Saturday, November 19, 2016

Fourth Tier Toilet Charlotte School of Law Gets Flushed by the ABA


http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2016/11/aba-places-charlotte-law-on-probation-censures-valpo-law.html

The News: On November 16, 2016, Dan Filler posted a Faculty Lounge entry labeled “ABA Places Charlotte Law On Probation & Censures Valpo Law.” Check out this excerpt:

“Today, the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar announced it is placing Charlotte Law School on probation for non-compliance with ABA Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b). The remedial steps ordered include: The Law School shall, by December 15, 2016, supply to the Committee its admissions data and admissions methodology, which includes the Law School’s admissions practices and policies, for the fall 2017 entering class. Where factors other than grade point average and LSAT are used to support an admissions decision, the Law School shall report those factors, explain how they are determined and applied in the review of applicant files, and report on any analyses that have been done or are contemplated to review the outcomes of admissions decisions based on these factors. 

and 

Until the Law School is determined by the Accreditation Committee or the Council to be operating in compliance with Standards 301(a), 501(a), and 501(b), each semester, within 30 days of the completion of the assignment and distribution of semester grades for the Law School’s students, the Law School shall advise each Law School student, in writing, of the following, in the same communication: (a) the North and South Carolina first-time bar examination passage rates, by class quartiles, for Law School graduates sitting for the North and South Carolina bar examinations over the six administrations preceding the semester for which results are known; and (b) the class quartile into which the student then falls. The Law School shall provide evidence to the Managing Director’s office, within five days of its distribution to students, that the required information has been appropriately and timely communicated. 

At the same time, the ABA Committee censured Valparaiso Law for non-compliance with Standards 501(a) and 501(b). The notice is here. The remedial steps ordered for Valpo were similar.” [Emphasis mine]

The pigs were placed on two years of probation, by an organization known to be extremely forgiving when it comes to enforcing its own pathetic standards. However, the American Bar Association clowns also has a track record of always restoring full accreditation to its foulest toilets. After all, they want more trash pits producing tons of law graduates unnecessarily. 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article115515788.html

Other Coverage: On November 17, 2016, the Charlotte Observer published reporter Michael Gordon’s article, “Charlotte School of Law promises higher pass rates after landing on probation.” Enjoy this opening:

“After years of falling test scores, the Charlotte School of Law has been placed on two year’s probation by its accrediting agency. 

In taking the action, the American Bar Association has publicly criticized the for-profit school’s admission standards and its plummeting pass rates on the bar exam.

The ABA, which fully accredited the Charlotte school in 2011, has given the school 30 days to deliver a report on how it plans to fix the problems.

The school also is required to tell students how many are passing the bar exam.

The passing rate, 45 percent on the most recent exam this summer, is the lowest in North Carolina, a full 20 percentage points beneath the state average. Faculty turnover has been a growing problem, and as with many law schools, enrollment has fallen.

Failure to meet the bar association’s demands carries a list of penalties, from fines and censure to a loss of accreditation. An unaccredited school means the students can’t qualify for federal loans or take the bar exam in many states.

Charlotte School of Law Dean Jay Conison, says the school already has a comprehensive plan in place to increase the requirements for incoming students while adding programs and academic support to improve student performance on the bar exam.

“We are extremely disappointed over the news we got Monday,” he said, but added. “We have an obligation to make some improvements. And we have a very, very comprehensive plan that we are very confident in.” He predicted the school would be back in ABA compliance well within the two-year window.” [Emphasis mine]

The bitches and hags at this cess pit admit and enroll cretins, KNOWING full well that a significant portion of each class does not have the acumen to pass a bar exam. Yet, they need to get their claws on more federal student loan dollars – so they take in a plethora or dumbasses every year. How “honorable,” huh?!?! Look at these LSAT and UGPA numbers for CharloTTTTe SOL, courtesy of Law School Transparency.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the American Bar Association cockroaches are merely trying to appear competent. They had a little heat earlier from the U.S. Department of Education, and now the bastards need to “show” that they are indeed enforcing their own accreditation “standards.” Since the ABA routinely restores full accreditation to any commode it places on probation, do not expect anything different this time. See Whittier, Western School of Law, La Verne, etc. 

