Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Bloomberg Calls for Crackdown on ABA-Accredited Toilets With Weak-Ass Bar Passage Rates

The Gauntlet is Thrown Down: On August 8, 2016, Bloomberg published a Megan McCardle piece that was entitled “Crack Down on Law Schools That Don’t Pass the Bar.” Check out this wonderful opening:

“The American Bar Association is considering a plan that would endanger the accreditation of any law school where fewer than three-quarters of the students pass the bar within two years. 

That is setting up a battle within the organization, pitting critics of two very different problems against each other. Those who are worried about the glut of law graduates who can’t get jobs want to crack down on law schools that have shored up their finances by admitting students who may not be able to pass the bar exam. But those who are worried about a lack of diversity in the profession fear that any crackdown on accreditation could disproportionately hurt schools that strive to bring more minorities into the field. 

Law schools have been suffering in recent years. The once-lucrative financial industry that used to use a whole lot of legal services has gotten a lot less lucrative, limiting the ability of armies of law-school grads to charge vast sums for their services. 

Meanwhile, computers and international outsourcing have begun to nibble away at a lot of the tedious but necessary work that used to consume the labor of thousands of young lawyers, like reviewing documents for discovery requests.

Companies like LegalZoom, meanwhile, are competing for the business that used to be the bread and butter of many law graduates: simple wills, leases and so forth. 

And state-level tort and medical malpractice reforms have somewhat cramped the style of people like John Edwards who got rich off class-action and personal-injury lawsuits.

Thanks to the internet -- and a decision by the ABA to force schools to publish data on employment -- news of these difficulties spread quickly among prospective students. So while law school has traditionally been a refuge for young workers who were pummeled by a recession, that’s not what happened this time. Instead, the number of applicants plummeted. 

This placed law schools in an uncomfortable bind. Schools are optimized to a certain size of class. They have the number of classrooms and tenured professors that they expect to need in order to teach those students. Those things are expensive, and cannot be easily shed. With applications falling, schools had to decide whether to maintain their admissions standards (reducing the size of the incoming class), or maintain their student target (by lowering admissions standards). Unsurprisingly, a whole lot of them chose the latter.” [Emphasis mine]

Hell, drug fiends have a higher standard of decency. At least, those turds are providing their marks with a little something for their money.

Other Coverage: On August 9, 2016, the Law School Truth Center blog featured an entry labeled “Shameful Bloomberg Publishes Scamblogger Message.” Take a look at this excerpt:

“Unquestionably, Bloomberg is a respected media organization. Thus, while I was disheartened to read the title of this piece, I was re-heartened by the symphonic content of the 3rd and 2nd to last paragraphs and figured the above was a misnomer: 

Also, everyone who enrolls in law school is a consenting adult. Why should the ABA prevent people from taking a risk that they understand and accept? It’s true that the very same low-income and minority applicants who tend to score lower on the LSAT will also be most hurt if they are hit by high debt and poor job prospects. 

There’s something uncomfortably paternalistic about saying that the elites of the ABA accreditation committee need to swoop in and save these applicants from themselves. 

Bingo, Ringo. If there's one thing a butt-rapist likes to hear, it's the phrase "consenting adult." When law students get barebacked by a two-headed pine-cone, it's because they voluntarily chose such activities. What, you want a bunch of metaphorical anal gangbang virgins representing your real estate conglomerate? 

Once full disclosure is made of the risks and rewards, which every law school in America does in a quaint theory completely unmoored from the gravity of Planet Realism, it's absolutely paternalistic to set LSAT cut-offs and bar passage rates. Heck, it's paternalistic to even have a bar exam. The free market is fully capable of determining good lawyer from bad. 

But then we have the devastating conclusion. 

As long as the bar exam remains a significant barrier to practicing law, one of the obligations for schools that admit students with low LSAT scores is to prepare a large majority of them to pass the exam. Any school that fails to do so is not serving these students, but preying upon them. The American Bar Association would be right to revoke its accreditation.

