. This is more akin to a great stock market trade that provided above-market returns, but has since run its course.

      Delete
  2. I think this is the 3rd domino to drop. The first was the Cooley closing of one of its campuses. The second was Hamline's closure (disguised as a merger with Mitchell).

    I am glad the faculty is getting shafted in this story. The shareholders only cared about making money. They got theirs so now they are bailing on this failing enterprise.

    The students are the real winners in this story as they will qualify for a school closure discharge of their loans. Unfortunately, many of them will be too dense to see the blessing and double down by enrolling or transferring to another shithole law school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The students won't get that opportunity if the school arranges to continue for two more years just so that they can finish their degrees (which should be printed on toilet paper).

      Delete
  3. It's already been quite a story. Didn't the school entertain offers of being purchased by InfiLaw only to see students and alumni raise a stink saying it would devalue the law degree? It's all about the money so maybe InfiLaw comes back and can get this toilet on the cheap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you devalue something that has no value?

      Delete
  4. Good job Nando. This amazing development is due in large part to your efforts. I recall a few months back you were thinking of giving up this project. Aren't you glad you stayed with it? A toast to you good sir. Keep up the excellent work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. excellent work, nando. sister sites for different grad scams should proliferate. Pharmacy, teacher school, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The popular consumer watchdog website called RIP OFF REPORT has actually had articles with consumers posting letters about their bad experience with certain non-ABA accredited law schools. Would be a good idea if we post on RIP OFF REPORT the profiles of the ABA Toilets that NANDO flushed.

      Delete
  6. Someone beat me to it.

    The gainful employment rule. You can go to Charleston's website and see they have to comply with it too. And another thing. It looked like the sale to InfiLaw was going to go through, but the SC academic affairs committee voted to reject InfiLaw's license. Pretty hard to run an accredited law school in the state if the state won't give you a license.

    Usually it's the profs and deans that fuck over the students. In this case, it's the private owners of this shithole that fucked over the professors (after they fucked over the students).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hell yes! The GE rule is death knell for for-profit law schools. They're done. Their programs will not pass, even if they dropped that tuition like it's hot TODAY.

      Calling it: 2015 will be a year of celebration. We'll see how fast these pits get shuttered.

      Delete
  7. Tales from the ShitLaw Practitioner: Immigration Edition

    In the last article, a poster questioned my old friend, Marv's, ability to secure 5 figure retainers from "poor" immigrant clients. You see, immigrants play that card more than blacks play the race card. Marv opened my eyes a long time ago. We were having dinner at Sardis when Marv dropped the bombshell. I asked Marv how he was doing well practicing immigration law. His secret: you kick the tire kicking clients to the curb and call the immigrant out on his "I am poor" bluff.

    Marv broke it down for me. He told me immigrants earned an average of $80-$100 a day for work. It could be landscaping, dish washing, painting, construction, asbestos removal, etc. Moreover, he told me that immigrants usually lived in boarding houses where they pay like $75-$100 a week. Marv knew this because his brother owned a multi-dwelling unit in Jackson Heights, Queens and he had like 25-30 immigrants living in that rat hole, which was affectionately called "La Cueva del Diablo ("The Devil's Cave")" by its residents. The Cave contained a treasure trove of housing code violations but Marv's brother had greased the housing inspectors' hands so there was no imminent threat of getting the multi-dwelling unit padlocked from the city inspectors. So do the math kids, 30 tenants x $100 x 52 weeks=$156,000 a year in rental income. It was not bad for a dilapidated place that would otherwise fail a city housing inspection.

    Anyway, Marv told me the immigrants would pay $20 a week for car pooling and another $50 for food per week. Now remember, these illegal aliens weren't paying taxes as they made straight cash. So after expenses, each immigrant would pocket about $330 a week. Some would pick up an extra $150 on the weekend working side jobs. Over the course of a few years, these immigrants save a lot of money by living frugally. So when an immigration client who was in the U.S. for 10 years would tell Marv "I am poor and only have $3,000 to pay you," Marv would tell them to get the fuck out of his office. Marv would not take cases for less than $10K. That was his minimum starting point. He would often say that his competition would never get ahead as they would charge $2,500 for defensive removal proceedings. "That is chump change for a chump lawyer" Marv would often say.

    Marv was hated by the Immigration Judges and prosecutors. For one, he didn't play the nice guy. You see, when you start out your immigration practice, the immigration judges like to sucker you into taking pro bono cases. This is a TRAP. First, you are not doing the court any favor so don't think they will owe you any courtesy. I once heard an immigration judge bitch out an attorney who showed up 5 minutes late on a case he had taken pro bono. So much for the court showing leeway to a lawyer who stupidly took a pro bono case. And that's the thing, pro bono clients are often worse than paying clients. If you have a immigrant client in detention, they will call you collect 10-20 times a day. Every call is the same shit "when are you getting me out of here?," "when am I getting my green card?," etc. And if you don't accept the collect calls, they will complain to the judge who will in turn threaten to turn you into the ethics authorities if they hear further complaints about you not taking any calls from your clients.

    continued

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try, but it's still BS. If your illegal immigrants were half as "frugal" as you claimed they were, why the fuck would they pay $20K to your friend for marriage amnesty - something that they could essentially handle themselves for free? Or - worst case scenario - for $500 at some other shitlaw office?

      LOL, do these illegal immigrants have bank accounts to store their mountain of cash? Or are "boarding houses" full of fat $20K bankrolls?

      Are these "illegal immigrants" Arab oil sheiks, by any chance?