Look for CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law to dissuade graduates from taking the bar exam. Perhaps, they will institute a baby bar, in order to weed out the real weaklings after first year. Or they might offer to pay idiots not to take the test. In the alternative, they may turn the last two years of schooling into a bar prep program. The slimy cockroaches will need to do something. As noted earlier, for the Fall 2013 entering class, the 25th percentile score was 141 and the 75th percentile LSAT was 149. For Fall 2015, those numbers dropped to 140 and 145, respectively. That indicates lower exam passage rates for this toilet, as long as the state bars hold up their standards.

41 comments:

  1. Check out the comments posted on TaxProf Blog under the article on Charlotte and Valpo. A pig posting under the name Michael W. Perry wrote: “There are areas in law that don’t require a genius, only experience with legal procedures. Those lawyers provide good service at rates that I am sure do not make the ABA happy. Then again, maybe that’s the point of all this. This isn’t about matching supply with demand. It’s about matching a supply that charges at least $200/hour with a demand that can afford to pay that much.”

    Lemmings, this is what the law school pigs think about you! The pigs do not think you are smart enough to teach at their law schools or to work in prestigious big law jobs like they did for 2 years. Your lot in life is to handle legal matters that are beneath them! You can defend traffic tickets for under $100 and DUIs for $1000, rates that you see advertised on billboards around Chicago. The good Captain can attest to that. The pigs are happy to haul in six figure salaries every year to teach you nothing about practicing law, so that you can take cases for less than $200/hour. Good luck finding these clients that don’t need a legal genius in a saturated market. Hopefully you don’t suffer depression, or become an alcoholic/drug addict like so many lawyers, because you can’t afford to pay your office rent, utilities, student loans, and health insurance. Not to mention, the pigs claim there is demand for these low cost legal services, but every year ABA cesspits churn out legions of unemployed grads and grads that never practice law.

    A sewer rat posting under the name Vernon Christian wrote, “Sounds like someone is worried that their W-2 might not equal last years! [sic] If these ‘ so called lesser talented ‘ law school are allowed to keep teaching. Maybe we should check into other college programs. Where their students graduate with degrees but never put them to use. So we should shut them down? Let pass the classes. If I fail the bar. How have I hurt you????”

    To answer this incredibly idiotic sewer rat’s question, the answer is yes, we shut down other college programs like ITT Tech. The stupid rat also can’t seem to comprehend that when legions of lemmings fail the bar with $100k+ student loan debt and put their JD to use at Starbucks, the taxpayers lose.

    The pigs are feeling the heat. While they desperately cling to their six figure jobs, they will squeal anything to justify the unethical practices of their toilet law school. But like with Indiana Tech, when their ass is kicked to the curb, they run to lawyers and the media to throw their toilet law school under the bus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are areas in law that don’t require a genius, only experience with legal procedures. Those lawyers provide good service at rates that I am sure do not make the ABA happy."

      Just exactly which areas of law are those? Why can't they be handled by a paralegal, or even a clerical worker? How much money will people pay for mere "experience with legal procedures"? If indeed nothing more is required, why do these bottom-grade practitioners have to go through three years of law school and a bunch of bar exams—which, incidentally, ordinarily don't give them any "experience with legal procedures"? Couldn't their training be reduced to a couple of months of observation at the courthouse or maybe a couple of courses at a community college? Indeed, why license lawyers at all if the sort of experience that any layman could easily acquire suffices?

      Where's the evidence that "lawyers" with only procedural skill "provide good service"?

      Importantly, which _UNT-style law skule tells its students that they, lacking "genius", are destined at best for mindless paper-shuffling work that won't pay nearly enough to cover the payments on the debt for their toilet school, still less the lavish lifestyle that they envision? Not a goddamn one of them. The story is all Global Leadership™ and saving dolphins and hobnobbing with celebrities, not filling out forms for small-claims court.

      Shit like Perry's is worse than fatuous on its own terms.

      Delete
    2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingNovember 19, 2016 at 7:57 PM

      A THOUSAND dollars for a DUI? Where? I am packing up the LeSabre and heading toward that big rock candy mountain!!! That would be a dream fee... It's that bad, kiddies.

      Delete
    3. Old guy


      Your wrong on this one. 75% of law school is a waste of your time if you want to practice criminal law.


      We should convert to the UK system, where there are different tier of lawyer's with different level of training depending on their expertise.

      Delete
    4. PART 1 of 3

      There is a difference between "training" and "education" in my mind.

      Folks are trained to do specific tasks competently. An electrician is trained to wire a system so that it works and no one gets killed.

      Education is directed at exposing a student to all aspects of an academic discipline, its history, leading scholars, place among other disciplines, its theories, philosophies, and so on.