Far from the paternalism concerns of the previous paragraphs, the writer now is seeking to hold law schools (non-fiduciary, non-principal third parties) responsible for the individual failures of their customers. Essentially, people of this mindset would completely ignore the actual quality level of instruction in favor of evaluating a multi-million dollar institution based on how a few students do on an inherently biased test.” [Emphasis mine]

The author’s writing style is reminiscent of Stephen Colbert’s faux conservative persona. You should follow that blog, for a comical take on the law school scam.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school pigs do not give one damn about YOU, the student or recent graduate. You are a mere pawn in their game. The swine appeal to young people’s sense of idealism and “public service.” Guess what, bitch: when you owe $164,823.12 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, you are not in a position to take a job with legal aid that pays $35K per year. Plus, with falling admi$$ion$ “standards” in place at ABA trash pits, MANY of you will not even pass the bar exam. The minute all your student loan checks clear, the cockroaches could not care less about you or your financial health. That is because the bitches and hags are paid up front, in full – while you are left holding the bag, Stupid.


  1. There will be tremendous pressure to dumb down the bar exam if this 75% rule is adopted. This is because, short of nuclear war, the worst thing that could EVER happen is for a single ABA accredited school to shutter its doors. Seriously, because of “diversity” and “the rule of law,” every single ABA accredited law school must remain open for all eternity.

  2. We need more minority lawyers!!

    dont let this blogger tell you otherwise.

    where is Team AAMPLE to advocate when you need them ????

    1. AAMPLE-doofus: first, don't post in the 3rd person.
      Second, Nando's entry doesn't oppose more minority lawyers, it just opposes sentencing anyone, minority applicants included, to a lifetime of crushing debt with few job prospects. BigLaw and the ABA could do a lot to increase the number of minority lawyers-but they won't b/c they don't have to. Instead, the ABA looks the other way as unqualified applicants of all races, creeds, etc etc are accepted by TTTs so their loan dollars can keep the deans and professors in their soft almost work-free jobs. Read the Belly of the Beast post in the right hand column, as it appears some outside the law scam are finally catching on.

    2. I agree with your observation. Diversity in the bar is a good thing. The problem is that there is NOT enough WORK for all 1.8 million lawyers...of all stripes and backgrounds. Terrible salaries, lack of clients, work, layoffs, governments not hiring and grotesque oversaturation are racially neutral problems. We do need more minority lawyers. The problem is lack of work for all who are or endeavor to be lawyers. This blogger is correct.


    1. This is just eliminating the lower-cost competition. There are few (4 or so..) public law schools in the state of Texas.

      The ABA would rather see Student Loan Conduits (SLC's) going to one of their premium-priced schools vs. a school that only charges roughly $17,000 in tuition per year.

      The students are older. Median = 31 or some such with experience. Age, however, is a liability in law, esp. past 30.

      Even so, it's the right idea but the ABA doesn't really want tuition at those levels vs. charging $45-50 grand per year.

      Law prawfs have to eat, after all.

  4. People go to law school to (get this) become lawyers! That's the only reason to go.

    The JD advantage jobs are usually shit. And you can get those jobs without (stay with me now) getting a law degree and taking on a shit ton of debt.

  5. The ABA does what it wants. It's up to the state bar examiners to keep the exams hard.

  6. I met one of these "consenting adults" and "sophisticated consumers" attending an unranked legal cesspools. She had ADHD, drank a bottle of cheap wine every night and turned tricks on the side to pay for her expenses. She got a free ride for the full three years and the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the bill once she defaults on her loans, but hey, it's only fair, women rights and all.