      Delete
    2. Son, I don't know what to tell you. You must be one of the chumps Marv described. If you believe your immigrant clients are dirt poor, you are falling for the pavlovian dog stereotype. These immigrants don't pay taxes, have free healthcare, pay next to nothing for housing. What makes you think they can't get a safe deposit box at a local bank and store their money there?

      Delete
    3. @6:04PM

      Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. Marv not only did the adjustment of status application but he also provided the USC bride and had pentecostal priest on his payroll who performed the marraiges. How many shitlaw attorneys do you know provide a bride for $500?

      Delete
    4. @623/626,

      "Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit."

      Storytelling must not be YOUR "strong suit." Never mind the "$500" - most illegal immigrants are usually able to find someone to help them scam citizenship for FREE. THAT's what they pay "20K" for? Riiiiight.

      As for the "safe deposit box," please provide the name of even ONE bank that'll give one to someone who doesn't have a checking account there. It's called research. You should try it sometime.

      You forgot to explain why those "frugal" immigrants would each make a once-in-a-lifetime exception to that exception by blowing $20K on a $500 legal service. $20K for a matchmaker? LOL, are these 600 immigrants all in fucking comas or something?

      Delete
    5. Ok, I am now convinced 6:04/8:34 is not a lawyer because even the most dense minded lawyer knows an immigrant facing deportation back to his country (e.g., China, Dominican Republic, or any other 3rd world cesspool nation) will do anything he/she can to stay in this country rather than get sent back to a place where the average worker makes a few cents an hour to pick beans or assemble Apple products under the most inhumane and deplorable working conditions. Are you even old enough to remember the "Golden Venture" incident? Why don't you fucking google that story? It happened in the early '90s and it was about a group of 100 Chinese that spent over 110 days on a freighter en route to New York City. The average passenger pledged to pay $35K just to get into this country. Most of these Chinese immigrants were going to work off the debt by working in sewing sweatshops on Mott Street and giving handjobs at massage parlors in Chinatown. So don't give me this shit about an illegal alien not ponying up money to stay in this country. Maybe nowadays things are different with legalzoom and newbie lawyers charging "chump change" for taking an immigration case. But any old-timer immigration practitioner can vouch that from 1985 (the Reagan Amnesty) to 2001 (Clinton Amnesty), it was a great time to be an immigration attorney.

      As for setting up bank accounts and safe deposit boxes, are you that fucking naive? Back in the day, illegal immigrants could get a valid (not phony) Maryland's driver's license. A social security card was also easy to obtain if you applied for asylum affirmatively or temporary protective status. With a worker's authorization, a social security card and a Maryland's DL, an illegal alien could open a bank account. Hell, even as far back as 2007, an illegal alien could open a bank account at Bank of America without any documentation. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp

      I sure hope you are not a lawyer. If you are, then you must one stupid mark to allow your clients to lowball and pay you $500 to take their case.

      Delete
    6. @925,

      Riiiiight - because someone charging $20,000 for a matchmaking service has just as much negotiating power as a ship captain in China who is willing to ferry people on a dangerous and lengthy trip across the Pacific Ocean. How naive of me - I forgot that people will do ANYTHING to stay here - like paying $20K for a matchmaking service that they could handle themselves for free.

      Delete
    7. P.S. for 925,

      Will the FRUGAL immigrants also pay me $100,000 for a Big Mac with cheese? By your logic, they certainly will, because THEY ARE THAT DESPERATE TO STAY. It doesn't matter if they can buy the Big Mac somewhere else for $2.50 - because THEY WANT TO STAY, and that's all that matters. Um, apparently.

      My God, you are such a fucking imbecile, 925. I'm sure glad that you aren't MY attorney, you dumbass.

      Delete
  8. continued

    The immigration prosecutors resented Marv because they envied his success. Most government attorneys are hacks who hide behind the safety of working for the government. These govt. attorneys make in the low $100K range and work only 4 days a week (they supposedly work 1 day at home but we all know that is bullshit). Marv told me that a rookie mistake of an immigration lawyer was trying to be friendly with the government trial attorneys. He said that was a common mistake as most govt. attorneys look down on immigration solos with disdain. The judges also feel the same way for that manner. In fact, immigration judges will often deny your client's defense since they know most are too destitute to file an appeal. Marv's retainer for a BIA appeal was $20K. If a client said he didn't have the money, Marv would tell them "enjoy the flight back to your rice or banana eating republic." Not surprisingly, most of his clients would come up with the money someway or somehow. You see, most immigrants send money back home to their relatives. The relatives buy properties with this money so whenever the immigrant in the States needs quick cash, the relative sells the property and wires the proceeds to the immigrant who in turn paid Marv's retainer fee. So kids, don't fall for the immigrant clients who say they are poor and have no money. If they use that line that means they think you are a desperate mark who will take any case for chump change.

    In the end, immigration is a dead end practice. If you do it right, you can make money. But if you are letting clients lowball your fees, then you will never get ahead. Marv eventually got tired of the same bs at the EOIR. When Clinton signed the 3 month amnesty law in late 2000, he saw an opportunity to cash out. Looking back I don't blame him.

    One last word on this subject. Marv would often describe immigration court as a kangaroo court. To him it was a three circus where it is you (the immigration lawyer) v. 3 animals (e.g., the govt. prosecutor, immigration judge, and your own client who will turn on you when the case goes south--and it usually will). Immigration law is probably the shittiest practice area of the law.Unless you are doing immigration the way Marv did, you are only bidding your time before you burnout and realize you have nothing in the bank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was highly entertaining but I can't find that it was posted anywhere else. Do you have a blog?