      Having a child now an M.D., medical students are both trained and educated. That's why it is an 8 to 10 year path to becoming an attending physician.

      Having a J.D., myself, from a top 20 school, I was educated. Never learned a single useful thing about how to practice law.

      Medical school professors are largely practicing physicians, other than the top administrators.

      Law professors, at least at my law school, were largely academics with little to no practice experience. They can't train. They aren't trained!

      It took me years of self-training to connect my education to the ability to practice law. Many wasted years of effort.

      Delete
    5. PART 2 of 3

      Several observations:

      1. It is real work to train folks. You have to be trained yourself. The trained have to do it right for the right reasons. (do=training + right reasons=education)

      2. It is much easier to educate than to train, so law professors simply have the much easier path than medical professors. Training may mean repeating a procedure time and again until the student gets it right. It has to be right. It takes time. Medical procedures can require expensive facilities-operating room, clinic, MRI equipment, nursing staff-it is a huge commitment to train a physician. A lecture is given once, the professor having no idea if the students understood anything. As Archimedes said, “Give me a place to stand, and I can educate a law student.” That’s all the commitment it takes to give a lecture.

      3. There is virtually no support system for law school students and graduates as there is for their medical counterparts. In medical school, local, practicing physicians have students shadow them in their offices, clinics, and hospitals. Medical students shadow practicing physicians in all of the recognized medical fields to gain broad exposure to practical issues. A law student MIGHT have a single internship with a single legal services provider, such as a domestic abuse agency, or a tax clinic, or a tenant defense agency. The experience is not well rounded, so it can't really qualify as "training" in the same sense as a medical student would experience. Very few attorneys practice full time in domestic abuse or tenant defense and make a living at it. Some attorneys are full-time tax practitioners, but they tend to also be CPA’s, at least in my community.

      4. Practicing physicians, I suspect, see little diminution in income on account of shadowing medical students. Students sit in, observe, and there may be some discussion. I just suspect that a shadowing law student may be a bigger drain on a practicing attorney’s time, just because of the nature of legal work reading, researching, and drafting. A surgeon can explain a technique to a resident while the surgeon does his or her work, but it is less practical for an attorney to explain legal research as the attorney is actually researching. The billable time on the researching stops for the explanation, and that costs the attorney.

      5. Most attorneys now practicing did not have a comprehensive shadowing experience. Physicians who received the benefit of a strong shadowing tradition are willing to pass the favor on to the next generation. The legal field does not have such a tradition, and practicing attorneys who did not receive the benefit of shadowing, are probably less likely to feel that it is a part of their responsibility as an attorney. Some states are starting mentoring programs, but, in my state, are for newly minted members of the Bar, not students. Better than nothing, but far from ideal.

      Delete
    6. Part 3-Finis

      6. In my anecdotal observations, the workday of a physician is probably more amenable to meaningful shadowing than the work day of an attorney. The physician may have 15 patient encounters in the office or clinic, or a single major surgery, all of which have opportunity to expose a medical student or resident to a meaningful experience. An attorney may have a single office appointment in a day, or a couple, perhaps hours apart, with drafting, proofreading, legal research, or phone calls in between. It is difficult to give a law student a meaningful experience with respect to those types of work. Imagine a law student sitting in, overhearing an attorney’s phone calls with half a dozen clients. Considering confidentiality issues, how strange would it be for an attorney to preface a call to a good client with, “Fred, I’ve got a law student sitting here who is shadowing my day. Do you waive your client privilege so this student unknown to you can listen in on your private affairs?”

      7. Medical students have 4 years of medical education, while also shadowing practicing physicians. In a residency, they are paid residents for 3 to 5 years, where the balance shifts toward the training end, with a lesser continuing element of education. The required “Step” exams keep the pressure on to be faithful to a continuing education element of their competency. Law graduates pass the Bar and are done. It is different.

      8. My favorite: The Socratic Method. As lawyers are in the business of forming arguments and ferreting out good reasons for their positions, and it is a true skill, and the Socratic Method does help in that regard, the idea that ALL law school courses, and that ALL elements of those courses should SOLELY be Socratic in nature is simply ludicrous. Socrates is on the “training” side, but only a tiny part of the other skills a lawyer needs to be trained to practice law. Drafting, organizing arguments, oratorical skills, client interviewing and counseling skills, etc., are also important. Socrates does little to advance their development. Consider legal black letter principals-what part does Socrates have with them? Equitable estoppel, as a principal should be lectured. THEN, let Socrates tease out various applications of the principal. How does promissory estoppel differ from equitable estoppel? That is a black letter question. THEN let Socrates tease out the differences… The litigators get the most benefit from the Socratic Method, but what about the transitional attorneys? My law school classes were 90% the Socratic Method. I think only 3 courses had any lecture on substantive law. It is easy to teach only by the Socratic Method-law professors let the cases provide the substantive law, but how ridiculously inefficient. I am convinced that the thousands of poorly reasoned cases I have read are the result of poorly educated and trained law students who became law clerks and judges whose fundamental understanding of the structure of the law never quite came to fruition. More modern opinions are better crafted, so I sense some progress has been made. The Socratic Method is not the be all-end all technique upon academia has placed a crown.

      Enough.

      Delete
    7. Excellent analysis on the training-education distinction. Many civilians (i.e.,non-lawyers) think lol school is vocational in the sense that other professional schools are; that law school puts out graduates who really know how to do something. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth! This is what makes three years of law school the Scam that it is.

      Delete
    8. I don't remember any mentoring or education in med school. It was a big F U to all involved with legions of prescription drug use, condescension, pain, and self-learning in the path of PHD "MD" professors.

      Delete
  2. No word from the ABA on Arizona Summit's mock bar graduation exam....

    ReplyDelete
  3. “We have an obligation to make some improvements. And we have a very, very comprehensive plan that we are very confident in.”

    All right, then, Harlotte, tell us what that "plan" is. Tell us why at least three-quarters of last year's entering clASS scored no higher than the 26th percentile on the LSAT and why at least a quarter scored no higher than the 13th percentile.

    Face it, Harlotte: you're one of the foulest toilets going. The only meaningful improvement that you can make is to shut up shop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This cesspool (and others) surely will make passing its own bar exam-like test a condition of graduation.
    Of course, it'll be scheduled for last semester. That allows for maximum student loan milking!
    Heck, if students fail the school bar, they can be offered an extra semester at the bargain price of only 2/3rds the tuition.

    All to obtain a license to enter a declining profession!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingNovember 19, 2016 at 1:26 PM

    This school, along with Arizona Summit and Florida Costal comprise the Infilaw chain of law schools. This chain is owned by the Sterling Partners, private equity group out of Chicago They are for profit. What it amounts to is private gains in the form of student loan money and socialized losses if and when a student can't repay their loans. This is the perfect investment vehicle. Its not really about education for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just how long can the ABA ignore the stench of a corpse by the front door?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ABA's stench competes with Harlotte's and Valpo's.

      Delete
  7. It will be interesting to see how this plays out; Charlotte's a for-profit school with no Sugar Daddy parent university. How long will investors hang on?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When will Sterling Partners just pull the plug on this bullshit scam operation? They got theirs. While you the student get fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Charlotte law school is located in the Bank of America plaza in uptown Charlotte. It's a really upscale area; the law school brass put the school there to fool their unsuspecting students into thinking they landed a prestige gig. The starry-eyed lemmings get to walk around with the bankers who likely don't have six-figure student loan debt. After graduation, the students go work in the shops on the first floor of the plaza: Walgreens, Chik-Fil-A, McAllisters, and Jason's Deli. The top of the class at CSOL gets to work at the Starbucks downstairs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. https://www.lstreports.com/schools/charlotte/admissions/

    The pathetic bar passage rate for first-time takers in July 2016 is courtesy of the following cohort:

    Fall 2013

    25th percentile LSAT: 141
    50th percentile LSAT: 144
    75th percentile LSAT: 149

    25th percentile UGPA: 2.59
    50th percentile UGPA: 2.91
    75th percentile UGPA: 3.25

    Those numbers are putrid. Now how in the hell is CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law supposed to raise the passage rate for the subsequent classes? Look at those numbers, again courtesy of Law School Transparency:

    Fall 2014

    25th percentile LSAT: 138
    50th percentile LSAT: 142
    75th percentile LSAT: 146

    25th percentile UGPA: 2.53
    50th percentile UGPA: 2.83
    75th percentile UGPA: 3.18

    Fall 2015

    25th percentile LSAT: 140
    50th percentile LSAT: 142
    75th percentile LSAT: 145

    25th percentile UGPA: 2.51
    50th percentile UGPA: 2.82
    75th percentile UGPA: 3.17

    The LSAT and UGPA criteria for admi$$ion$ actually dropped at this commode. The pigs took in dumber students. Of note, first year enrollment at this dump – according to LST – was 522, 446, and 309 for Fall 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. The incoming class sizes are shrinking and yet the scores keep dropping. Hell, are they going to start recruiting DeVry “University” graduates – or hitting up rehab facilities and homeless shelters for applicants?!

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you want to practice law in North Carolina SKIP this school.

    NCCU law school is the place to go! Annual tuition is around $12k a year, which landed this school witihin the top 10 affordable law schools in the nation.

    With a strong reputation in the legal community you cannot go wrong. It also supports the HBCU mission of increasing minority lawyers.

    So get your JD with as little debt as possible. (You can thank me later) ... :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, NCCU is a real bargain: for the class of 2015, with 171 graduates, 30 are unemployed and another 28 are "employment status unknown"-in other words, unemplyed. So voer one-third of the graduating class is fully unemployed.
      Yep, NCCU law school is the place to go!

      Delete
    2. http://law-schools.startclass.com/l/109/North-Carolina-Central-University

      Nope..

      No one's going to thank you, retard.

      This school is an unabashed toilet with toilet job prospects in a very competitive market.

      http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/files/lst-plants-negative-news-about-law-schools.pdf

      That's 36K + Opportunity Costs PLUS Living Expenses of about 18K per year ==

      14K in-state + 18K == 32K per year or 96K tab plus opportunity costs PLUS any undergrad debt (not included).

      And it's not 12K anymore for IN-STATE it's 14.5K now, jackass...

      http://law.nccu.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Std509InfoReport.pdf

      Fuck you. And fuck off, troll..

      Delete
  12. Don't they have a good traffic ticket law program?

    ReplyDelete
  13. https://www.charlotteagenda.com/72784/charlotte-school-law-put-probation-admitting-unqualified-students/

    On November 18, 2016, the Charlotte Agenda posted an Andrew Dunn piece that was entitled "Charlotte School of Law has been put on probation for admitting unqualified students." Take a look at the following segment:

    "The American Bar Association has put Charlotte School of Law on probation, faulting its admissions practices.

    The association found that Charlotte School of Law has violated law school standards that require schools to admit students who have a reasonable chance of completing the program and passing the bar exam to become lawyers, according to a document sent to the school.

    The document also says the school violated a standard requiring law schools to have a course of study that prepares students for a career in the legal field.

    The private, for-profit school is located Uptown. Law school tuition costs about $128,000 for full-time students, and $138,000 for part-time students.

    Only 45.2 percent of this year’s July graduates passed the bar exam on their first try, according to the school. That’s lower than the state average of 66 percent. Only 34.7 percent of February graduates passed on their first try.

    What does this mean?

    The action, effective this week, means that Charlotte School of Law will have to report detailed data on its admissions methodology and submit written plans on how to address weaknesses. The school will also have to publicly announce it on its website and disclose the information to current and prospective students.

    Going forward, the law school will also have to disclose to all its students the bar exam pass rates for its graduates, broken down by class rank. They’ll also have to show students where they rank in the class so they can see their odds of passing the bar.

    Charlotte School of Law is still an accredited institution, and graduates can still sit for the bar exam. Students are still eligible for federal student aid."

    Does anyone with a brain stem still want to enroll in this dung heap?!?! If so, they have no one to blame when they end up working the cash register at Starbucks, after getting a TTTT law degree from this cesspool.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unfortunately, this whole episode may establish, once and for all, how near impossible the fight against the scam is. Charlotte's probation has been extensively publicized. It's clear that no one should attend this school, and there are so many other TTT choices, applications and attendance ought to drop to zero. There should be a flood of transfers(or attempted transfers) out.
    But will this happen? Probably not...there are just too many lemmings/Special Snowflakes. After all, it's the taxpayers' money involved, not theirs.
    It will be interesting to see what next fall's class looks like. If Charlotte gets a full or near full class it will be proof that the scam is well near indestructible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Valpo’s required ABA disclosures reveal some interesting data. The previous year, 17 first year students (about 10% of the first year class) transferred out of Valpo to other law schools. No students transferred into Valpo. It is reasonable to conclude that lemmings enrolling in toilets like Valpo know the school is garbage. Lemmings attend toilet law schools with the intention of transferring to a better law school. But there is a catch to attending toilets like Valpo. The low ranked law schools know students want to transfer out. So they set the 50% point of the curve in the 2s. Valpo imposes a curve with a median GPA of 2.7. Maintaining a lower 50% point makes their student loan conduits less attractive to other law schools and precludes many of them from transferring.

    Elite law schools have abandoned the curve and letter grading. Schools like Harvard now use a variation of a pass/fail system. The elite schools don’t need to worry about students transferring to other schools.

    Not only does the curve allow Valpo to keep more students, the curve also allowed Valpo to reduce or eliminate 18 conditional scholarships during the 2014-2015 academic year. So Valpo managed to gain a significant number of paying customers who cannot transfer because their GPA is too low.

    What we are seeing is a bizzare situation. The lemmings know that Valpo and similar schools are toilets. But they enroll anyways with the hopes of transferring to a higher ranked toilet. The lemmings think they can game the system and overcome their low GPA/LSAT scores. At the same time, Valpo is trying to scam the students by staining them with the scarlet letter of a low GPA. Making them tainted and unable to transfer out.

    But in the end, neither side wins. In a saturated legal market, why would an employer hire a grad from a low ranked toilet, with the scarlet letter of a low GPA? There are more prestigious schools, that have set higher 50% points on their grading curves, that are churning out students with higher GPAs. Moreover, for all the talk about the “versatility” of a JD, why would a business higher a grad from a low ranked law school with a low GPA over the typical MBA? So Valpo’s grads are less marketable. But because the grads are less marketable, Valpo has worse job outcomes and their reputation suffers. 23% of 2015 grads were unemployed 10 months after graduation. 11% of 2015 grads were only able to obtain part time or short term jobs. Only 38% of grads obtained full time, long term, bar passage required jobs (excluding solos).

    With the ABA censure, abysmal bar passage rate, poor employment prospects, and all the student loan conduits trying to abandon the sinking ship, Valpo is in quite the predicament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a game lower-ranked schools, my own included years ago, play.

      They set a low curve which doesn't affect class rank but does prevent transfers.

      I did a small amount of research long ago on transfers. Overall, only 2% of law school students transfer out successfully to higher-ranked schools.

      Logic would indicate that the Transfer Out option is only available to the top of the class after the end of 1L.

      Like everything else in law, the top get everything while the rest get zero.

      Valpo is also playing the "Conditional Scholarship" game? Nice... They are likely section-stacking too. Another tactic by the law schools that has been documented.

      It's all a con game to get that juicy Fed. Student Loan money at the expense of some young person's life.

      But then again.. That's America.

      Delete
  16. http://www.charlottelaw.info/pro-bono.html

    The toilet strongly "encourages" students to serve the community. To wit:

    “A Hands-on Commitment to Community and Service

    The Charlotte School of Law is committed to serving the underserved and providing access to justice for all through public and community service. Our commitment to public service goes beyond what you will find at most other law schools.

    We are the only law school in North Carolina to require fifty (50) hours of pro bono service and ten (10) hours of community service prior to graduation for every student. Incorporating hands-on service experience into our legal education program gives our students an opportunity to discover their passions, make connections in the community, and gain invaluable experience that will take them well beyond their years in law school.

    All incoming Charlotte School of Law students are required to perform 50 hours of qualifying public service over the course of their law school career. While all 50 hours may be done pro bono, up to 30 hours may be completed through qualifying experiences in any course (i.e., clinic, externship, clinical lab, practicum); public interest job; or pro bono project.

    The required pro bono and community service hours may be met by providing legal services:

    • For the benefit of persons with limited means
    • In other underserved communities
    • For the benefit of the court systems
    • With an aim at the protection of civil rights and civil liberties

    Pro Bono services may also include student participation in activities for the improvement of:


    • The law
    • The legal system
    • The legal profession”

    The pigs REQUIRE 50 hours of pro bono service and 10 hours of community service, yet they charge $42,320 in full-time tuition – for the 2016-2017 academic year. That is sickening!

    http://www.charlottelaw.info/tuition.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sooo.. they adopted the New York Lippman model?

      Two questions:

      Did the pro bono crap ever apply to Lippman himself?

      Second, does this pro bono crap apply to the faculty and staff of the school or only to the suckers paying $42,320 per year in tuition?

      In sum, you get to be an even bigger chump if you decide to attend this cesspit vs. other cesspits. What a great deal!!

      Delete
    2. The pro bono requirement or "service projects," or "service hours" requirements have been growing in popularity in grade schools, high schools, the Boy Scouts, and now law schools.

      It is a noble thing to encourage the self-centered to see something beyond themselves, but there are subtle and troubling aspects to it.

      Law schools essentially develop community contacts and good will be compelling law students to work for free.

      Trust me, as a lawyer, you will do thousands of hours of "pro bono" work-work which didn't start out as pro bono, but clients will simply not pay, file bankruptcy, turn out to be impoverished that you will not get paid. It is involuntary, client-driven, pro bono.

      The reality is that any "pro bono" has a cost-to the person rendering pro bono services, whether voluntarily or not. Law students have rent to pay, food to eat, and such. Practitioners have over head. Each $1,000 of "pro bono" work I do, involuntarily, costs me about $640.00 in cash out the door overhead. So, clients who decide I am a "rich lawyer" and can afford not to be paid by them, don't realize I actually PAID for the privilege of being cheated by them. So $30,000 in write-offs actually costs me about $19,000 in cash paid for overhead.

      I actually do a fair amount of true pro bono for folks who are truly in extremis and not able to afford legal advice. I just prefer the courtesy of choosing those cases for which I decide to work for free.

      Delete
  17. I'm a person considering law school and I really appreciate your blog, but are you mostly speaking to those that wish to be rich as a lawyer? I'm sure people will consider it naive and foolish to attend law school and go in to debt for any reason, but what do you have to say to those of us who are well aware of the fact that we won't get rich, and don't want to work in big law? Personally, I want to work in either civil rights/public interest or as a juvenile lawyer. There will always be the "little guys" that need to be defended against our capitalist/greedy society. Even considering that perspective do you all still feel a law degree is totally useless?

    I really do love what you're doing here and I know it's helped many people make better decisions about their futures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jobs in the "civil rights/public interest" field of law are hard to come by IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. This isn't about getting "rich." You will take on debt, thinking your work will allow you to rise above the material, but that debt will drag you into a pit; and you won't get a job in that area. They are extremely competitive. You will be saddled with debt, and you'll have to get a shitty job outside of law just to pay the bills.

      Delete
    2. You won't pay off your law school debt until you are 45 or 50 years old. You will have a great deal of difficulty buying a house, affording children, getting married, taking vacations. You won't likely have any pension, health, dental, or optical insurance.

      You will retire on Social Security as your main source of retirement income. You will work like a dog. There is no escaping having a law degree as no one will hire you for anything else, fully expecting you to move on as soon as a legal position presents itself to you. You will be envied by the idiots who have good jobs who think being a lawyer is the “greener grass.” I hear it all the time from clients and acquaintances. All you will see is a career wasteland.

      Your spouse will resent that all your corporate friends have a much easier life, and a retirement pension so they can travel. You will sit home. (A retired head of a 6 person law firm made that comment to me last year-all his corporate retired clients traveling and he can’t afford to.)

      The world is full of billions of people who need help. Few will care about your sacrifice to help them. They have nothing and will see you as them and not care. Even if folks appreciate your efforts, appreciation will not pay your bills. “Good clients” don’t pay either-I routinely write off $30,00 to $50,000 in billable time each year. You’d probably love to have that as an income. Me too.

      In small law, your income will barely be enough to pay your living expenses, much less anything on a mountain of debt. I know, my law school debt was $1,500. Yep, that's it. I got a job in small law, but my salary was so small, (1/3 that of my sister who was 7 years younger with a Bachelor's degree), that I went on my own for the last 35 years.

      28 weeks of vacation in 40 years of practice. Had little money to spend and could not afford to shut down the office. 2-3 years to go before I quit. At best, my retirement income will be 1/4th my working income. I would never do it again.

      Delete
    3. As has been said many times, public interest jobs are extremely hard to get. Many pay so little that someone in this job has to have a rich family or high earning spouse to get by.

      You should pick a public interest organization you'd like to work for. Ask them how many attorneys they have hired in the last year, and how many applications they received. Then ask what the
      starting salary is.

      Delete
    4. It is noble to want to work in civil rights, public interest, or juvenile law. Don’t think that because you want to practice in a hypothetical low paying public interest law job that you will find work. The problem in the legal profession is not that unemployed grads are entitled and refuse to work low paying jobs. The problem is that there are many more grads than jobs available.

      If you are interested in working in public interest law, then you should attend a Top 7 elite law school so that you can obtain a job. An elite law school would give you the best chance to pursue jobs in the Department of Justice or other public interest organizations. Do not gamble and attend a low ranked law school. Many people that came before you had the same dreams. They attended low ranked law schools with the hopes of helping others. They are now working at Starbucks or retail. Not too long ago, the NYT interviewed a graduate from Valpo with similar dreams. She is working at Meijer.

