Saturday, January 28, 2017

ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Experienced 16% Drop in Full-Time Faculty, Since 2010


https://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/which-law-schools-are-shedding-full-time-faculty-2016-edition/

Excellent News!: On January 17, 2017, Matt Leichter posted a Law School Tuition Bubble entry labeled “Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty?” Take a look at this opening:

“Facing shrinking enrollments, many law schools have responded by cutting their faculties. The phenomenon is worth measuring because faculty reductions aren’t always announced publicly, often appearing in the guises of retirements and quiet buy-outs. Consequently, the ABA’s 509 information reports can shed light on changes in law-school faculties. Here’s the cumulative distribution through 2016. 

As with previous years, I will estimate the decline in fall full-time law-school faculties among the 201 law schools that aren’t in Puerto Rico. Note, however, that it’s unclear whether the term “full-time faculty” used in the 509 information reports includes full-time employees of a law school (as defined by the ABA’s annual questionnaire) who are on leave but have a right to return. Past editions of the Official Guide explicitly excluded full-time faculty who were on leave or sabbatical from their two-page spreads, which now exist as the online 509 information reports. The “Guide to the Data” pdf file accompanying the 509 information reports doesn’t specify either. 

I assume the ABA is continuing to exclude faculty on leave or sabbatical and only counts faculty teaching courses in the fall or spring terms, even though it isn’t clear. Consequently, minor fluctuations might mean even less than I thought before, and although I’m obviously aware more faculty teach in the spring, I choose to track fall full-time faculty because the figures represent more recent developments. Additionally, full-time faculty who have shifted to the category “deans, librarians, and others who teach” are excluded as well. This may explain why there are fewer full-time faculty in the fall than spring as full-timers teach most of their courses then. 

The peak for fall full timers occurred in 2010 (9,093), but that estimate includes the “other full-time faculty” category (clinicians and legal-writing instructors, if I recall), which the ABA no longer tracks independently. Fall full-time faculty fell by 3.3 percent this year (-261). Last year the decline was 3.4 percent (-242), so things are smoothing out. Since 2010, the cumulative decline has been 16.1 percent.” [Emphasis mine]

After the detailed chart provided, Leichter provides the following, abridged synopsis:

“Editorial observations: 

 WMU Cooley retains its crown as number one. 
No. 2, American, appears to have lost 43 percent of its fall full-time faculty this year—half since 2010. This may be a misreporting by the law school.
 The same goes for number three, John Marshall. It’s lost nearly two-thirds of its faculty since 2010. 
Finally, five law schools are running with fewer than ten fall full-time faculty, La Verne (9), Lincoln Memorial (8), Concordia (8), Appalachian (7), and the doomed Indiana Tech (5).” [Emphasis mine] 

TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer had 101 full-time pigs in 2010, and are now down to 41 full “professors.” The notorious trash pit used to publish its own set of rankings, and one year rated itself as the 12th greatest, most fantastic, and amazing law school in the entire country. Hell, American University actually had 104 full-time swine in 2010, and have since shed 52 fleas – as of 2016. That’s a nice start.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/01/law-schools-have-shed-1460-full-time-faculty-161-since-2010.html

Other Coverage: On January 18, 2017, Paul Caron covered this development in a piece entitled “Law Schools Have Shed 1,460 Full-Time Faculty (16.1%) Since 2010.” Check out this stub from the article:

“Matt Leichter has published the 2016 edition of his Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty? Law schools have shed 1,460 full-time faculty (16.1%) since 2010, and 261 full-time faculty (3.3%) since last year. 

149 law schools have shed full-time faculty since 2010, with 20 law schools shedding 20 or more full-time faculty[.]”

How do you like that, law school pigs?!?! It seems pretty clear that the pace is picking up, bitches. Then again, you cockroaches claim that you are performing a “public service.” Have fun earning $600K salaries in Biglaw. Here are some comments from the TaxProf Blog post.

Courtesy of “mike livingston” on January 18, 2017 at 4:12:26 am:

“Shed? It sounds like a dog.”

Followed up by user “Davod” on January 18, 2017 5:22:15 am:

“Shed 1,460 full-time faculty to pay for the employment of 200 administrators (Semi-pun).”

It’s great to see that the law school pigs have shed a few pounds. Then again, it’s only fair that the bitches and hags feel the effects of their own greed and lust for federal student loan money. I suppose it was inevitable.

Conclusion: It’s about damn time that ABA-accredited cesspits reduce the number of full-time parasites. Collectively, they have lowered their “standards” and admitted more cretins. Of course, the pigs prefer to lay off non-faculty staff first. How “honorable,” huh?!?!

Monday, January 23, 2017

TTTT Smells of Desperation: Charlotte Sewer of Law Fires Dozens of TTTT Faculty


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article127438764.html

Wham!: On January 19, 2017, the Charlotte Observer published a Michael Gordon piece, under the headline “Charlotte School of Law fires dozens of faculty.” Review the following segment:

“The faculty firings are the latest public setback for the uptown, for-profit school. In November, the American Bar Association put the school on probation, citing chronic problems with admissions, curriculum and bar exam scores. In December, the Department of Education made CSL the first accredited law school ever to lose access to federal student loans. Last year, students at the Charlotte school received almost $50 million for tuition, fees and living expenses. Both the government and the bar accused school leaders of intentionally hiding its problems from students in hopes of protecting enrollment. 

This week, the crisis facing the school seemed to worsen. 

On Wednesday, the Department of Education announced that negotiations with the school over the return of millions of dollars in student loans have broken down. A top education official accused school leaders of reneging on a preliminary deal that would have restored some of the lost money. 

Thursday, school President Chidi Ogene and Conison issued an extraordinary statement in which they accused the Department of Education of breaking the law and violating its own rules by cutting off loans to students last year. 

“It is regrettable that the Department of Education leadership, in the very last days of its tenure, has chosen to jeopardize the future of all our students,” the statement said. “… That is why we will continue to fight aggressively for the interests of every one of our students when the new administration takes responsibility for the department.” 

School leaders said they are continuing “to work aggressively to protect our students’ rights. … We are not holding our students’ education hostage to these negotiations.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, you cockroaches are fighting so hard for your students’ right to financially ruin themselves, in the pursuit of a TTTT “legal education.” How honorable, huh?!?! Payday lenders have more integrity than you sick bitches.

As you can see from the commode’s own website, CharloTTTTE Sewer of Law charges $42,320 in full-time tuition – for the 2016-2017 academic year. What an incredible “bargain”! Imagine if you bastards didn’t look out for your enrolled victims’ best interests. By the way, congratulations on being the first ABA-accredited cesspit to lose access to federal student loans.That is quite an achievement! 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/charlotte-fires-dozens-of-faculty-which-surprises-no-one/

Other Coverage: On January 19, 2017, Joe Patrice posted an ATL article that was entitled “Charlotte Fires Dozens Of Faculty, Which Surprises No One.” He delivered a brutal combination to this toilet. Take a look at this opening:

“Oh. So the law school that can’t get federal money and then took a Kremlin pee party on a negotiated agreement with the Department of Education is laying off its faculty in droves today? What are the odds?!?!?  

As we should have suspected, Charlotte School of Law followed the announcement that it would not sign on to a DOE “teach-out” proposal that would have allowed the school’s students to get access to some federal funds and complete their education at Florida Coastal by whipping out the pink slips.

As the Charlotte Observer reports: 

‘Sources said that up to two-thirds of the school’s professors and staff were notified in the past two days. The massive cuts come less than week before the school is supposed to reopen despite crippling financial problems that threaten to overwhelm it.’ 

Threaten to overwhelm it? When has “we’ve fired over two-thirds of our faculty” ever ended with “but then we got this ship turned around”? When two-thirds of the faculty is fired, you can start using the past tense on the “overwhelm” point.

A fired faculty member who asked not to be named out of concern of retaliation told the Observer that Dean Jay Conison made personal phone calls to the affected staffers starting Wednesday night. Those calls continued Thursday morning, the former faculty member said.

At least they’re getting the personal touch. It’s really the least you can offer.” [Emphasis mine]

The law school pigs should feel special about that personal touch. I’m sure the dean doesn’t get on the phone to congratulate applicants for gaining admission to his for-profit toilet. Then again, I suppose a 143 LSAT score is not that great of an accomplishment. Hell, beating your 12 year old nephew in a game of H.O.R.S.E., in the basketball hoop in the driveway, is more impressive.

Conclusion: If you are a student at this rancid pile of excrement, then you have only yourself to blame when you end up serving pizza and taking drink orders – with your TTTT law degree. Did you honestly think – for one microsecond – that you were going to kick some ass with a degree from something called Charlotte Sewer of Law?!?! Whoever told you that didn’t know a damn thing about this GLUTTED “profession.” Amazingly, YOU were even dumber for listening to that clueless fool. In the end, you would be better served by going to culinary school. At least then, you would pick up a real skill, moron! Hell, at this point in time that might be a better pickup line than saying “I’m a lawyer.” After all, women aren’t too keen on dating broke-asses – including the highly-educated, debt-strapped ones.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Ninety-Four Law School Pig Deans Ask ABA to Reconsider New Standards


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/law-school-deans-ask-for-extension-on-exploitation/

Bam!: On January 18, 2017, Kyle McEntee posted an ass-kicking ATL entry labeled “Law School Deans Ask For Extension on Exploitation.” He came out swinging. Take a look at this opening:

“More than 90 law school deans have asked their accreditor to halt new standards that would hold schools accountable for very low bar passage rates.