      Delete
    2. I posted Marv's story in the comments section of the previous article by Nando. I don't have a blog. Honestly I don't know why I am telling these stories as they are so sad it makes you want to cry inside. In 1995, I thought about retiring and heading to Scottsdale, AZ and live my twilight years. But here I am at 62 still toiling away and chasing a shrinking pool of paying clients. There are too many lawyers out there who don't know what the fuck they are doing and it is hurting my bottom line. For example, in PI cases, the standard contingency fee is 33%. Newbie solos have lowered that percentage to as low as 18%. DWI cases used to be my bread and butter and I would charge $3K a pop for those, $5K if it went to trial and another $5K for an appeal. Nowadays, I have seen newbie solos charge as little as $400, that's right FOUR HUNDRED FUCKING MISERABLE dollars for a DWI. I haven't done a DWI case since 2007 as I can't bother doing those cases for less than $3K.

      Also, newbie lawyers have caused my malpractice insurance to increase exponentially. My carrier says there are too many claims against inexperienced newbies so everyone else has to pay for their fuckups. So yes, I blame the law schools for creating the crisis in this "profession" and I wholeheartedly agree with the message of this blog's owner.

      Delete
    3. @642,

      You should set up a matchmaking service. I have it on good authority that people get paid $20,000 per client for that little service.

      LOL

      Delete
    4. 8:42PM

      If you are going to participate in a grown-up conversation, at least keep up with the reading comprehension. No immigrant will pay $20K for matchmaking marriage services because there hasn't been an immigration amnesty law passed (with the magnitude of the Reagan or Clinton amnesty) in this country in over 15 years. Obama is full of shit with all that amnesty talk. He could have passed complete amnesty between 2008 and 2010 when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress.

      Without amnesty, I am afraid there isn't much demand for a USC bride or groom. But keep choking that $500 chicken.

      Delete
    5. Here is another example of an immigration lawyer who netted millions off of the immigration fraud scam in New York:

      http://www.voanews.com/content/ny-lawyers-immigration-fraud-scheme-netted-millions-of-dollars-prosecutors-say-138367949/175010.html

      Unlike Marv, this guy was charging $30K per pop. And he had about 25,000 clients. And what about this other immigration attorney, who made $35M in 6 years by scamming the immigration system:

      http://www.fosterquan.com/news/falsifying_imm_papers092409.pdf

      So you see, if you are a lawyer charging $500 for immigration services, you are obviously getting taken by the "poor" illegal aliens.

      Delete
    6. 62? My Era lawyer. None of us did the doc review circuit, and you conjured up those stories too. Good try. Truly, if you are not, you should be writing short stories.

      Delete
    7. @946,

      "No immigrant will pay $20K for matchmaking marriage services because there hasn't been an immigration amnesty law passed in this country in over 15 years."

      Give it up, dude - no illegal immigrant has ever paid $20K for a matchmaking service. Ever.

      Legit legal services, such as fighting a decade-long deportation attempt by the Feds? Check - they'll pay for that. But a matchmaking service? No way. Your story about people essentially printing money by doing minimal work and matchmaking is a fantasy - it simply doesn't add up.

      Delete
    8. P.S. for 9:46,

      For someone who places such a high premium on "reading comprehension," you should try it yourself sometime. You completely mischaracterized both of the news stories that you cited at 11:14. The shitlawyers didn't make "millions" - the company that paid her $500 to fill out the fraudulent applications? THEY made millions of dollars.

      If you're going to cite a story, try reading it first, dumbass.

      Delete
    9. The Leroy story too was cute. The caricature of a criminal client being represented, unethically, due to lack of competence, by a pi lawyer.

      Delete
    10. Is this the lady relating to the Marv story?:

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/10/us-usa-new-york-marriages-idUSKBN0N11XS20150410

      Delete
  9. Since these guys seem like ones who wouldn't miss a chance to twist the knife, I imagine they'll head to bankruptcy court to get out of obligations to both the ABA and state.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/charleston-school-of-law-to-close/

    Orin Kerr of the well-known trap school, George Wa$hington Univer$ity Law Sewer, wrote a Washington Post piece entitled “Charleston School of Law to Close?” – on May 7, 2015. Here is the entirety of his article:

    “With law school applications down and a number of law schools struggling, there has been speculation about whether or how many schools might close. William Mitchell and Hamline recently announced their merger, which amounts to an indirect shutdown of one. Now news reports suggest that the Charleston School of Law may be about to start the process of shutting down:

    The Charleston School of Law may not accept a class of first-year students in the fall, according to a statement from the school’s two remaining co-founders.

    Retired [politicians in black robes] Robert Carr and George Kosko spoke to faculty and staff members today about the school’s future.

    “We cannot in good faith enroll another class when, like last year, the school is spending more money than is coming in; when we cannot assure the students that they will be able to use federal student loans for their full three years; and when we cannot be sure the school will be able to maintain its license and stay open,” Carr and Kosko said in a joint statement. The two added that they are heartbroken over the situation. . . .

    A formal announcement is expected next week.

    It’s not a formal announcement, but it’s not a good sign either. The Post and Courier explains:

    American Bar Association and state rules prohibit the school from simply closing its doors. If the board decides to close the school, it would have to submit a “teach-out” plan that details how students who already are enrolled would finish their education programs.”

    Anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes that pigs Carr and Kosko are only heartbroken that they didn’t walk away with MORE money from the federal government, via student loans. Also, only a “law professor” could look at this announcement and be sad.