  7. And so we all approach another Fall and sufficient numbers of children STILL apply to law school and place their futures on the altar of financially engorged "professors" who will manage, with feigned professorial “knowledge,” via the "Socratic Method," to teach them in 3 years what is really a 6 month curriculum, if simply lectured, whose tuition dollars barely satiate the corrupted greed and lust of the "professors" and the growing number of administrators which manage the "professorial talent" but which will destroy the financial health of those “knowledgeable and sophisticated legal education consumers,” who have so willingly, and unknowingly, condemned themselves to life-long financial servitude.

    “When will they ever learn,
    oh, when will they ever learn?”

    39 year solo

    1. Here here. As a struggling 26 year solo, I wish I had this information. Al Gore didn't invent the interwebs when I attended law school in the 80s. Construction, fire fighters, technicians...a whole host of folks make better coin than I do---they drive huge Silverados and I schlepp along in a 12 year old Accord...and they have a quarter of my education. There are more attorneys in town than Walmart workers. There are two attorneys in town who drive early 00's LeSabres.

    2. One would think that discussions between law students at school are pretty depressing these days. How can they walk into the buzz saw semester after semester? Normal people just aren't that self-destructive.

    3. My 16-year-old Buick Park Avenue is a badge of honor here in the world of sh!tlaw. It is a fine automobile, though!

    4. I love my 2002 Ford. Thanks TTTTouro. Nuke that cesspool!


    Back on January 20, 2009, the ABA Journal published a Debra Cassens Weiss piece that was entitled “Law Dean Says Schools ‘Exploiting’ Students Who Don’t Succeed.” Check out this epic opening:

    “Law schools are “exploiting” many students who aren’t successful, according to a law school dean who spoke at a program on law school rankings earlier this month.

    “We should be ashamed of ourselves,” said Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law School.
    Matasar said schools need to take responsibility for the failures of their students, according to an account of his Jan. 9 remarks by TaxProf Blog. Matasar said a law school education can cost as much as $120,000 for a students who are making a “lottery shot” at being in the top 10 percent of their class so they can get high-paying jobs.

    He spoke during a program sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools that is available in a podcast. TaxProf Blog noted Matasar’s remarks and highlighted a Forbes article that questions whether students are being misled into believing that large school debt translates into a life of economic privilege. The article featured a lawyer couple divorcing amid overwhelming stress because of $190,000 in student debt.

    “We own our students’ outcomes,” Matasar said at the AALS program. “We took them. We took their money. We live on their money. … And if they don’t have a good outcome in life, we’re exploiting them. It’s our responsibility to own the outcomes of our institutions. If they’re not doing well … it’s gotta be fixed. Or we should shut the damn place down. And that’s a moral responsibility that we bear in the academy.”

    At 50 law schools, 20 percent of the students either flunked out, can’t find jobs or have unknown outcomes, according to another speaker at the program, Indiana University law professor William Henderson.”

    Then again,Pig Matasar made a financial killing as dean and “president” of NYL$. Take a look for yourself.

    Head to page 18 of New York Law Sewer's 2010 IRS Form 990. Richard Matasar, as dean raked in $519,238 in straight salary, i.e. no other compensation. Yes, Matasar made FIVE HUNDRED NINETEEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT DOLLARS as “president” of this TTT sweltering dump - in 2009!!! Matasar also made $495,122 in compensation, for 2008. By the way, Cockroach William Henderson – the “legal rebel” mentioned in the ABA Journal story – once told me that “It’s OK if NYLS charges that much in tuition, since most of those kids come from money. They’re not taking on that much debt.” What sterling principles, huh?!?!

    1. "We own our student's outcomes."

      Since when?

      Decline your half a million salary and take a token $1 instead.

      But since that didn't - and never will - happen..

      You know.. words. Just words.

      "... since most of those kids come from money. They’re not taking on that much debt."

      Uh.. I think he's confusing NYLS with NYU.

      NYLS is exploiting Dreamy Lemmings like a mofo jonesing for their next crack hit.

      Most NYLS students, I will wager, do NOT come from money.

      By the time you hit 3L, 2S you'll see how much your law skool cares and "owns" your outcome. I remembered how I was treated and I've made it my fucking *mission* in life, like Nando, to expose and punish law skools, particularly the one I attended and every time I hear of a new problem for them, my schadenfreude just grows exponentially.

      And why not?

      I've written it before but when you are coming out at 24-25 with $300 grand of non-dischargeable student loan debt - and nobody cares about your future - and the world just shrugs and gives you Caveat Emptor.. Hey..

      I went over 20 years ago and I didn't get hurt that much by any means. But the impact the debt and the useless degree had on my life was immeasurable.

      Failure to Launch.

      The Olders are preying on the Youngers and here it's even more a subset of the Elite Olders preying on the Untermenschen Youngers and getting away with it.

      Law school is nothing but a legalized scam, like a casino, along with many other legalized scams in society.

    2. Untermenschen Law School. Isn't it located near the court houses in Suffolk County? Ttttouro first year class of 2016 down to 125 students. The end is near for the Columbia of Central Islip!

  9. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingAugust 13, 2016 at 12:57 PM

    I saw a sign on the back of a semi. It read, drive this truck and make $1100 per week. As a solo attorney, I would kill to make that type of money. I consider it a good week if I take home $400.00. I have been an attorney over 20 years.

    1. Hang in there. The state of the economy is not making things better. Despite all the fluff that one reads in the media, about attorneys making a lot of money, I have observed,first-hand, how hard it is to make any money.

      People expect you to do things for free. People expect free legal consultations, free answers, and free documents.

      Even with a solid business background, it is challenging to be a well-off attorney.

      To the people who aspire to be lawyers, you are unlikely to recover your investment (time, effort, and money)--forget about making a profit (ROI).

      I have concluded that the law schools take advantage of the human nature of people. That means the common belief that people have that they are superior to the average population. Many people believe that they are going to be successful in the face of failure, where many lawyers have failed. The name for this type of person (according to this blog) is a Special Snowflake.


      The Supporter of The Old Guy


    On August 3, 2016, JDU poster "guyingorillasuit" started a thread labeled "Deans attack tougher bar-passage rules." Look at this thread below:

    "guyingorillasuit (Aug 3, 2016 - 12:44 pm)

    "The proposal now under consideration by the ABA would jeopardize the accreditation of many schools with large numbers of minority students and would discourage schools from admitting them, according to diversity advocates and the deans of all six law schools housed at historically black colleges and universities."

    tedandlisa123 (Aug 3, 2016 - 12:52 pm)

    Right. Because having highly indebted graduates who can't even pass the bar exams to access doc review is great for minority communities.

    guyingorillasuit (Aug 3, 2016 - 12:54 pm)

    Yes, if by "minority communities" you mean "law school deans, admins and professors".

    nigeltufnel (Aug 3, 2016 - 1:06 pm)


    Surely you gest! I hope you are not suggesting that deans, admins and professors at a professional schools, whose job it is to help their paying students get certified to practice the profession, be measured by their ability to get those students certified?!?! What kind of madness is that!?!?! Consider, what madness it would be if we were all measured by our ability to perform the job we were hired to do...oh wait..."

    The law school pigs look out for themselves. To the bitches and hags, the law students are a mere mean$ to and end, i.e. big-ass bags of federal student loan dollars. If graduates end up owing $160K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - and cannot get a decent job - that is nothing more than "collateral damage." How honorable, huh?!?!

  11. My neighbor's daughter just got an acceptance letter to some middling law school. What's happened? When I went to law school you got your acceptance letters in February or March. If you didn't get one by May or June, you didn't get in anywhere. Now they're admitting people in fucking August?


    Back on March 19, 2015, the New York Times DealBook published a piece by Elizabeth Olson, which was entitled "Bar Exam, the Standard to Become a Lawyer, Comes Under Fire." Check out this portion:

    "For decades, law school graduates have endured a stressful rite of passage, spending the first 10 weeks after classes end taking cram courses in the arcane details of the law before sitting down for the grueling, days-long bar exam. Those who do not pass cannot practice law, at least in nearly all the states and the District of Columbia that consider the exam the professional standard.

