Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Wall Street Journal Law Blogs Reports on Pigs/Judges in Black Robes Dismissing Fraud Suits Against ABA-Accredited Toilets

The Article: On October 15, 2015, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog featured a Sara Randazzo piece that was entitled “Jobless Grads Who Sued Law Schools Find More Rejection in Court.” Read this opening:

“Back in 2011, disgruntled law school graduates thought they found a way to recover some of their bad investment—by suing their alma maters for alleged fraud. 

The proposed class actions started in San Diego and spread across the country, with at least 15 law schools accused of misleading recruits about their chances of finding decent-paying jobs. 

In the years since, courts have knocked out the suits one by one, including the dismissal last week of a suit in Florida. Of the few that remain, none have been certified as a class action, meaning any recovery will be limited to individual plaintiffs. 

The suits, which challenge the accuracy of the employment statistics and salary data reported by the schools, hit the courts during a particularly acute crisis point for would-be lawyers. Layoffs were rampant across the legal industry, and jobs were in short supply. 

But courts didn’t buy the argument that the schools, most with low national rankings, defrauded applicants with misleading job placement numbers. 

Last week, a U.S. district court judge in Florida, quoting an earlier decision tossing a suit against New York Law School, said prospective students at Florida Coastal School of Law are “‘a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives.’” 

In dismissing the case, the Florida judge said the plaintiffs knew Florida Coastal had some of the lowest admissions standards in the country, and because of that, a rosy employment statistic “would have been a red flag to a reasonable consumer.” The plaintiffs alleged Florida Coastal masked how many graduates held jobs actually requiring a law degree. 

Michael Volpe, a Venable partner who defended New York Law School and Florida Coastal, said he believes the suits “had no basis in law or fact.” Educational institutions, he said, don’t “have an obligation to guarantee employment, nor did they ever guarantee employment.” [Emphasis mine]

The cockroaches never tire of chirping the line about how “educational institutions don’t guarantee employment.” The fact remains that these garbage corporations deliberately posted skewed and artificially high employment “placement” rates on their brochures, websites and recruiting CDs – for the purpose of attracting more applicants to their toilets. These pigs did not provide disclaimers on their websites, showing that the jobs included non-legal, part-time or temporary positions.

Other Coverage: On October 15, 2015, JDU poster “massivemissive” started a thread regarding this excrement. He used the same title as the Randazzo article, for his post. The following comment from “chicagojoe” – on the same day at 10:33 pm – sums this situation up perfectly:

“When the defendant in a fraud action has to rely on "but we told you we were lying!" and they still win at the pleading stage (usually), you know something has gone wrong in the judiciary. 

The law schools effectively argued that they were immune from liability because they were so egregious in their lies that no reasonable person would rely on them even though they clearly intended the consumers to rely on them and alleged sophisticated consumers they enrolled actually did rely on them. Student consumers are thus both sophisticated and mindbogglingly dumb at the same time. The mental gymnastics these courts hae gone through to justify this crap is a rather clear example of legal realism.” [Emphasis mine]

Also, take a look at this comment from user “ichininosan” – from October 15, 2015 - 4:01 pm:

“Prospective students at Florida Coastal School of Law are “‘a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives.’” 

Plaintiffs knew Florida Coastal had some of the lowest admissions standards in the country, and because of that, a rosy employment statistic “would have been a red flag to a reasonable consumer.”

Apparently, FC$L applicants are simultaneously sophisticated and unreasonable or idiotic! Anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes that the politicians in black dresses first reach the conclusion they want, and then find enough data to justify their decision. If you believe that “judges” look at all the evidence objectively, and achieve a decision based on reason and the facts of the case, then you truly are a na├»ve moron. In the suits against the law school, they chose – from the beginning – to protect the “educators” and administrators.