    For $ome rea$on, these academics/pieces of trash never lament the fact that THOUSANDS of law grads – each damn year – are FINANCIALLY RUINED because they received a “legal education.” It is CLEAR that these “educators” view students as expendable. Why give “collateral damage” a second thought?!?! After all, the bitches and hags simply MUST rake in $180K+ annually – for “working” 4-6 hours per week, right?! You, the student, are a mere means to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The real problem is not the law schools or the deans. Its the federally guaranteed money. If you stop the federally guaranteed money, these chop shop law schools will not exist.

    I mean you seem like your mad at the founders of the law school. But they didn't actually do anything wrong. They just filed some paperwork. They didn't force anyone to enroll. The saying goes that "rich people are made from many happy customers," and that's what happened here. These guys had a first-year class of 125 students, and that was BEFORE THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE ABA. Who were these idiots that enrolled? I don't know and I don't care. But they were happy idiots; I bet you they hung their acceptance letters on their refrigerators, and posted on facebook, and felt all good about themselves. Remember, most of these kids would not have gotten in to any other law schools (I'm guessing the average LSAT was probably 130).

    But the real problem is that they had the money to pay for this shithole. And that was because they weren't paying with hard-earned money. They were paying "free" money, given to them by the federal government. If these people had to pay out of pocket, this school would have never opened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the federal money is certainly a problem. You can say it's the biggest problem.

      The DOE and Arnie Duncan are very much at fault. It was their job to check employment outcomes and condition the release of money on something. When people died in WTC or their homes wrecked by tornadoes or hurricanes, or even for things as simple as food stamps or welfare, the government has checks in place and requires proof of need on a continuing basis. They don't just hand the money over. But for student loans, it's a blank check.

      The law schools are at fault too because the media, government and older adults all espoused education and so at some point the law schools should have had a moral obligation. I know people like to think morality is a joke, but we should be better than that. Morality built this nation and every successful civilization prior. It is said that the first thing to go is morality when an empire begins to collapse. It's certainly not nothing. And if that doesn't do it for you, well we know the statistics were fraudulent, and on the face of the law that's supposed to be criminal behavior. The fact that it isn't, is because the courts, the government and others just lack that morality. What is "justice" but the enforcement of morality? When we're going to just throw morality away, it's obvious justice follows soon after and the system doesn't work.

      I look at law schools like a penny stock. The pink sheets are full of fraudulent shell game fly by night operations, where the executives aren't really trying to run a company but instead are looking to take money out of it for themselves. Now you can say anybody that dumps money in a pink is a fool, and that's true they pretty much are. It works out very rarely. But at least I assume most know it's a losing gamble. Now imagine if the federal government came in and was willing to write a blank check, no questions asked, if someone wanted to "invest" in these penny schemes. Imagine if even worse, the government promoted it as "investing in retirement" and constantly advertised it. They'd probably get a lot of suckers into the scam, and the penny stock operators would become very wealthy while the "investors" and taxpayers would get screwed.

      At that point, you can't just let the government and the penny stock criminals go and just blame the regular suckers. When this type of thing happens, and that's exactly what happened with law school, you have to look at the actors that had the information, look at who benefited the most, and then primarily blame them. The government and schools both have a general duty to the public, in exchange for being allowed their status and power that they have. There are responsibilities with the special status they have been given.

      Well, IMO anyway.

      Delete
  12. http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150506/PC16/150509575

    'The college has been in turmoil since owners in 2013 announced that a sale to InfiLaw was in the works. Many students, faculty and members of the state’s legal community are opposed to a sale to InfiLaw because they think the company’s three law schools have lower standards than the Charleston school. Becoming an InfiLaw school will decrease the value of a Charleston School of Law degree, they have said.'

    You can decrease the value of shit? I did not know that was possible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Honestly, these people should be shunned for ruining a potentially good (better than bad) school. There's only one other school in the state and Charleston is a much more desirable location than Columbia, SC even with the state capitol in Columbia. It should have been relatively easy to get employment coming from 1 of 2 law schools in the state. Even with South Carolina's relatively small size. How do you screw that up? Oh, that's right, you take $25 million in profits out and go count your money in stead of building your school. Because that's not what is important. Damn shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many law schools does a bullshit state like South Carolina need? One at most.

      Delete
  14. The owners sucking out $25 million, just shows you how fucked up legal education has become. How many law students got crushed under huge debt, going to this garbage pit law school, so these owners could cash out? It should be criminal. They caused more economic damage than a hundred bank robbers. Law faculty are scum. Law schools are run for the benefit of law faculty. The whole system and their stupid tenure should be scrapped. The ABA has no balls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How many law students got crushed under huge debt, going to this garbage pit law school, so these owners could cash out? It should be criminal."

      I don't mean to insult you, and I know your heart is in the right place, but you sound childish. Of course the founders are going to take out that $25 million. That's how investments work. And truth be told, investing that $25 million back into the law school would be such a waste of money. How is it going to help the school? More "prestigious" faculty? New desks in the library? Pleassssseee. It would not have helped even one more person get a job. Because that's not the problem. The problem is an oversaturated legal market. Supply-and-demand. There are more lawyers than there is need for lawyers. Simple.

      And how did we get this influx of lawyers? Because of federally guaranteed money. Even though history has shown us that the federal government is an inefficient dictator of the marketplace, the federal government decided to guarantee student loan money because it feels that "higher education" is a priority. Nevermind that you and me realize that higher education is a sham. Moreover, the government placed no checks or real limits on the amount that can be taken out. So tuition prices rise, and so do students' debt. In fact, the federal government is basically encouraging students to go to law school, and it's encouraging these founders to open law school. If these guys didn't open this law school someone else would have.

