Monday, June 27, 2016

U.S. Department of Education Panel Recommends Suspending ABA Cockroaches from Accrediting New Law Schools, for One Year

It’s About Damn Time!: On June 24, 2016, Inside Higher Ed published a Paul Fein piece that was entitled “Accreditor on Life Support.” This headline refers to another garbage accrediting agency, but check out the following portion as it pertains to the law school pigs:

“Most notably, the panel on Wednesday rebuked the American Bar Association, in part for its lack of attention to student achievement. 

The ABA accredits law schools, some of them freestanding institutions. NACIQI, after three contentious votes, recommended that the department suspend the association's ability to accredit new members for a year. The panel said the ABA had failed to implement its student achievement standards and probationary sanctions, while also falling short on its audit process and analysis of graduates' debt levels.

Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, said the finding followed a department staff report that listed minor technical deficiencies with the association's accrediting process. 

"The council believes that it is operating in compliance with the recognition criteria," Currier said in a written statement, "but will make any changes to its accreditation standards and rules of procedures that are necessary to stay in good standing with NACIQI and the Department of Education." [Emphasis mine]

Notice how Cockroach Barry Currier does not even address bar passage rates or JD student debt levels. His mother must be exceptionally proud of her little hatchling. On June 24, 2016, poster “Unemployed_Northeastern” provided this scathing analysis:

“I think my favorite part of this long, long overdue penalty for the ABA's feckless, disinterested, and usually anti-student *accreditation practices* is this: Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, was formerly dean of Concord Law School, an unaccredited, for-profit, online law school in California, owned by Kaplan, that, according to Wikipedia, had an average bar exam pass rate in California of just 36% between 2003 and 2011.”

In fact, the old hag is still listed on Concord Law Sewer’s website as “dean emeritus.” For $ome rea$on, he conveniently forgot to mention that in his reply.

Other Coverage: On June 24, 2016, Paul Caron posted an entry labeled “Department Of Education Panel Recommends Suspension Of ABA's Power To Accredit Law Schools Due To Its 'Lack Of Attention To Student Achievement'” Look at this brief introduction:

“In stunning news, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) voted on Wednesday to recommend that the U.S. Department of Education suspend for one year the ABA's power to accredit new law schools due to the ABA's "lack of attention to student achievement[.]"

Scroll down to the Comments section, for the following gems. First, Sam Browning’s remarks on June 25, 2016 7:55:57 am:

“I await the arrival of a couple law professors who will inevitably argue that we face a critical shortage of lawyers and law schools in this country and 204 law schools are simply not enough to serve ______________ segment of our population.” [Emphasis mine]

Courtesy of Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King – posted on June 25, 2016 at 10:56:50 am:

“Reading this post made my day!!!!! The ABA is nothing more than a trade group like the National Automobile Dealers Association or National Retail Federation and on and on. Who is the ABA? What authority do this group have? GW Bush was correct to "de-authorize" the ABA from having any sort of influence or veto power regarding Supreme Court nominees. What does the ABA do? Hold a trade show once a year where you can pick up stress balls and candy from West?”

As you can see, those with a brain stem and some honesty can see the pigs’ next move. You can bet your ass that the American Bar Association filth will argue that they have the students’ best interest in mind – and that no other agency can better or equally perform their tasks and enforce their rules. Here is their stated Goal II



1. Promote the highest quality legal education. 
2. Promote competence, ethical conduct and professionalism. 
3. Promote pro bono and public service by the legal profession.” [Emphasis in original]

Yeah, accrediting dung heaps such as TJSL, Cooley, Arizona Summit, Ave Maria, etc. shows that you take this objective seriously. Who cares if these graduates incur RIDICULOUS SUMS OF NON-DISCHARGEABLE DEBT, for pathetic job prospects, right?!?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the ABA is a scum organization. The swine who run the institution have the no integrity or any guiding principles. In a just world, these sick bitches and hags would be prosecuted under the RICO statute. Hell, if purchase several trailers, install the internet, provide bookshelves, running water, and a fax machine, you can get approval. Just make sure to set aside enough cash for ABA site fees. Don’t expect this action to do much, other than to perhaps embarrass the cockroaches. Then again, they have proven that they have no shame.


  1. If this actually sticks-and I strongly suspect it won't-this would be big news.
    But scammers gotta scam, so just anticipate further evolution by the ABA and the law schools.