    But that standard, so long unquestioned, is facing a new round of scrutiny — not just from the test takers but from law school deans and some state legal establishments. Some states, including Arizona, Iowa and New Hampshire, are exploring or have adopted other options, questioning the wisdom of relying on a single written test as the gateway to legal practice.

    The debate over the exam is not new, but it broke out in the open after the results of last summer’s exam were released in the fall, showing that the 51,005 test takers had the poorest results in nearly a decade.

    Many law school deans, bristling from criticism that they are replenishing their ranks with less academically qualified students as the number of law school applicants has fallen sharply, began to openly question the mechanics of the bar exam.

    About 80 law school deans last November jointly asked, for the first time anyone remembers, for details on how test questions were chosen and scored. The situation was already touchy after remarks made the previous month by a top bar exam official, who defended the results as indisputably correct, and then, in what the deans viewed as verbal dynamite, labeled the test takers as “less able” than their predecessors.

    Indicators “all point to the fact that the group that sat in July 2014 was less able than the group that sat in July 2013,” said Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the nonprofit organization in Madison, Wis., that constructs and scores the professional entrance exam.

    Stephen C. Ferruolo, dean of the University of San Diego School of Law, said that it was the test, not the students. He asked the bar testing agency in December for details about the test to assure that it was fair and reliable.

    Otherwise, he maintained, the exam “is an unpredictable and unacceptable impediment for accessibility to the legal profession.”

    Yes, "law professors" and deans are highly principled, huh?!?! As you can see, the cockroaches take no responsibility for taking in students with weak credentials. "Can't find a good job with your law degree? That's on you!"

  13. Nando:
    Goldman Sachs says law school is a bad investment:

  14. More from the thread:

    cocolawyer (Aug 19, 2016 - 2:10 pm)

    I think all non T14 law schools are going into survivalist mode. My Director of External Relations made a post how there were 4 real good 100k job opportunities on our job board no one applied for, and that everyone had the opportunity for them.

    I took a look at the jobs and responded, "Two of the jobs require a degree in electrical engineering and have passed the patent bar. One required an LLM in Tax, and the last was 7 years experience for 100k on a firm that's billable are 2200. I don't believe very many individuals qualify for these positions." Her response was hilarious: "The market is competitive and made for those who strive for success. You can get your electrical engineering degree and the door will open. You can get your LLM in tax and the door will open. Even if you don't eventually with experience the door will open. The fact is the market is hot for individuals willing to put in the dedication to succeed." What every individual with 150k in student loan debt and a doctorate wants to hear "you need to go back to school for 4 years or go get your LLM in a cost of 50k."

    It just is pretty ridiculous.

    Reply Like (0)
    6figuremistake (Aug 19, 2016 - 3:25 pm)

    LOL, just invest 4 more years for an EE degree and that $100k job is all yours. Apparently, borrowing 200 large and spending three years in law school just doesn't show enough dedication. How about saving the cash and time in school and just working your way up to that salary level through work experience? Of course, that path doesn't allow LS administrators to pull down $100k salaries of their own.

    Reply Like (0)
    zuma (Aug 19, 2016 - 3:54 pm)

    JEEZ, just show some dedication and get a MD from Harvard and doors will open! This damn lazy, entitled millennial generation!

    Reply Like (0)
    massivemissive (Aug 19, 2016 - 7:24 pm)

    "The fact is the market is hot for individuals willing to put in the dedication to succeed."

    This is legendary law talk: If you're not successful you must not have tried hard enough.

    Not on law review? You don't deserve a good law job. Graduated with median grades? You don't deserve a good career.

    This way of thinking has been going on for a very long time. Probably since the LLB became a JD.


Web Analytics