      And what I don't think you appreciate is that the founders DID fulfill their obligations students. They provided them with a "legal education" that allowed them to sit for the bar exam. That's it. That's all law schools really are supposed to do if you think about it. Now, don't get me wrong, I know they used many shady recruiting tactics (e.g. fudging employment stats, bait-and-switch scholarships, outright lying about how much fun and good for you law school is), but in any other profession, that's called marketing. I mean no one is going to tell you their product sucks. And don't get me wrong, I still think their assholes for that, and I'll throw tomatoes at them with you. I mean, hell, I'm a victim just like you. But what enables them to do that is the federal student loan money. If people had to pay for law school with hard-earned money, most of these would never have went to these crap schools.

      Delete
    2. NO.

      The owners have False Claims Act liability if they really acted in bad faith to take money necessary to run the school out of it.

      One is not permitted to make representations to prospective students to induce enrollment and/or current students to induce continued enrollment that implicitly and explicitly promise continued operation of the school, including the ability to complete a degree at the school, access to continued career services placement, job placement rates, etc. etc.

      If one is REALLY taking money from the federal student loan system with the intention to distribute all that money as "profit" and not leave enough to fulfill the purpose for which the claim was paid by the federal government they definitely have False Claims Act liability - just a species of fraud. The only question is of presenting enough evidence to nail them for it.

      The Charleston crew should be prosecuted, just as many for-profit scams before them have been on similar grounds by the DOJ.

      Delete
    3. To 12:31:

      "and not leave enough to fulfill the purpose for which the claim was paid by the federal government"

      The purpose of a law school is to allow someone eligibility to sit for the bar exam. This school did that. The founders were able to get ABA accreditation (note that many of these crap schools don't even have that; also, remember that 125 students willingly enrolled in this place BEFORE IT WAS EVEN ACCREDITED BY THE ABA)

      Now look, as I've said, I know they engaged in shitty practices such as fudging employment numbers, bait-and-switch scholarships, and leading people to believe that the legal market was good when it wasn't. But you know who else did this: my parents, other lawyers in the profession, hollywood, my neighbors, etc. I didn't enroll because founders of law school told me to. I enrolled because alot of other people told me to.

      Finally, the real truth is that these founders are doing their students a favor by shutting this place down. That's probably the nicest thing any law school has done for its students.

      Delete
    4. No, wrong. The a-hole made reference to the school's LEGAL DUTIES under the HEA when he gave that little speech that someone leaked on Youtube.

      They are not ALLOWED to enroll new students when they cannot demonstrate in good faith they will be able to complete a degree at the program. You could go common law fraud with it if you wanted.

      You're clearly not a lawyer. Not even close. It is not longer disputable that what all the ABA law schools did when they lied about their placement was FRAUD. Turns out they had fiduciary duties the whole time - as Corinthian learned - when they tried to claim a student had been placed when she was employed at Taco Bell. They had fiduciary duties to US - and if you knew anything about the law of fiduciaries, you'd know that. That's more than enough for fraud, when a fiduciary duty is involved.

      SO PLEASE. THESE ACTS ARE CIVILLY ILLEGAL. THESE GUYS ARE FRAUDS WHO STOLE FROM STUDENTS AND THE FEDS.

      We need ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS.

      Delete
  15. I wonder if Concordia in Idaho will fall soon. I believe last fall there was a major exodus of students.

    I still can't believe people fall for the law school scam and enroll in law school.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Law school: Drop it like it's hot...

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/05/law-school-cuts-graduation-events-to-protect-profits/

    On May 6, 2015, Joe Patrice posted an excellent ATL piece labeled “Law School Cuts Graduation Events To Protect Profits.” The subject is Charleston Sewer of Law. Look at the following excerpt:

    “Homer: You know, Mr. Burns, you’re the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.

    Mr. Burns: Yes, but I’d trade it all for a little more.

    If there’s one topic in the industry perfectly captured by the above exchange, it’s the saga ofCharleston School of Law — a private school founded in 2003 that turned millions in profits before its founders saw even more cash in the offing and tried to secure a massive buyout from the InfiLaw system. Since then regulators keep nixing the deal and now it’s anyone’s guess what will ever become of poor little Charleston.

    Now the two men running the school, multi-millionaires George Kosko and Robert Carr, are grasping for cartoonish levels of cynicism by canceling graduation events. To save a little cash:

    The troubled law school’s two-member board cut the traditional post-commencement reception from its budget this year — despite pulling in $25 million in profit from the school between 2010 and 2013. The move has pushed student and alumni groups to take up a collection to cover the cost, said Matt Kelly, president of the Student Bar Association.

    The scary part of this paragraph is that it’s slightly misleading. Charleston didn’t “pull[] in $25 million in profit” those years, “the two-member board” sucked that much profit out of the school those years. Let that sink in. A school that had $25 million in profits — not revenue, but profits — to hand out and that continues to charge students over $100,000 each for their legal education, has balked at dropping a few thousand dollars for a catered lunch.

    You’re Charleston! This is the last meal these kids will enjoy before you release them to a lifetime of underemployment! I know it’s difficult for plutocrats to look outside themselves, but you owe them this event.

    The board members whine that declining enrollment and the turmoil surrounding the avaricious and boneheaded earnest attempt to sell the school to InfiLaw have forced them into eliminating the outdoor reception that usually follows graduation. Note that we’re not talking about a banquet where they eat Beluga caviar off naked tax professors — it’s a damn picnic. The SBA and the local bar association are kicking in to raise the $6,000 they need to hold a simple replacement event. Check between the cushions, guys.”