    1. Agreed, only I would have picked the word "devolution." ABA has been on the decline for some time now.

  2. The education racket takes care of its own. I don't see anything coming from this but more meaningless claptrap and a token probationary letter or two. Until Congress cuts off the student loan pipeline, the scam will continue.

    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 29, 2016 at 11:41 AM

      Congress will never cut off the flow of student loan money. Why? Their criteria would be inherently arbitrary. Who is Congress to tell me that my degree in the science of wall washing and psychology from Central Baptist Torah Tech isn't worthy? Suppose I earn a million dollars per year per year washing walls, yet a doc from Johns Hopkins who works in a rural clinic serving Meth Heads "only" earns $125K--- What school shall live and what school shall perish? Congress would be backed up for centuries with hearings and objections.....Impossible to legislate.

  3. Happy to see this. For years, we, in the legal profession, have screened out those who simply did not belong. From 2008 to 2016, our Office has been inundated with applications from those who do not even remotely qualify for a position with our Office, thus making our selection committee's job more burdensome (it is comprised of several senior associates who have billing requirements, which should take priority over reviewing a resume from graduates of second-, third-, and fourth-tier law schools.). At least now, however, we will not be additionally burdened by pulse-possessing graduates from the Bob Smith School of Law of Northern Okracoke University.

    While this announcement still doesn't affect those graduates from 2009 on who failed to get legal jobs (other than a short-lived victory that appears to give them some hope that competition in the market will be limited and maybe someday they will be practicing lawyers), it helps those of us who already have legal jobs from having to screen out more applications from people who are either unfit or unqualified. That's right a degree from Tier Four with a specialty in mid-wife law does not help you. You have to be from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or have a tremendously outgoing and polished personality, or know someone to be a part of our club.

    It may make sense not only to revoke the ABA ability to credit new schools, but also to invalidate any school that has been accredited in the past 15 years or has gained some form of provisional status. Doing so would allow us to actually look at someone's resume in-depth, searching for the diamond in the rough, as opposed to looking at an application for two seconds, seeing the third- or fourth-tier school, and accordingly screening out.

    Keep up the good work! Even though one day the attorney market will once again be booming, graduates from 2008 and beyond, and from USN&WR rank 50 on down, still have no chance at Biglaw!

    1. Big Law is boring. It seems like many trial lawyers at least in the NY area come from the likes of Brooklyn, NY law, etc. Yes they graduated in the late 90s and before but why assume that a top student from one of these schools is not qualified?

    2. It's not that they are unqualified. But when you have an inordinate amount of resumes from graduates of third- and fourth-tier schools, it dilutes the pool, such that a top graduate of a second-tier school does not even get consideration. Because we receive a large amount of applications (2000 for one position), we must apply an objective criteria to winnow down the pool. First, we exclude by school, then by GPA, then we look to see if remaining applicants made any mistakes on their resumes. Could we potentially overlook a good lawyer from the top of the class at a second-tier school? You bet.

      That is why this website is good. It send the message-Biglaw, Mid-Size Law does not want bottom-of-the-barrel applicants from bottom-of-the-barrel schools, so unless you have top eight--and you are in the top of the class-don't go to law school!

    3. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJune 28, 2016 at 1:27 PM

      During the 80s and 90s, Big Law did hire from those schools. There was a demand and those schools maintained very high admission standards. Admission to any ABA school back then was not a guarantee. Even if you were a "non-traditional" student, those schools "flunked" you out if you were not lawyer material. Today, low ranked and unranked schools are desperate and enrollment is nearly open--very much like correspondence or DeVry of the world. I agree. I would never want to work in Big Law. To be a Solo back then was a very good alternative and one could make a sustainable middle class income. Not today, however.

    4. Luckily for 11:24, with the declining demand for legal services, they now have time to post on law blogs. Like the few people still clinging to that Blackberry, or the people who still proudly show off the barbed wire tattoos on their arms, 11:24 still hasn't caught on to the fact that working in law is no longer prestigious. Little do they realize, some of those "inferior" JDs they rejected were not dumb enough to work at their firm. They went out and got MBAs and are working for the type of clients 11:24 is desperately trying to attract.

    5. "Working in the law is no longer prestigious" according to who? The people who never broke the legal market? Where is your support for this incorrect statement? And even if it were true, what difference does it make?