Hell, Bernard Madoff was hauled off to jail, for scamming fellow multi-millionaires, established trusts, banks, billionaires, development firms, etc. Those are the true sophisticated consumers and investors. Here is a list of his rich, greedy victims. You will notice names such as Brandeis University, Columbia University. They should have known better than to invest huge sums of money into his Ponzi scheme. However, these institutions and their officers suspended disbelief, because they were focused on getting big-ass results.  Yet, they were entitled to civil penalties.  Yes, that makes perfect sense, huh?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs have achieved a Pyrrhic victory. The fact remains that ABA-accredited diploma mills gamed the $y$tem, in order to artificially inflate their US “News” & World Report ranking and garner more applications. Even the pieces of trash known as federal “judges” don’t dispute that, people. Hell, in many of the decisions, these cockroaches have essentially declared “Yes, the law schools lied about their numbers. It should be obvious to anyone. And, by the way, those applying to these in$titution$ are sophisticated consumer of education services. Tough luck.” While these swine have been protected by their spiritual brethen in the judicial $y$tem, applications have continued to dwindle for several years. Some commodes have merged, and several trash pits have bought out “professor” contracts.  The bitches and hags are now desperate for applicants to enroll/financially ruin.


  1. As a 25 year solo with a 37K Schedule C last year with little work and one new client for three bills in the last two weeks, I am choking as I write this, the courts were correct. One of the first rules I learned in law school, when it was an HONOR to get into any one of the 175 ABA law schools, to file suit, you must prove actual DAMAGES and it can't be speculative. Hell, there is even an evidentiary objection "SPECULATION." Fraud is this:. I prevailed on a law suit against the now defunct General Motors Corporation and an Oldsmobile dealership because they advertised a used 2002 Alero for sale at $9500. The car was on the lot, but they refused to sell it at that. It was advertised in several sources at that price, and on line on GMs website. Bait and Switch. Or what VW did with the diesel emissions. See the difference? There were no outright, specific promises that these shit hole diploma mills (failure factories) made.

    1. lol. Ok, try to pull something similar against a banker or the government and watch how fast they railroad you for "fraud" or anything else they come up with.

      The law schools commit open fraud, but it's okay because they just targeted young, unconnected people that nobody cares about. Everything in the US is a scam, you're either a part of the scam or you get scammed, that's it.

    2. You're just the sort of useful idiot that keeps the college scam going. The sort of BS you spew is seen everywhere, not just in JDs, but I can't help LOL'ing at the fact you think a 4 year + 3 year degree + debt + lost earnings is worth making $37k as a self-employed person. You truly do get dumber the more schooling you get it seems. You know Wal-Mart is paying around $30k a year with benefits, and you could have done that right out of high school? What a joker!

      The sooner people realize that they were scammed by college, the better, but I can't tell you the amount of people who are sitting around fucked to all hell due to their degrees who don't dare damage their ego by saying they were fucked/ripped off/made a bad choise. They are sitting in minimum wage or close to it jobs, yet they still think that the debt, degree, and "how they learned to learn" is still worthwhile.

      It is not an HONOR to get into any of the 175 ABA law schools. While there are some tough schools to get into, there are also a large group of shit schools that will take anyone. They want your money. They grow by accepting more and more people (who obviously are less qualified, since it's not like people are becoming smarter) and expand the degrees with shit to keep you there longer. I've seen this across all graduate degrees.

      Your fraud example is a joke too. What kid of idiot client goes and gets a lawyer cause a dealership wouldn't sell them a car at a certain price? Did you charge the client like $500, cause I can't see how that could be worth it on any level for the buyer. Just go to another damn dealership, jeez!

  2. Times have changed. Go to a cheap law school. Become legal intern and gain experience. Graduate pass the bar then join the PD or Prosecutors office for one year.

    Use this experience to go private / criminal defense for $1500 misdemeanors and $2000 felony retainers. Also take court appointed cases from court overflow (jockey)once qualified.

    Always remember to become a lawyer is a calling! Public service first!

    1. Great, except in this market PD jobs are scarce and very competitive. As for prosecutor jobs, HA!

    2. The post at 9:03am was clearly written by someone who has never practiced law. PD and DA jobs are extremely tough to get-and almost impossible to get unless you're connected.

    3. These judges seem to ignore the relationship students have with teachers and deans. Students -- reasonably --look to teachers as mentors and guides and trusted advisors, and teachers and deans encourage students to think that way. Further, most schools are nonprofits (charities, the "noblest" category of nonprofit). This status conveys to students the message that the schools are trustworthy institutions. Most of the sued schools were charities and I doubt that many students are aware that Florida Coastal was a for profit school.