    This speaks VOLUMES about cockroaches George Kosko and Robert Carr. A filthy litterbox has more integrity than these two bastards combined! As I pointed out in the main entry, for those members of the Charle$TTTTon SOL Class of 2014 who took out law school student loans, the average figure was $147,031. The owner pigs took $25 million in loot, on the backs of students and taxpayers. Now, the dung beetles will not shell out a few thousand bucks for a graduation picnic. In a just world, both of these swine would have an apple shoved in their snouts - with a stick shoved up their asses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the condemned get a last meal.

      Delete
    2. Well, my law school didn't even set out any fucking cookies or coffee. Still, $6000 is a trifling amount. They could have reduced it to $600 and served shitty finger food rather than a picnic. But, no, they want to suck up every goddamn penny.

      Delete
  18. http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=89607

    On May 6, 2015, at 6:15 pm, JDU accountholder “3rdamendmentscholar” started a thread labeled “Sayonara, CSOL.” Scroll down to see an epic response from poster “jackiechiles” – from May 7, 2015 at 10:12 am:

    http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=89607#post1224551

    “Friend of mine sent this to me. A CSOL professor posted this on his facebook feed:

    1. The vast majority of the Law School's revenue comes from loans subsidized by the United States Government using tax dollars. Thus, the "free enterprise" profits we are talking about are not the profits of a "free market" business.

    2. Between 2010 and 2013 alone, the Board EXTRACTED 25 million dollars of profit from the Law School. That profit was largely comprised, if not entirely comprised, of money stemming from loans subsidized by the United States Government.

    3. At the same time, the Board EXTRACTED several more million dollars from the School's "rainy day" fund.

    4. When the School was seeking reaccreditation from the ABA, the ABA asked the Board how it would handle the potential of budget shortfalls. The Board responded that the Board would make capital contributions if necessary.

    5. The Board has not voted for or made capital contributions in at least the past two years.

    6. When the School announced the Asset Purchase Agreement between it and InfiLaw, students, alumni, the faculty, and the local community responded negatively.

    7. As of this moment, the Board and InfiLaw have been unable to acquire the necessary regulatory approval to complete the transfer.

    8. For at least a year, Robert Carr and George Kosko have repeatedly told the Faculty that the School's options were to accept InfiLaw of face dire consequences. When these statements were initially made, the "dire consequences" were framed as terminations and non-renewals. For at least the past several months, the options have been framed as "accept InfiLaw or the School will close".

    9. The ostensible reason that this binary choice exists is because the School is financially unstable.

    10. Over the course of at least the past year, at least one person---Ed Westbrook---has offered to purchase the School. Admittedly, the purchase price would not net Bob Carr and George Kosko the LARGE expected profits they stand to make from the InfiLaw transaction.

    11. Bob Carr and George Kosko have characterized this offer---and perhaps others---as "non-viable". When pressed, however, Bob Carr has admitted---during a faculty meeting---that "he is not a rich man" and that the profits he stands to acquire through the InfiLaw transaction are a substantial portion of "his retirement". Thus, he is unwilling to donate his shares to save the School. Important note here: No one other than Ed Westbrook initially contributed money to start the School. Rather, Ed Westbrook was the only initial contributor. Ed Westbrook then GAVE shares to Bob Carr and George Kosko. Those shares HAVE ALREADY netted them millions of dollars each. What we are talking about now is HOW MUCH MORE they can get.

    12. Yesterday, Bob Carr told the Faculty and Staff we should call InfiLaw as soon as possible and beg it to return to the negotiating table. We were further told we should be prepared to pledge to publically support the InfiLaw transaction "with the students, the public, and in front of the Commission on Higher Education". We were told that if we were unwilling to do that, the Board intended to announce closure.”

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://lawlemmings.tumblr.com/post/118829130842/official-response-to-charleston-school-of-law

    Check out the official response, to the Charleston SOL pigs’ statement, from Law School Lemmings. Enjoy!

    If you are a graduate of this commode, perhaps you can sing along – while you wipe your ass with your Fourth Tier Charleston SOL law degree! Hell, two-ply toilet paper has a higher value than a diploma from this dung heap.

    http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+7

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you idiot Lemmings get it now? Or do you still need to be whapped over the head with a steel bat? The Boomer is complaining about supporting his retirement using the Infilaw sales proceeds. 'Scuse me, but like one poster wrote above, they have already cashed out $25 MILLION from the school over 3 years.. And this dude is complaining because he can't now cash out *again*?!?

    Do you idiots see how America works now? Seriously? Do you SEE IT NOW?!?

    One is a clown, the other is a black-robed politician. They're worried about their retirements? What, do you suppose, are there indentured Debt-Serfs - known as graduates - supposed to do about their retirements when they are crushed under non-dischargeable debt?

    Do you GET IT??

    These hackademics do not care ONE BIT about their students. ONLY THEMSELVES and THEIR FUTURES. And they do NOT care that their prosperity comes at others' great expense and ruin.

    To the graduates of Charleston: Your TTTT degree ain't worth SHIT. It's worth in the NEGATIVE. Less than the paper it was printed on.

    The carnival barker has sold you a worthless ticket for 6 figures to the show. Know what that show is? It's your life being completely wrecked idiots.. You will NEVER get out from under this for the rest of your lives.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There's a video of the announcement being read by the fed magistrate jerk-offs that was clandestinely taken, linked on JDU.

    ReplyDelete
  22. http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=90028

    On May 13, 2015 at 7:38 pm, JDU denizen “jackiechiles” started a thread entitled “Charleston school of law leaked faculty meeting video.” Look at his original post:

    “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlJxfOJFvao&feature=youtu.be

    Looks like they're meeting in a gutted classroom. At the end he tells the faculty to look around to see what could be like some sort of intimidation tactic.”