    6. You live under a rock or something? Working in the law is not prestigious, you stupid cocksucker.

    7. I agree.

      Back in the Day, when I was a much younger self than I am today, I kept hearing these self-important cocksuckers like AMPLE and his ilk and other people - "We, in the legal profession" who weed out, etc. - blab on about how "prestigious" law or their little shit position they were trying to schlep on me was.

      It got real old, real fast..

      Law isn't prestigious. It's not important. It's a social tax. As one commentor here wrote in another thread, it's an aristocracy profession but with the lower casts of the aristocracy consigned to it. It's similar to the mafia where only the lower-class families looking to move up work in blue-collar (drugs, prostitution, etc.) while the old, established ones who have gone legit deal in political influence and white-collar to make their loot.

      Law is a grinder's game and no one outside of it thinks it's prestigious. Lawyers do have the rep of salesman / used-car salesman, if that, and IMO it's deserved.

      If you think being an Associate in a 3-person firm or a solo paying their own way to the max is "prestigious", more power to you.. Get off the Drugzzzzzz...

    8. 6:42--So your answer is "working in the law is not prestigious according to me!" Funny, I guess when the Judge asks you why your position is correct, you say "because I said so you stupid c*&ksu%#er?"

      5:06, I am sorry the years have been hard on you, and has caused you to look at yourself they way you do. But I find it really hard to believe that working as a SCOTUS clerk, or with the Officer of the Solicitor General, or in the litigation or appellate practice group of an AMLAW 50 law firm is not prestigious. But my question really is: Who cares? If I make $250,000 a year in a profession that's regarded as non-prestigious--who cares? If I retire on an Island at 50 after working in a "non-prestigious profession--who cares? If I like what I do in a nonprestigious profession--who cares?

      My point is who cares what other people think i.e prestigious v. non-prestigious. It sounds as if you never learned the lesson "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Stop caring whether other people think the profession is prestigious--if you like what you do, it does not matter what other people think. I guess I could be hated by everyone as a lawyer/used car salesman working in a nonprestigious profession, but if I eat steak at Mortons, drive a Mercedes, have fun with the ladies, take vacation to Tahiti, and am respected by the Bar, then I really don't care what others think--especially those who never broke the legal market to begin with or weren't good enough to do so. In the end, its not about being happy with money or prestige, but being happy about yourself and what you do.

    9. .. And if you think being in non-dischargeable, lifetime student loan debt to the tune of $300,000 between college and law skool is worth the "prestige" of being in the "noble profession" of law (cough!) more power to you..

      Law is indeed a Million Dollar Degree - to those who sell what have become worse than useless JD's due to 40+ years of lawyer overproduction by law schools and sanctioned by the ABA.

      Levi Strauss, the Jew, made his fortune the same way as the law school scammers, by selling picks and shovels to over-optimistic Dreamers who gambled their lives on finding a bit of gold.. Most died broke while Levi got very rich without the slightest bit of risk.

      Nothing ever changes.

      It seems there will always be Dreamers and those who can exploit them to make money.

    10. @5:06 -- I don't entirely agree.

      Law is very much a prestigious profession, but it's just not attainable for most law school graduates.

      The "scam" is in thinking that graduating law school (even a "good" law school) and passing the bar makes one a lawyer. Another aspect of the "scam" is passing-off "file review" and "document production" as actually practicing law. All of this is false, and it has fooled many people into going to law school (some of whom could have done well in other professions).

      However, that doesn't mean that there aren't accomplished attorneys out there doing important things. They may only be a minority of law school graduates, but that is still quite a lot of people.

  4. It's about damn time the ABA got a rebuke of some sort. Many of these kids entering law skool in this era have no reasonable hope of meaningfully practicing law.

    This may not put a dent in the oversupply of law schools, particularly those who prey on these low-LSAT types, but it's a tiny step in the right direction.

    Exposing the ABA for the fraud that it is is a public good!

  5. Network! Hustle! Be in the Top Ten Percent! Do It LIke I Saw Them Do It on TV on "The Practice".

    (Thought I'd insert that before our AAMPLE friend does, heheh)

    1. Detective Frank Furillo on Hill Street Blues solved the gang and violence problems of his "mid-western" city, why can't they do the same in Chicago?

  6. California Southern to close?

    That's ONE.

  7. Seriously, what value is there of "accrediting" law schools if non-accredited schools are allowed to exist?

    They should not even let you sit for the bar without a degree from an accredited school.

    1. Good point-both CA and TN have unaccredited law schools but graduates are allowed to take the state bar exam.
      But...maybe this will keep that proposed law school in Tacoma from opening, and maybe put a little chill into Indiana Teck.