    4. Fuck you. If I was young again I would also have a calling for public service, the kind where assholes like you can't tell me to work for peanuts or because I have a calling. I would move to a big city and become a municipal cop, fireman, janitor, sanitation worker, etc. I would do Anything that involves no student loans and plenty of political protection; the kind of political protection that allows me to retire at 45 with six figures and health care for life, while telling the assholes that follow your advice to shut their mouth and pay their taxes because my job is hard and I serve the public.

      I'd like you to try and ask other "public servants" to think about their calling or something like that, and let's see how it works out for you. You are probably a trustfundarian who works for the fake prestige while living off of family money, or worse, a law school professor demanding further self-sacrifice from your victims, while you pretend to know what you are talking about.

      Prospective law students (aka lemmings) read what I write today very carefully: this isn't a joke, this profession isn't what your boomer parents told you it would be. I know you think we are all bitter losers. I know you think the stuff on this site is over exaggeration. I know you think that the above poster is winking at you, ie giving you some secret advice that only the winners know: that there is a secret path to riches waiting if you do the solo game in shit law. There is no such thing on a scale that makes a decade of post graduate education and a quarter million dollars of non discharge able debt worth it. You will find successes in every single field. The question is what advantage does being a lawyer have in today's society, and the answer for the large majority of the unconnected lower class kids is nothing. There are MLM distributors who make millions, but most don't. There are contractors who are millionaires, but most aren't. There are retired police detectives who are millionaires by running a security service on the side, most aren't (but most of them do retire in their 40s and collect for life). The same applies to lawyers, except by becoming a lawyer you are going to waste an extraordinary amount of time and money, and you are going to make yourself a political minority where assholes like the above poster can tell you you have to work for nothing because [fill in the blank about some bullshit and a calling].

      If you drop out, if you put in the effort I am espousing in tying to get a city job, the same kind of effort you would put to go to LS, you will most likely land some kind of municipal job, and even if you don't become rich, you will have a better life than 99% of not just lawyers, but every other idiot competing with the slaves of the third world in this global economy. And if you had the chops to succeed as a solo, you can take the skills you learn at that job and open up a business, except when you open your business, you will have a pension and healthcare to float you and NOBODY will be able to tell you that you have to work for free because [fill in bullshit about a calling].

      If the above poster is sincere, I apologize for my harsh language. If you truly and honestly graduated in the last few years (at current law school price levels and market saturation levels) and you are managing to make money, then you would have made money in anything. If you are living like a pauper, which is most likely the case if you fit the current graduate profile, then congratulations for being an incredible person; but still, your advice doesn't apply to most. Most of us wanted a decent life by going to school, like the guy who is making 145k and is going to pick up my garbage tomorrow morning. We didn't get into this shit to be told we have to be poor for
      Life because [calling]. Maybe the law school professors should try sacrificing because [calling], instead of raping their students for purely financial and egotistical gain.

    5. Hey, looks like this idiot posts on everything! Wasn't it $1500 for a misdemeanor and $2500 for a felony last time? What a complete joke! So you spend 160 hours on a case and you barely make $15 an hour with no benefits. Some calling ROFL

  3. Schools form a protected class in this society. They can get away with blatant fraud and grow fat off taxpayer dollars, and the President just encourages more people to go. Most people dislike being defrauded, but evidently the federal government is an exception to that rule.

    It was never likely that our "justice" system would side against these fortunate sons. Especially when their opponents are such politically easy victims, for nobody likes a lawyer.

  4. But wait, there's more bullshit marketing ploys. You can now be a Super Lawyer if you go to Touro. (Sorry, but this kind of fuckery is too juicy not to share).

  5. In related news:

    Arizona Summit, despite the Unlock Potential program you detailed earlier posted a 30% bar exam pass rate!

    One interviewed student who failed took on 315K in debt!!

  6. lowest admissions standards in the country, and because of that, a rosy employment statistic “would have been a red flag to a reasonable consumer.”

    Though I suspect that judges will eagerly carry water for law schools in any circumstance, with logic like this it seems like only one of the relatively-well-ranked "trap" schools like American or GWU could be sued for fraud.

  7. Basically this...

    Those considering law school (even the ones who end up enrolling in sickening pathetic shitholes) are, by judicial proclamation, (wait for it...get this) sophisticated consumers of education.

    And if they can't see through the bullshit and lies put out by the ABA shitholes, then the sophisticated consumers are too fucking stupid and we can't protect 'em.

    Got that?

    1. They do the same fucking thing when actively recruiting. I had probably a dozen letters signed by law school deans basically telling me I was in and would have a partial scholarship. Some DVDs too telling me how great their no name school in the middle of Bumfuck, Arkansas was.

      The one I still remember was from some shithole named Southern New England College of Law. It was a little postcard size thing. The letter was signed by the dean and it said something like 'You may wonder why you're getting this letter. I'm writing you with this personal offer because I think you'll become a great lawyer." This asshole didn't know me from Adam. I didn't even apply to the shithole as I was living in California and looking to stay in state. I guess LSAC sold my info to shitholes for a fee. But I had a $10,000 annual scholly for the taking.

      Yeah, man, like law school is, you know, really difficult to get into and shit. Oh and it's really prestigious too.

  8. This was obviously written by a law clerk whose judge told him to write the decision for him to match the outcome he wanted. That's standard operating procedure.

  9. It's not surprising that judges are protecting the schools; it's similar to the old appeals judges deciding that new grads, saddled with massive debt, be REQUIRED to perform pro bono work before admission-but the requirement isn't extended to those already practicing. To the judges, law students/new lawyers really aren't "real"-they just are sort of there-while law schools represent the Academy.
    What is surprising is the fact that since these suits were filed-and after the schools' collective defense of "Ok, so we lied, but it's your fault you believed us"-all of the sued schools are still in business. Talk about uneducated consumers; there is clearly a limitless supply of Special Snowflakes willing to case the taxpayers' money upon the schools.

  10. Here's a question no one's asking. If law school applicants are 'sophisticated consumers' and law schools can't be held responsible for their lies, why have states sued fly by night beauty schools?

    1. Don't hold me to this, because it's speculation, but I assume it's because law students had to have completed undergrad first, and the claim is a 22 year old liberal arts major is clearly as smart and sophisticated as 50 year old administrators who have the information advantage to boot.

      One wonders why law schools don't just fire all their law professors and then hire a 22 year old liberal arts grad for lower wages. Apparently education is the only area immune to these simple economic laws.

      Truth is it's all obviously a scam, and 2 months into practicing law you should realize it's all bullshit judges make up as they go along, and political connections trump all. So those 3 years trying to make sense of the "reasoning" behind those cases? All that hide the ball crap? It was in fact an actual training after all.

      If you knew the prof and could get access to test answers that others didn't have, along with preferential grading, you won. If you had a connection at law firms that wanted to hire you, you win. Then afterwards come up with something, anything, to point to in order to insist there is legitimacy and you "earned" your grades and spot. This is how actual legal practice indeed does work.

      I doubt these law schools will close down and none of them will ever pay a dime out. The banks keep getting caught breaking laws but nothing ever happens to them either, because that is how the world works. The only people stupid enough to believe things are fair are the fools that need to play fair because the full power of the system will come down on them for being unconnected schmucks. They better just pray they are fortunate enough to be one of the lottery winners the elites throw out everyone once in awhile to pretend unconnected schmucks can "earn" their way. Otherwise they just get to be openly screwed with zero respite in sight.


    From the comments section of the WSJ Law Blog piece. On October 15, 2015 2:54 pm, Joyce Sarano wrote:

    “lol people actually believe the law isn't rigged? It's mental masturbation and pure sophistry. Nobody "reasons" to anything in law and decides something based on merit or facts. It's just a play, a total farce.

    If you are wealthy and have power you would have a job in the first place, and likely have gone to a top law school.

    If you are not wealthy then this country is not for you. You are a mere plebeian, and you should just sit there and watch the Karshadhians and Jenners and just shut up. What more do you need, pleb?”

    User “Cherry Rider” posted the following remarks on October 15, 2015 at 11:28 pm:

    "Lawyers suing lawyers in a court ran by lawyers ... this case is going nowhere ... politics rule law, no such thing as rule of law unless you're just a peasant or a Goyem being put through the system. There's what? 1.3 million lawyers in the US? over 100K in CA alone? Why do we need so many lawyers for? Most cases don't even go to trial!"

    On October 16, 2015 at 1:09 pm, someone using the handle “Solo lawyer” wrote this comment:

    “Awesome defense by Thomas Jefferson school of law. The plaintiff "failed to notice that bar passage rates were lower than the employment rate." In other words, we didn't scam you by with misleading employment statistics because you should have known that we wouldn't educate you. Love it.”

    On October 16, 2015 7:58 pm, “Pete” furnished this contribution:

    “Law schools are very deceptive. The law schools should have lost. Big tobacco successfully avoided liability for years and later on got whacked. Courts used to say black people were property. Many judges are just stupid.”

    Frankly, the remarks from Joyce Sarano hit the nail on the damn head. The pieces of trash known as “judges” in this country DO NOT REACH their decisions based on facts, reason or logic. They are political actors with inherent or adopted biases. Hell, they are appointed based on their political views. Their minds are made up BEFORE the first document is officially filed. Any adult who believes otherwise is a prime candidate for a brain shunt.

    By the way, this also applies to city council members, state senators, members of Congre$$, etc. Public hearings are held in order to "show" that these cockroaches are holding titans of Industry responsible for their filthy and harmful conduct. The bastards then issue some lame-ass recommendations that will eventually appear in a watered-down, dense report that will be published 10 months later. It may be read, in its entirety, by about two dozen people. Long-winded speeches on C-SPAN are mere theater. In sum, it is all a show designed to make you believe that the “democratic process” works.

  12. What I wonder here is why are law schools considered universities or schools at all.

    Universities are supposed to be about the discovery and dissemination of truth. If a college says something, theoretically, you are supposed to trust that it has some relation to reality, especially if that something concerns the discipline the college is in.

    However law 'schools', as a matter of law, are allowed to create and tell lies; and lies about the legal profession no less in order to serve their pecuniary interests. The information that a law school puts out about how often law grads get law jobs is BS as a matter of law. Why should anyone trust legal teaching if law schools propagate lies? Why should anyone trust legal research from law professors who are the font of lies? Why should anyone pay for law school? Why should the government subsidize law schools or, for that matter, even allow them to exist at all?

    This is not just a problem with shitholes like New York Law School and Florida Coastal. The problem goes straight to the top of the legal academy.

  13. Kick Ass Article about the law school pigs and how the ABA is their bitch


    On October 21, 2015, Above the Law published an excellent piece from Sharon Achimalbe, a former solo practitioner for five years. Her analysis was entitled “Let The Law School Class Action Lawsuits Proceed: 5 Defenses That Won’t Work.” Look at this stellar opening:

    “Regular readers of this column know that I went to a low-ranked school and left with mediocre grades. So when I finished law school, I knew and accepted the fact that finding jobs and developing my career was going to be a difficult but hopefully fulfilling ordeal. Thankfully, I was able to find something, but I constantly felt that my legal career would be unstable at best. Some time later, I learned that people from better schools with better grades were having the same problems I was. Later, more people were “coming out” about their job search struggles.

    A few years ago, a number of law schools got sued by their graduates. The plaintiffs claim that they matriculated and took on six figures of nondischargeable student loans relying on the schools’ fraudulent and misleading post-graduate employment statistics.

    Most of these lawsuits have been dismissed and their dismissals have been upheld on appeal. Thus, the graduates will not get their day in court. Also, there will be no discovery, no salacious emails, and no depositions of deans and admissions staff. In a way, it is good to know that it didn’t take much litigation for courts to hold that law schools’ employment statistics are unreliable, incomprehensible, and possibly fraudulent.

    But dismissing these lawsuits at the pleadings stage is premature. And I disagree with the basis of the dismissals that I will discuss below. Ultimately, these cases should be brought before juries, and schools should be held accountable for their actions.”

    This lady nails the situation down perfectly! She puts it in an understandable, clear narrative – so that even those not familiar with the lawsuits can comprehend the matter. Special snowflakes and waterhead applicants are likely a different matter. Those morons always need to learn for themselves. They are similar to junkies who cannot figure out – from other addicts, countless studies, observation, or even dead friends – that meth and heroin ruin lives.

    Here are the five defenses that the author outlines and picks apart in her analysis:

    1. Law school applicants are sophisticated consumers with a college education.
    2. Prospective applicants should have done their due diligence before matriculating.
    3. It is unreasonable to rely on law schools’ self-reported, unaudited, puffed-up employment statistics.
    4. Law schools only promised a law degree and a chance to take the bar exam.
    5. Aspiring lawyers need to accept personal responsibility.

  15. Here are some nuggets from each outlined “defense” offered by the law school pigs and their protectors in black robes.

    1. Law school applicants are sophisticated consumers with a college education.

    “There is no evidence that college graduates have a higher level of “street smarts” that would immunize them from pushy, inaccurate sales pitches. College graduates and even masters, doctoral, and professional degree holders fall for Ponzi schemes, sham tax shelters, and other scams.”

    As I noted in the main entry, Bernard Madoff scammed truly sophisticated investors. They were highly educated, wealthy, and successful. Many of the “victims” in that case represented huge trusts, companies, and prominent families. But some idiot with a degree in “Political Science” from Nebraska Wesleyan University should have known better than to believe accredited “institutions of higher education” that receive U.S. taxpayer dollars to operate.

    2. Prospective applicants should have done their due diligence before matriculating.

    “But many of the named plaintiffs and the class members graduated between 2006 and 2010. This means that they matriculated between 2003 and 2007. What kind of due diligence and critical research could they have done in those days?”

    Exactly! Unfortunately, “judges” get to make things up as they go along, in order to justify and rationalize their opinions – which were made before the ink dried on the first filing.

    3. It is unreasonable to rely on law schools’ self-reported, unaudited, puffed-up employment statistics.

    “So the courts’ logic seems to be that if law schools’ misleading information is egregious, ridiculous, and outrageous enough, then schools are absolved of any legal liability whatsoever because it is the applicant’s fault for believing such nonsense.”

    For $ome rea$on, the cockroaches will not extend this “logic” to other areas. If a car dealer claims that a certain automobile gets 40 mpg on the highway, and it only get 28, you can bet your ass that consumers will seek and obtain favorable settlements.

    4. Law schools only promised a law degree and a chance to take the bar exam.

    “This is the main reason why I think these lawsuits should have made it to the discovery stage. We could have seen what kind of marketing materials were used to recruit students and whether they contained any misleading employment information.”

    Hell, this is likely the PARAMOUNT reason why the politicians in black dresses dismissed the suits from the onset. They were afraid what discovery would lead to, and they had to act in their role as “gatekeepers” to protect the image of their precious “profession.”

    5. Aspiring lawyers need to accept personal responsibility.

    “[S]ometimes, I see people use personal responsibility as a way to deflect blame away from themselves and unto others, usually to the less powerful. Let’s admit it, blaming the “entitled” young is easier than admitting that the system is broken and needs serious structural change.”

    In fact, it is MUCH easier to blame young people than it is for Boomer swine to address the root cause of a problem. Plus, they have more important things to do, such as purchasing a big-ass McMansion when their perfectly fine home only has $8,000 left on the mortgage.

  16. To nobody's surprise:
    The Law-School Scam Continues

  17. Law skool is for idiots. Let's be honest. A lot of these suckers majored in horseshit in college. They are a little brighter than the average undergrad (but that's not saying a lot.) Most of the ones ending up in law school didn't go to great colleges. They graduate with $30k in debt and realize they're going to be making $25k a year with a shitty BA from a shitty college. So what do these 'sophisticated consumers' do?? Well they double down of course on a shitty ass law degree. You know, because they're so fucking smart and sophisticated and stuff. So now instead of working they're way up to making $40k or $60k (with a lot of hard work and developing contacts and skills) in 10 years, these fucking morons (should I say sophisticated morons?) end up owing $140k and only making $40k. Yeah, that's a group of real super fucking bright sophisticated motherfuckers right there.

  18. And the hits just keep coming


Web Analytics