    Later that day, at 11:04 pm, user “stillajd” supplied this response:

    ‘"There are no suitors, no white knights...seeking the law school." Wow.”

    Do any of you still think that InfiLaw will purchase this dung heap?!?! By the way, the state licensing board would also need to approve the sale.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlJxfOJFvao&feature=youtu.be

    The setting is pretty eerie. Hell, it appears to be an abandoned basement or telemarketing boiler room. Here is my favorite portion of this – at the 1:10 mark of the video:

    “The people still do not understand the dire situation of the school. It is as dire as it has ever been. With the failure to complete the Westbrook InfiLaw transaction and InfiLaw’s decision to retreat, the school is left back in the same position it was in, in December. There are no suitors, no white knights, no group of investors, no state colleges, no private colleges, either profit or non-profit, seeking the law school. As we have said for almost two years now, InfiLaw is and always has been the only viable option for the survival of the school.”

    Did anyone else notice that this meeting was as somber as a funeral? You KNOW that the “law professors” at this toilet are soiling themselves. How else will they be able to make bank while “serving” students’ needs?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=90028

    On May 13, 2015 at 7:38 pm, JDU denizen “jackiechiles” started a thread entitled “Charleston school of law leaked faculty meeting video.” Look at his original post:

    “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlJxfOJFvao&feature=youtu.be

    Looks like they're meeting in a gutted classroom. At the end he tells the faculty to look around to see what could be like some sort of intimidation tactic.”

    Later that day, at 11:04 pm, user “stillajd” supplied this response:

    ‘"There are no suitors, no white knights...seeking the law school." Wow.”

    Do any of you still think that InfiLaw will purchase this dung heap?!?! By the way, the state licensing board would also need to approve the sale.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlJxfOJFvao&feature=youtu.be

    The setting is pretty eerie. Hell, it appears to be an abandoned basement or telemarketing boiler room. Here is my favorite portion of this – at the 1:10 mark of the video:

    “The people still do not understand the dire situation of the school. It is as dire as it has ever been. With the failure to complete the Westbrook InfiLaw transaction and InfiLaw’s decision to retreat, the school is left back in the same position it was in, in December. There are no suitors, no white knights, no group of investors, no state colleges, no private colleges, either profit or non-profit, seeking the law school. As we have said for almost two years now, InfiLaw is and always has been the only viable option for the survival of the school.”

    Did anyone else notice that this meeting was as somber as a funeral? You KNOW that the “law professors” at this toilet are soiling themselves. How else will they be able to make bank while “serving” students’ needs?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZg_ALxEz0

    Coffee's for closers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aaaand - the LITTLE ROACHIE on the YouTube!

      He haets to work ... he haets working soooo very much.

      Delete
  25. Looks like the scam movement is about to have its first scalp with csol soon to close.

    In more good news had my a/c repaired today. Tech was really clean cut kid who didn't fit the stereotype of hvac repairman. He told me that he graduated from local university with marine biology degree. He said law school was a joke so he got into hvac repair and has done well. He has good biz a kid on the way and building his first house. How many TTTT grads can say that from beneath their student debt loads?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pace is against the ropes. Let the layoffs begin.
    Recall last March when they announced a fire sale?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/03/18/law-school-fire-sale-pace-offers-to-match-in-state-public-tuition/

    ReplyDelete
  27. The human mind is exquisitely adept at gaming the system.

    All of the struggling ("problematic" class) law school administrations are eyeing their burgeoning deficits, and some date between today and the first day of Fall classes, by which the "go-no go" decision has to be made. Administrators have to consider staff contract dates, tuition payment dates, students-arriving-on-campus dates, students letting apartment (year long leases) dates, etc., to consider in determining whether to shut down, or not. If the school is running a deficit, the decision is whether to lock in another loss, to be redeemed by future revenues or subsidies, or to call it quits while not so far behind. These decisions must be taken well in advance of Fall arrivals on campus. And so, you can rest assured they are taking place now.

    Law professors are intimately aware of these considerations. Their futures at their current law schools hand in the balance, and each knows that the longer they delay jumping ship, the tighter the market for their professorial skills. At stake are their pensions, their home equity investment, and their future employment. They know that they have no book of business to transport to a law firm. They may be not as poorly situated as their students, or recent grads, but I would not hire any one of them, regardless of reputation. My practice could not support another mouse. (I don't know for sure, but I don't think one needs a law license to be a professor. I would think every law professor passed the bar exam somewhere, and probably kept licensed, but it may not be in a jurisdiction where they are currently living or where they might practice law if no longer teaching.) Schools also apparently have ABA requirements of some sort to abide by, and they will only complicate the school's decision.
    The law students-they have little real life perspective on these matters. I have practiced nearly 4 decades as a solo. I don't understand it all, but the bottom 100 schools are all at risk, whether total closure, or the loss of so many students that the schools' hallways will appear like ghost towns. Students will have worthless degrees, huge amounts of debt, no work. It is a horror.
    Engineering graduates are getting jobs at $45,000 salary. They have 4 years undergrad tuition of $20,000 or so per year. Many, many law grads have the same debt from undergrad, AND $140,000 to $210,000 in tuition expense (debt and paid outright), to get the same salary of $45,000. So what are the job prospects of an engineering grad compared to a law grad? (Someone who knows, fill in this blank.)
    Do not go to law school. I have said it before, my 3 sons will not be lawyers. I could give them a going concern law practice, and I will not condemn them to the life I have had. Period. (Oh, and my practice cannot pay off YOUR DEBT even were I to give it to you.)