  8. This won't amount to much. It's a one year deal. And I'm betting the assholes at Dept of Ed don't actually hold to it.

  9. It will never happen, but I would like to see the ABA as a co-defendant in malpractice lawsuits against the mouthbreathers they graduate by wholly failing to maintain standards and exercise accreditation duties.

  10. My legal education at the University of Illinois was crap.

    We did learn many legal principals, but the case method means spending 10's of hours to learn seconds of principal. It is education by force brutality.

    My legal education at the University of Illinois College of Law was totally a worthless effort by the school. I was not educated to practice law in any fashion whatsoever. I graduated in the top 25% of my class and took me 2 years to find a job as a full time attorney, was offered partnership after 1 and one half years, turned that down as the partners made no money, went on my own thereafter until today and have made living of sorts.

    I once tried to get a job with a firm and asked for a salary of $25,000. I never even got a response. That year, after expenses, I netted $175,000. Better than $25,000.

    My education at the University of Illinois College of Law was of marginal help to me in establishing my career.

    The legal principals taught were fine, but the College stopped about 9,000 yards short of preparing its graduates to practice law.

    And I HATE my law school to this day, 40 years later.


    On June 24, 2016, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward piece entitled "ABA threatened with 1-year suspension of law school accreditation powers." Here is the full text of that article:

    "A Department of Education panel on Wednesday recommended that the ABA’s accreditation power for new law schools be suspended for one year, on the basis that the organization failed to implement its student achievement standards and probationary sanctions, while also not meeting its audit process and analysis responsibilities regarding students’ debt levels.

    That department recommendation was made by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Inside Higher Ed reports.

    “The ABA has been under pressure for quite a number of years about both outcomes for graduates and accurate reporting by law schools, and during the last few years there’s been pressure about the increasing number of students who are admitted with increasingly low test scores,” says Deborah Merritt, an Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law professor who writes at Law School Cafe. Still, she and other academics were surprised about the announcement, which Paul Caron, a Pepperdine University School of Law professor who edits TaxProfBlog, described as “stunning news.”

    Inside Higher Ed reports that the panel had three “contentious” votes about the recommendations. According to Barry Currier, ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, it followed a staff report that found the council in compliance with core substantive requirements for recognition, and only had minor technical “deficiencies” that the group needed to address.

    “The Council believes that is operating in compliance with the recognition criteria, but it will make the changes to its accreditation standards and rules of procedure that are necessary to stay in good standing with NACIQI and the Department of Education,” Currier wrote in a statement.

    Regarding student achievement standards for ABA-accredited schools, a pending proposal (PDF) seeks to change the requirement that 75 percent of ABA-accredited law school graduates who sit for bar exams pass the tests in two years, rather than the existing five-year requirement. An open hearing for the proposal is scheduled to take place Aug. 6 during the ABA Annual Meeting, which will take place in San Francisco.

    “I suspect the Department of Education recommendation will make this proposal more likely to get favorable comments,” Merritt says. The existing five-year standard is easy to meet, she adds, and has many loopholes.

    Earlier this month, the ABA announced that for the first time it would be conducting random audits of jobs data provided by law schools for the class of 2015."

    Sadly, morons and waterheads will continue to apply to, and enroll in, ABA-accredited trash heaps. While these blogs and mainstream articles have helped educate smart college graduates, the mental midgets/“special snowflakes” will keep getting bent over a coffee table – while a large casebook is repeatedly rammed up their asses.

  12. DOE is playing you all for fools. ABA accreditation is only sufficient to secure the right to take federal student loan monies are a stand-alone law school. If you are not stand-alone, ABA accreditation is not enough to get you federal student loan monies...that would be one of the regional accrediting bodies, like WASC or Middle States. What they're doing is culling the for-profits for the benefit of the majority of scammers. This is no different than the "Gainful Employment" rule. They're playing you. They don't want REFORM they want to play favorites for their REAL CRONIES and more important scam buddies.


    On June 27, 2016, Staci Zaretsky authored an ATL entry labeled "ABA May Be Stripped Of Power To Accredit New Law Schools." Enjoy the full article below!

    "There are currently more than 200 law schools in the United States with varying degrees of accreditation from the American Bar Association (200 fully accredited law schools, and 3 provisionally accredited law schools). Since the law school crisis began sometime between 2007 and 2008 — with tens of thousands of deeply indebted recent law school graduates unable to secure full-time, long-term employment as lawyers — the ABA has granted accreditation to 12 additional law schools and/or merged law schools. The fact that the ABA has continued to accredit law schools during this time of great upheaval in the world of legal education has seemed crazy to us for years, and as we mentioned earlier today, the ABA’s practices have finally struck a government agency as crazy.

    As first reported by Inside Higher Ed, last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity recommended that the ABA be stripped of its ability to accredit new law schools for one year’s time.

    Most notably, the panel on Wednesday rebuked the American Bar Association, in part for its lack of attention to student achievement.

    The ABA accredits law schools, some of them freestanding institutions. NACIQI, after three contentious votes, recommended that the department suspend the association’s ability to accredit new members for a year. The panel said the ABA had failed to implement its student achievement standards and probationary sanctions, while also falling short on its audit process and analysis of graduates’ debt levels.

    Barry Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said the finding followed a department staff report that listed minor technical deficiencies with the association’s accrediting process.

    Currier said the following in a written statement on behalf of the ABA: “The council believes that it is operating in compliance with the recognition criteria, but will make any changes to its accreditation standards and rules of procedures that are necessary to stay in good standing with NACIQI and the Department of Education.”

    If the American Bar Association does, in fact, lose its ability to accredit law schools, even if only for one year’s time, we sadly cannot be sure about the true number of prospective law students that will have been saved from the perils of attending a newly accredited law school in these tough times for law school graduates; but, if even one prospective law student is spared, then NACIQI’s actions will not have been in vain."

  14. The ABA should be relieved of its position as accreditor of law schools. The supply demand imbalance created by the ABA makes even a degree from Harvard or Yale Law a risky one.

    For someone right out of Harvard Law, there is usually no problem getting a job.

    Fast forward that person to age 50 and he loses his job. Then no one will hire him. He may be able to get an of counsel gig at a small firm with an income of about $40,000 a year. He is not employed full-time. There is not enough demand.

    Even BLS in arriving at lawyer incomes annualizes the pay of employed lawyers. That is a very poor method of analyzing pay. The reason is that there are over 1.3 million lawyers for 700,000 lawyers jobs.

    You cannot take hourly pay and annualize it. Most lawyers are not working full-time all year because there are too many lawyers and not enough work. So that V10 guy who just got fired from his big in-house job at age 50 is going to be making $40,000 if and when he gets settled from the firing. So much for a Harvard Law degree.

    You will be better off at any US allopathic med school than Harvard Law. At least 98% of the grads of the allopathic med schools will get jobs that enable them to work for life, until they are no longer able to work or choose to retire. Not like the Harvard Law guy who was displaced at age 50.

    The ABA has really ruined it for baby boomer lawyers from the T14 who do not have their own practices or a comfy government gig - the same way the ABA ruined it for grads outside the T14 who are not at the very top of their class.

  15. Up or out is another thing that works really well for the law schools and really badly for older lawyers in a market where there are almost twice as many licensed lawyers as there are jobs.

    The law schools love up or out because they can keep graduating top law school grads into high paying short-term jobs. The ABA loves up or out because it helps put law students into seats, by making the employment prospects for top grads seem to be high paying and rosy. After that, who cares? There are no guarantees in life, they say.

    For that Harvard Law grad who is 50, no law firm that pays six figures will look at him. That is up or out for you, if he does not have a big book of business. So the 50 plus Harvard Law grad who was at a V10 for many years and then maybe in house or maybe not in house, may work sporadically, with years between lawyer jobs, because that is all the work he can get.

    Up or out is the friend of the ABA, the law schools and the top law firms who can play step on the ants with most lawyers.

    Up or out means that your law degree from Harvard has lost its value at age 50.

    Thank you. ABA for accrediting so many law schools and supporting completely the up or out scheme. After all, none of those displaced Harvard Law grads who are 50 or older matter, they have no voice.

    The Department of Education should take over the process of accrediting law schools and should look at long-term employment outcomes in deciding how many law school seats to allow.

  16. Nando,

    Whoever you may be, your efforts are greatly appreciated. You've done more than even you realize to expose the scam.

    From now on, I'll just think of you as one big boot ... LOL

  17. This blog is a great source of information which is very useful for me.
    NEET 2017 Exam Dates
    Neet admit-card 2017

  18. Students are eagerly waiting for their mah results 2017.


Web Analytics