      There are alternative careers to help people in need. You should consider social work. I also recommend medicine. There are health disparities in our health care system. For example, African American women are 40% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women because they are not getting access to health care. In rural white America, the opioid epidemic has led to a spike in Hepatitis C because addicts are sharing needles. You can help fix some of these problems as a doctor. You will not be able to make a difference as an unemployed lawyer.

      I say this from personal experience. I attended a non-elite law school about 15 years ago. I believed the lies told by the Deans. They claimed everyone got a job. They told us not to worry about taking on 150k in debt to attend, because the average private practice salary was about 100k. They told us if we wanted to practice public interest law, then we should work in private practice first, where we earn about 100k, and pay off our loans. Then take a public interest law job once we paid off our loans. All of this was a fantasy. There are not enough law jobs now, and there were not enough law jobs then. But back then the Deans could publish false job statistics. After my first year of school, I interviewed on campus with law firms and government agencies. Despite having great academic credentials, I was not hired by a single employer. After graduation, when the economy was booming, I continued to apply to any job available. I applied to small law firms, prosecutor jobs, public defender jobs, and government/public interest. I would have taken any job, including public interest jobs. But I was not hired anywhere. That is the risk you are taking by attending a non-elite law school. Check out the job statistics today. The numbers tell a similar story.

      I recovered from this devastating setback by attending medical school. At least now I can have a career in a real profession and actually help people.

      Delete
    5. 4:39 PM, I will echo the fact that those "public interest" gigs are few and hard to come by, maybe much more so than you are led to believe. With that in mind, keep wary as you travel through law school that what you might WISH to do with that expensive JD may not be what you GET to do. Also, it's great (and I give you credit here) that you are not preoccupied with dreams of Biglaw; however, also don't be misled by the notion that there is some mythical midlaw out there that is available for those who don't make Biglaw or pursue public interest. There isn't. Law is bi-modal in its salary distribution; there are winners and losers, nothing else.

      Delete
  18. I don't understand how law school works????

    My freind graduated from Boston College law school (ranked 22 a while back), graduted bottom half of the class and could not find a job and had to move back home with his parents.

    After failing the bar twice he ended up working as a ADA with over $150,000 in student loans to payback.

    I never understood how his experience would differ from a tier 4 grads experience?

    **I wonder if a tier 4 grad was in the top 10% of his class would he have better job prospects than the bottom half of BC grads - outside of connections?

    I met another grad from the bottom half of the Univeristy of Miami law school. Same thing happened to him.... it almost seems like if your not within the top half then you will struggle to finds job???

    Can anyone confirm this ?

    If dismal job opportunities await them both?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's better to be in the top of your class vs. otherwise at anything but, perhaps, the T14 schools, or even T10.

      Realize that this means 90% of the class is now set up to fail absent connections or other factors.

      Your 2 friends' outcomes are not uncommon. This is the Norm for law school.

      It's a $150K-200K+ gamble that will not pay off for 90% or better - looking long-term over years - for law school graduates, including all but probably T10 grads and even for some of them they'll fall out.

      Meaning: The odds of a good career in law today SUCK at outrageous non-dischargeable student debt prices.

      Just. Say. No.

      Delete
    2. So ADA is a dismal job opportunity?

      Your friend needs to learn the jurisdiction inside and out, then flip to defense work after several years and that'll be more lucrative.

      Nobody stays at their first job our of school, unless it's a family practice.

      Delete
    3. "then flip to defense work".

      Who's going to pay him?

      The poor use public defenders paid by the local gov't. Most people are poor, especially criminals.

      If he leaves the gov't teat, he has to find paying clients for himself vs. the gov't paying for his job and some benefits as well.

      He's lucky to have that ADA position.

      His only real shot, IMO, is to hope and pray he can get PSLF and stay in a public service position long enough to have that $150k forgiven while putting a roof over his head and food on the table.

      He can change jobs but only really to other gov't jobs to count towards the 120 needed payments.

      Realistically, he has *no shot* of paying down $150k in the private sector let alone decent/stable employment.

      Law is a scam when you need public employment to survive in it. Total scam.

      The best he can probably do right now is to live with his parents for 10 more years and pray to God he gets to discharge his loans using PSLF and that there aren't major changes to the program during that time.

      Delete

 
Web Analytics