    Cincinnatus


    ReplyDelete
  28. And so, to continue my "calm rant" against the madness of incurring $210,000 in expense for a law school education…(I use that number as my law school is at $67,000 per year for cost to attend-about $70,000 per year x 3 and voila.) I am not a fan of the average DEBT law students have, as that loses the portion that someone has paid out-of-pocket. There is generally no debt service on the portion someone has so paid, but it was spent, and I see no reason to diminish the total cost. The student's parents have probably sacrificed terribly to fund some portion of the law school tuition of their child.
    My parent DIED thinking that I was something of a failure as I did not find a job out of law school for 2-1/2 years. I was in the top 10% of my high school class, graduated from undergrad in 7 semesters, and from law school in 5 semesters plus one summer school, in the (just) top 25% of my class. My school was ranked about #21, by the USNWR folks (having fallen about 20 spaces recently for falsifying student credentials. "Trustworthy." Some of you will know where that comes from-and you will know where I come from.)
    Anyway, I am into giving "real life" advice.
    So, you graduate from law school with $100,000 in debt and actually find a job at $50,000 per year.
    You need to assess your situation.
    Your job, does it pay your health insurance? Life Insurance? Any contribution to a retirement plan? If not, you will need to make allowance for them.
    Oh, and you will need suits, or business outfits, if female. (The males may have it cheaper on this account, but being male, I am not sure, but there may be a difference.) You will need transportation. A place to live. FOOD. (Yeah, really.)
    My health insurance is $1,500 per month for me, my spouse and one child. We are all in good health.
    So, in rough numbers, your income taxes are $10,000, your health insurance is $7,000, rent is $10,200, transportation is $6,000, food = rent is $10,200, all totaling $43,400. If your debt service is $900 a month, that is another $10,800. You have exceeded your annual income. These numbers are rough. Admittedly. (I have 5 years of HS math, and 13 credit hours of calculus in undergrad, and math is my friend, unlike most attorneys.) But a $50,000 income is not much, sad to say.
    So, NOW you want a new car, to buy a house, to get married, to have children, to take a vacation (I have 28 weeks of vacation in 38 years of practice-NONE paid-as a solo, no one pays me to do nothing-I did have 2-1/2 years of unpaid vacation as I looked for a job after graduation), to paint the house, to buy some flowers for the garden, to eat out, oh well………
    So why would YOU do THIS to YOURSELF???
    Please do not do so.
    Cincinnatus (38 year solo)

    ReplyDelete
  29. The choir and gribble knows that I am in the trenches, but I need the 0l's to listen.

    (I have sacrificed my retirement so that my 3 sons will have a future that has NOTHING to do with the law.) One is a radiologist, another a civil engineer, and the 3rd, well we are working on it.

    Law school is a HORRIBLE gamble unless you can CONTROL ALL of the variables from undergrad to employment as a J.D. (READ: Mom or dad is the senior partner in a law firm, they are willing to pay your entire law school tuition without you repaying them, and you have a guaranteed job in that firm. Then, even then, you are probably making a mistake, unless you understand the day to day work of an attorney in that environment and want to do that type of work.)

    Cincinnatus (38 year solo)

    ReplyDelete
  30. So, let the "calm rant" continue.
    I come from an "unusual" family. My dad was 3rd (or better, but he would have been valedictorian or salutatorian, and he was not, so 3rd) in his high school class of about 600 or so. My mom was salutatorian of her hight school class. My older brother missed 3 questions on the SAT.

    I am an idiot. I work VERY HARD and get by. I am the lawyer-2 degrees. Mom, Dad, and my genius brother and youngest sister have one degree. My sister 3 years younger than me also has 2 degrees, but it is a one year degree, not a 3 year professional degree. So, I figure that though I have the highest level of education, I am the dumbest of the lot.

    My law school tuition was $1,100 per year. YEAR. At that time, my father's income was $35,000 per year. My mother, holding a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me that my father was in the top 1/2 of 1% of wage earners in the country at that time.

    So, folks, sit down. So what does that mean???

    Well, one of my sons attended a private engineering University where the tuition was $23,000. So, and what???

    Well, FOR ME TO KEEP EVEN WITH MY DAD, MY LAW SCHOOL TUITION TO MY SON'S UNDERGRAD TUITION, I would need to earn $731,818 in annual income. (How would I like to do that ONCE.)

    So, you think you are on the upper side of the curve, have some advantage, and want to pay into that????

    I am lucky to make 10% of that number working a whole year-about twice what my dad made 40 years ago. Tuition rates are simply outrageous.

    These are all real world numbers. You can argue against gravity, but then, you are not as smart as Newton.

    Cincinnatus (38 year solo)

    ReplyDelete
  31. And the "calm rant" continues…..

    You 0L's, need to take what you find here, discuss it with your parents, they have paid mortgages, tuition, car loans, health insurance premiums, and tried to save for retirement.

    Ask THEM if the comments you find here are true and accurate. Whether the financial factors raised here are going to affect you and BY HOW MUCH? A dollar a year is insignificant, but if 3 or 5 or 8 percent of your income, per month, may make a great difference.

    Do not let ANYONE talk or shame you into becoming a lawyer because of the "prestige" of it.

    There is no "prestige" and in fact, PRESTIGE works against you as everyone you deal with BELIEVES that you are rich-because you are an attorney-and they will refuse to pay you as you "already have enough money."

    You don't. I don't.

    Cincinnatus (38 year solo)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I saw a "Nando 1" plate in my town just yesterday.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics