Sunday, June 11, 2017

ABA Cockroaches Grant Provisional Accreditation to University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law

Another Public Toilet: On June 7, 2017, Joe Patrice posted an ATL entry labeled “The ABA Is Giving Us A New Law School.” He seems to think that this is a positive development. Read the entire text below and draw your own conclusion:

“The ABA has granted provisional accreditation to the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law, giving us one more real law school in the already crowded market of law schools. The difference is… this is a good thing.

This isn’t to say the world really needed another law school. Hell, TEXAS didn’t need another law school. But what UNT offers is critically important to the legal academy — it’s cheap. While America faces the troubling lawyer supply conundrum of too many lawyers for declining top-flight jobs and simultaneously not enough lawyers for public interest and underserved market roles, UNT is filling the niche of providing a low-cost legal education for people who won’t then run away from lower-paying work. In fact, UNT makes expanding legal education to low-income communities part of its mission, offering its scholarships based on financial need, not on LSAT mastery. 

So, obviously, the ABA dragged its heels on accrediting UNT because after years of gleefully accrediting diploma mills to tend to the relatively affluent — or at least those credit-worthy enough to be relatively affluent on paper — they suddenly had concerns that these law students might not be able to pass the bar exam. Apparently not charging an arm and a leg triggered the ABA’s spidey sense. We can’t start giving out law degrees here! Lawyers might start actually helping people! 

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and offered UNT provisional accreditation (as we would have if we were in charge). This doesn’t absolve UNT of its obligation to put its graduates in a position to work in the profession — UNT may be half the cost of Texas, but that’s still a lot of money — and we’ll continue to hold them to the fire if they’re failing to mint lawyers capable of paying back their education. 

But it’s good to see a school proving that lawyers can be made without a mountain of debt. If only some other schools would pay attention.” [Emphasis mine]

The problem is still that Texas has a GLUTTED legal market. This has been documented for years, by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. The state already has NINE other damn ABA-accredited schools! Texas A&M purchased Texas Wesleyan’s trash pit in 2013. Outside of the diploma mill at the University of Texas, the rest are filth. I don’t see how adding one more toilet to the mix is a good thing.

Other Coverage: On June 8, 2017, the Dallas Morning News featured a Nanette Light piece that was entitled “On its second try, UNT-Dallas law school gets provisional accreditation.” Check out this opening:

“Three years ago, UNT Dallas College of Law opened its doors as an unaccredited college in downtown Dallas with a bold plan to teach a diverse group of students while keeping tuition low. 

But success for the city's first public law school hinged on one key factor: accreditation. 

On Tuesday, the university announced it receivedprovisional approval for accreditation from the American Bar Association. The full accreditation process will take about three years. Until then, the school has the same privileges as full accredited colleges, meaning students can still take the bar exam. 

Royal Furgeson, the law school's dean and a former federal judge, called the milestone a relief.

Sometimes you rise up in your [money-stuffed] bed at 3 in the morning thinking, 'My God, this is really important to a whole lot of people, and we just can't let them down,'" said Furgeson, who was home recuperating from back surgery when he received the news.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, accreditation was important to the administration and “law professor” pigs at the Univer$iTTTTTy of NorTTTTTh TTTTTexa$ aTTTTTT Dalla$ Commode of Law. Otherwise, many – but not all - of the waterheads who applied to that cesspit would instead try to get into any of the other numerous garbage heaps located in the state.

By the way, William Royal Furgeson Jr. - in his capacity as a federal “judge”/politician in black robe – appears to have outrageously abused his power against a defendant. When you have a moment, read this piece. The fact that this evil man is the dean of this law school speaks volumes. Of course, most of the applicants to this toilet will not bother to look him up. Hell, I did a quick Google search of the bastard – only because his name sounded vaguely familiar. Took me five seconds. Look up “Jeff Baron Royal Furgeson” and grab some popcorn. One wonders if the pig’s conscience ever bothers him at night, regarding his conduct in that case.

Tuition: For the 2016-2017 academic year, in-state tuition was $15,133 – and non-residents were charged $27,264. Fees account for another $546, for all students. Don’t forget living expenses. So even Texas residents living with mom and dad will incur cost for transportation, personal, loan fees, etc. I also can’t imagine too many parents allowing a 25 year old staying with them rent free. My guess is that if they do, they will lose patience with you and then make your life a living hell.

Conclusion: The American Bar Association would accredit a ham sandwich, so this is no surprise. Also, the dolts have been making new dung pits wait until their second year of application, before giving them provisional accreditation. They have to give the appearance of being judicious, after all. This is the equivalent of an easy girl in high school or college turning down the occasional guy – only to blow him two weeks later in her trailer park home or in his dingy-ass apartment. So much for “standards, huh?!?!” At any rate, the addition of new law school in Texas is a moronic idea. Also, most of their graduates are NOT going to represent low-income clients. Instead, they will return to their old jobs or become insurance agents. You can do that without a law degree.


  1. The only surprising thing is the low number of quality school in big state like California, Texas and Florida. The only really good schools in all three are Stanford, Cal, and Texas. All the law schools in Florida are shit. All of 'em.

  2. I was trying to find a clever way to say it, but I can't. Plain and simple, this is bad news for UNT students, bad news for UNT faculty in other schools/departments, bad news for state taxpayers, and bad news for federal taxpayers. Period.

    Scamming innocent students, fleecing taxpayers, weakening the economy, and degrading UNT. Their mothers must be proud.

  3. Nice!

    To have the best chance of getting "Full" accreditation they need
    to implement an AAMPLE program ASAP to allow fair access to legal education to all.

    The second step would be to keep tuition prices in line with "Public" tuition cost. 16k a year is cheap !!!

    UNT Law will basically redirect most of the applicant pool applying to the other High tuition law schools "in the great state of Texas" ( with the exception of TSU Thurgood - honorable mention) and they will attract the top talent.

    Watch out UT..... UNT is gaining traction. This has opportunity written all over it! Don't be surprised when UNT sprints past Houston Law Center in the US news rankings, and throws down a windmill slam dunk against UT law.

    Value for money!!!!!!

  4. I wouldn't recommend this (or any other brand new lol school) to anyone. There's a sucker born every minute.

  5. I may be a loser and I may be completely invisible to women but at least I can say I did not attend law school. I have $40,000 in cash and I have $2,000 in student loan debt remaining. I am living the dream.

  6. Law school's for rich kids, the connected (often the same group), or the incredibly gifted. If you get into Yale, go to the fucking law school. Not sure I'd put any other school in that category. Maybe Stanford and Harvard. Other than that and you're taking a risk. Like playing Russian roulette with your life.

  7. Christ on a skateboard.

    No, cUNT is not cheap. No, cUNT is not needed. No, cUNT does not fill a niche. No, cUNT's graduates are not going to serve disadvantaged people. No, no, no, no, no.

  8. This is wrong on so many levels. For one thing, it is my understanding that the state committed something like $100 MILLION to start up (C)U.N.T. College of Law. All in the name of "diversity" and "underserved" populations. If you follow that logic, why not just set up a $100 million endowment to provide scholarships/loan forgiveness to qualified minority and "non-traditional" students who are actually intelligent enough to get into decent law schools? How do you like their reasoning: The law job market is saturated, so salaries for less-competitive positions are low. Therefore, many smart college students are turning up their noses at law school, because they are not interested in shit-law jobs. So the answer is to replace the smart applicants with morons who will happily waste 3 years of their lives and end up earning less than some of their peers who got associates degrees from junior college!

    The egregious waste of taxpayers' money aside, this also distresses me because a few of these idiots are somehow going to pass the bar exam, either by luck or by benefitting from the practice of taking and failing it four or five times. Those dumbass underqualified lawyers are going to drift around looking for work, and some could possibly run for political office, i.e. as judges. Makes me shudder.


    1. Yes, if they are so concerned about access to justice and underserved populations, why not take that $100 million and use it to fund legal aid and public defender positions? There are more than enough lawyers as it is, and all this school is doing is dumping even more into a glutted field (assuming they pass the bar exam).

    2. Anyone who would go to cUNT has no business attending law school at all.

      cUNT prides itself on the shittiness of its students. It boasts of downplaying GPAs and LSAT scores in favor of "life experience", a criterion that has earned many a cat and dog a degree from a diploma mill. I'm willing to bet that the LSAT scores at cUNT are even worse than those of Cooley.

      For details of cUNT, see this:

  9. Even with that tuition, it would not be difficult to rack up 50-70K in student loans which is still a lot of money, esp. for a shit law degree.

    Then again, if tuition is relatively low now, that may not last. Nothing to keep them from enticing people with low tuition, only to jack it up after the first year or two and people are already in.

  10. Team AAMPLE has better chances with a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader than any grad of this dump does of a successful legal career.

  11. Huge spike in idiots with sub-150 LSATs applying to law school, and they have to go someplace....

    1. No, they don't. And there should be less places they can go. Eventually we will see less applications from people of that caliber if there are less places they can land (because they crater) and those who do get in continue to fail the Bar.

  12. I respect Above the Law. But that article has several factually incorrect statements, like this gem: “America faces the troubling lawyer supply conundrum of too many lawyers for declining top-flight jobs and simultaneously not enough lawyers for public interest and underserved market roles...” Name one public defender office, state attorney’s office, or public interest agency that cannot fill attorney job openings. You have lawyers working the document review circuit for $20 an hour. How can this author seriously claim that lawyers are working in temporary jobs at $20 an hour, because that career path is more lucrative than a career in public interest law? Just check out the BLS outlook for attorneys. It does not say, “public interest jobs will remain available because entitled law grads refuse to work for low wages.” Rather, it says, “competition for jobs should continue to be strong because more students graduate from law school each year than there are jobs available.”

    Then there is this utter nonsense: “UNT is filling the niche of providing low-cost legal education for people who won’t then run away from lower-paying work.” Who the hell is running away from lower paying work? There are legions of unemployed law grads every year. There are numerous grads turning to non-professional jobs. When the NYT interviewed the Valpo grad last year working at the local Meier, that grad did not say, “I turned down a low paying public interest law job for this lucrative career in retail!”

    After spouting complete garbage that panders to the law school cartel, this author then tries to appeal to the scam blog movement by using terms like “diploma mills.” The author just wants to sound like a middle of the road, fair, moderate. But consider this comparison. Someone who believes Trump’s lie that the Comey testimony shows Trump did not obstruct justice, and agrees with Democrats that Trump’s promises on healthcare are BS, is not a smart moderate. Rather, they are an imbecile for believing one of Trump’s lies.

    If you want more lawyers working in public interest law or working in jobs such as a public defender, then the solution is for the government to divert more funds to those agencies. Wasting millions on another toilet law school will not help overworked public defender offices, state’s attorney offices, or public interest offices hire another attorney.

    1. To be accurate, the individual working at Meier was unable to pass the bar exam, so attorney jobs were not an option. The article also described another graduate who received "several offers but none came with a salary or benefits." Sorry, but no salary or benefits is not an "offer."

      Agree 100% that part of this problem could be alleviated if federal + state governments would adequately fund legal aid and public defender agencies. Much better use of money than funding worthless law schools.

    2. ATL is only slightly wrong. There are not too few lawyers in public defender roles or public interest law, and those outfits tend to recruit strong talent anyway. Better quality than most who would go to this school. As they should. The lack of legal representation exists for individuals and small businesses who can pay but not at rates attorneys can live on with current debt loads. If law school could be cheap enough that a $50,000 salary was adequate, these markets would be better served and everyone would be better off. With rare exceptions that I consider quasi-pro bono, I turn clients away all the time because I can command high rates and it doesn't make economic sense to take their cases on (and I don't even have debt).

      Many shit law schools should simply crater and close. But other middling ones that attract middling students should cut prices drastically. They need to stop thinking they can function as cash cows for their universities like the top schools. And they need to stop paying exorbitant salaries to faculty and admin and spending massive sums of money on state-of-the art buildings, curated book collections, and landscaping. None of which will help their middling student body get jobs but which does dramatically inflate the cost of legal education for it.

    3. It's not that people are running from lower paying work. They still do it. Work like doc review. But the excessive cost of law school makes it much harder for middling law firms that would serve individuals and small businesses to exist. They can and do exist for plaintiff-side contingency work, but much harder for paying clients and hourly representations. Young graduates are not doing substantive legal work at such shops (as opposed to document review) because such shops don't exist to any significant degree. Not to say that shitlaw doesn't exist. It does. But there is still this underserved market that will always remain underserved as long as the lesser law schools remain so expensive.

  13. That tuition will quickly increase over the next several years, and cost at least $25k in state. I was hoping that shuttering Indiana Tech and Whittier was a trend.

  14. This is great news! We now have another school that Nando can flush.


    Back on August 16, 2016, the Dallas Observer published a Jim Schutze piece entitled "DCL Is Either a Brave Little Law School That Could or a School for Scoundrels." Take a look at this portion:

    "The University of North Texas Dallas College of Law (DCL), about to begin its third year of operation, is threatened with non-accreditation by the American Bar Association (ABA). In the world of law schools, that would be the death penalty.

    It's simple. It's bad. The Texas Board of Law Examiners will not allow a candidate to take the bar exam in Texas, a requirement for becoming a licensed lawyer, unless the candidate has completed the required coursework at an ABA-accredited law school.

    The forward end of the problem is captured in the headline of a recent Dallas Morning News editorial urging the ABA to relent and insisting that the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law must be freed to pursue its “audacious, but absolutely vital, mission.”

    And that is? Both the News and the dean of the 2-year-old institution tend to talk around the point with a lot of fussy euphemism, but clearly from its very start the school’s special mission has been to produce more law graduates of color and from modest origins than are turned out by the established law schools.

    It’s hard to argue with that goal in Texas, where Bar Association members are 81 percent “Caucasian,” according to the ABA, while non-Hispanic whites make up only 43 percent of the population of the state.

    A formal decision by the ABA later this fall to deny accreditation to DCL would mean that graduating third-year students the following summer would not be allowed to sit for the bar exam — a stiff and maybe fatal blow to the school’s credibility and marketability.

    Obviously when the school’s academic problems are viewed in the light of its stated goal of diversity, then a decision by the ABA to deny accreditation can be cast as a blow against social justice, which is sort of what the News did and the school’s leaders have done in their public statements so far."

    If the pigs cared about "social justice," then what's to stop them from donating large sums of cash to legal aid programs and other underfunded areas?! That's right, folks! The swine only tout this line, in order to reel in weak fish.

  16. I wanted to become a tax attorney but when I realized there are ONLY, I kid you not, roughly 430 U.S. Tax Court cases heard a year, I realized there was no demand. There are probably more than 430 tax attorneys in the area I live.

    Tax attorneys are so common, you could probably lift up a rock and find one sleeping underneath it.

    1. And in the cold months you have to pound the hood of your car so as not to ruin your engine. Right next to a stray cat.

  17. Well we do need another law school. Corbozo, Crooklyn, Fucksberg, Barry, Tom Dooley, Slave Master Jefferson, Ugly Maria, Case Western Reserve Light Beer, Ham-on-the-Bone, George Mason Jar, Golden Arches, Fartham, Flo-Rida Coastal, Drake (Dean's Hotline Bling), Children of the Cornell, Zoro School of Law all need company.

    Plus Andre Douglas Pond Cummings needs a job!

    My life sucks and I need someone to laugh at and these Law schools give me so much entertainment.

    It's funny how lawyers fuck everyone over, including their own!

  18. I commented above June 12, 9:39. When I say 430 U.S. Tax Court cases, I mean for the ENTIRE United States. This 430 case number includes about 30 small claims cases where the taxpayer represents themselves.

    This country probably only needs 20 tax attorneys to be able to handle that case load. The rest of IRS cases are settled at the administrative level which a CPA or Enrolled Agent is permitted to represent the taxpayer. If most cases make it to the U.S. Tax Court, 90% of those cases are settled prior to trial.

    I am using tax law as an example to show there is no god damn work for lawyers period. I get the whole supply and demand dynamic.

  19. Oh, a new law school focusing on innovation, public interest, localness, diversity, etc., and with very low tuition. How many times have we heard that before?
    And as soon as the ABA grants its "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" full accreditation (and access to Federal loan $$$), we all know what will happen next -- the tuition will instantly jump to whatever the market will bear, the school will forget all about innovation, etc., and it will become just another law school: raking in the loan money, enrolling whoever wants to put off life for three years, and churning out more law graduates with no chance of getting a law job that pays enough to service the six-figure debt.


      $100,000 for provisional approval. Plus a list of other annual fees, etc.

      ABA is just like the law schools. They exist, along with the schools, for their own benefit.

      The schools and the ABA can crow about diversity (what happened to "merit", btw.. Just because white lawyers are "overrepresented" in Texas..) all they want but neither the schools nor the ABA, frankly, give a damn.

      It's all about the Benjamins.

      You are exactly right. Now that the skids are properly greased, it's Go Time on raising tuition to what the market will bear, just as Indiana Tech did.

      I assure you, Texas needs not one more lawyer or law school for the next 20+ years - and even then there would still be a massive oversupply.

      No one cares about the students or their financial futures, or the color of their skin, and so on.

      No one.

      It's all about the money, honey.

  20. We definitely don't need more law schools, including this one. But we should look at the differences here that allow them to be so much cheaper, and existing schools should copy. Whether it's less faculty and admin, lower salaries, less month spent on useless things (for lower tier law schools anyway) like curated book collections, more online learning options. Whatever.


    Check out this staff piece from Dallas City News, posted August 8, 2016. The headline "Former Dallas City Hall set to become UNT Dallas College of Law." Here is the substantive section of that article:

    "The Dallas Municipal Building and former Dallas City Hall may soon become the new home of the University of North Texas System (UNTS) Dallas College of Law.

    UNTS Chancellor Lee Jackson briefed the City Council’s Quality of Life Committee on a proposal to allow the University to purchase the historic building at 106 S. Harwood, which served as Dallas City Hall until 1978 and as DPD headquarters until 2005.

    The City of Dallas spent $14 million in bond funds to restore the exterior of the building and the UNT System will spend $56 million to restore the interior for the UNT Dallas College of Law.The goal will be to replicate the original 1914 Beaux Arts design. The old City Council Chambers will be converted to a 60-seat classroom and the central stairwell, historic corridors and murals will also be renovated.

    If the agreement is approved by the City Council, UNTS plans to begin construction in January 2017 and open by January 2019."

    As if the city and state hasn't spent enough money on this public toilet. Certainly, there are more pressing needs in the area. This is a piss poor investment. But the law school pigs must be fed, right?!?!

  22. Agreed. There are indeed far more pressing needs. Our government leaders, however, can always be depended on to piss away our money. This is absolutely egregious!

  23. $15,000 a year might not sound like much in tuition. But opportunity costs (lost income for 3 years), living expenses, and miscellaneous costs can add up to $150K easily.

    1. Good point. You can get a crap light manufacturing/warehouse job for at least $10/hr. That's 20,000 a year, bare minimum, even if you never work Overtime.

    2. Especially if you're leaving a secure job behind....beware.

  24. The Joe Bob Briggs School of Law at the North Texas State. Here's the summary:

    100% of students fleeced.
    No Aardvarking (before, during, or after).
    Massive Student Debt-fu.
    Massive inflation-inducing, economy wreaking, private sector-crowding-out state and local debt financing-fu.
    Transfer of wealth from poor taxpayers to rich professors and administrators-fu.

    Joe Bob says avoid at all costs!

  25. ttp://

    From the commode's Admissions page:


    We’re meeting our goal to widen access to legal education. We believe a community's lawyers should be as diverse as the communities they serve. We are committed to serving a wide range of students who have the potential to be successful lawyers."

    Scroll down to this dreck:


    The UNT Dallas College of Law seeks students with the desire and ability to become excellent legal professionals. The College of Law also seeks to enroll a diverse student body with a variety of perspectives, experiences, and viewpoints that will enhance the education of all its students.

    To evaluate these qualities, we will review and consider all components of the applicant’s file: academic record, LSAT score, personal statement, resume, letter(s) of recommendation, and an optional interview. Applicants who have previously attended another law school are required to have an interview as part of the application process. The review takes into account factors such as the applicant’s background, honors and achievements, service to others, communication skills, talents relevant to the practice of law, hardships overcome, advanced degrees, work experience, leadership, and diversity. (Diversity includes racial and ethnic diversity as well as other differences, such as age, socio-economic background, educational and professional backgrounds, and military service or law enforcement experience.)

    In reviewing the applicant’s academic record, considerations include the level of course work completed as an undergraduate, performance in courses involving critical and analytical thinking, demonstrated written and oral communication abilities, and trends in grades received throughout college.

    As to the LSAT, the College of Law does not have a minimum LSAT score requirement. We agree with the Law School Admission Council’s Statement of Good Admission and Financial Aid Practices: “LSAT scores provide at best a partial measure of an applicant’s ability and should be considered in relation to the total range of information available about a prospective law student. Thus, the LSAT score should be used as only one of several criteria for evaluation and should not be given undue weight.”

    Yes, this trash pit places a lot of empha$i$ on "diversity" - and has no minimum LSAT requirement. Perhaps, if you can write your personal statement at above an 8th grade level, then that scores you more points with these greedy pigs anyway.


Web Analytics