Last October, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar approved two new standards to stop exploitative admissions and retention practices. At a time when demand for law school decreased significantly, a minority of law schools began admitting swaths of students who, after three or more years of legal education, were not adequately equipped to pass the bar exam. 

Why would a law school choose to do this? To keep tuition dollars flowing.

The bar exam carnage began in 2014, reflecting admissions choices in 2011 that would only worsen each year. Bar passage rates fell substantially in 2015 and 2016, with no signs of improvement because law schools still need the revenue to remain open and face only minimal pressure from the current ABA accreditation standards.

The two new standards are simple. Within two years, 75 percent of a school’s graduates who took the bar exam would have to pass it. (Note: 99.9 percent of graduates who pass the bar do so by their fourth attempt.) Moreover, a school could not fail more than 20 percent of its entering students without a great reason. Together, these standards would require schools to acknowledge and confront the impact of their admission and retention of students.

When the Council approved the new standards, it did so overwhelmingly via voice vote. More serious than the debate to approve was the debate about whether a 75 percent minimum bar passage rate was high enough. As I have outlined previously here on Above the Law, the current bar passage standard is nearly impossible to fail because it is riddled with loopholes. For example, a school’s own poor performance can help the school stay within compliance of the current standard. Moreover, it’s a near mathematical certainty that schools in 14 states cannot fail the current standard.

At this point, one final hurdle remains for the two new standards. At the ABA mid-year meeting, the ABA House of Delegates must vote to acquiesce to the new standards or to send them back to the Council for further consideration. (If sent back, the Council can re-approve the standards.) The letter from these law school deans asks that the Council withdraw the new standards from consideration. If the Council declines, the letter then asks the House of Delegates to send the standards back to the Council. 

‘[W]e urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily.’

Of course, the matter has not been rushed. The Council and its committees considered this exact bar passage standard several years ago before it was quietly quashed.” [Emphasis mine]

The fact that these bitches and hags want to postpone this simplified – and easy to achieve – rule tells you all you need to know about their values and their “character.” They have no guiding principles – other than to financially ruin young people, so the “educators” can get fat. 

https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/documents/2017-01-13_AALS_Steering_Committe_Letter.pdf

The Pigs’ Letter: LST re-published the January 13, 2017 excrement from the A$$ociaTTTion of American Law $chools. Here is the selfish pigs’ argument below:

“We write as a group of [cockroaches] of ABA-accredited law schools to urge the Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar to withdraw for the time being the proposed change to ABA Standard 316, the standard proposing a stronger and simpler requirement for bar passage to maintain accreditation. Failing that, we urge the ABA House of Delegates at its February meeting in Miami to recommit this proposal to the Council for further scrutiny. More specifically, we urge postponement for one year for additional consideration and study. This issue is simply too important to be rushed unnecessarily. 

We believe this Council action requires further consideration and scrutiny in light of significant issues raised by member deans and by legal education organizations, and, more recently, by the results of the July 2016 administration of the California bar examination. 

The California bar results, if they become the “new normal” for graduates of ABAaccredited law schools in California, could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools–law schools whose history and profile have demonstrated over many decades an ability to educate and graduate successful law students by any reasonable measure. 

We hasten to add that the signatory deans express no consensus view on the current Standard 316 proposal. A number of deans have expressed public support for this proposal. Other deans have expressed deep concern. For example, a June 29, 2016 letter signed by many deans of the law schools that are part of historically Black colleges and universities expressed concern about the impact of this new standard on opportunities for students of color. Moreover, serious issues have been raised about the different scores required by different states to pass each bar exam and the different pass rates across jurisdictions.

Despite the diversity of opinion on this difficult issue, all the deans who have signed this letter believe that there should be an opportunity for further reflection, and perhaps more careful study and analysis, before a new standard is adopted, especially because this standard could well have serious, albeit unintended, consequences on the welfare of many law schools and students.” [Emphasis mine]

If you want the bar results to not be in the toilet, then stop admitting and enrolling waterheads. Is that too hard for you to understand, greedy bastards?!?! By the way, your diversity "stance" is tired - and it is a mere diversion.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, law school is run for the benefit of underworked, overpaid faculty and administrators – not the students! This is CRYSTAL clear, and only a cretin would argue otherwise. The students are essentially required to incur outrageous sums of additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for the benefit of lazy-ass “scholars.” ABA-accredited commodes have lowered their “standards” to the point where waterheads with a 2.8 UGPA and 141 LSAT can gain admi$$ion to their vaunTTTTed programs. These students are not intelligent enough to pass a bar exam, and this has been confirmed by the last several years of lower passage rates. Something had to be done, so the ABA weasels passed a weak new standard. And now, the selfish deans want to postpone the new rules. Yes, they really care about the students and recent graduates, right?!?!

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Limp Wrist Slap: US Department of Education Dings Five ABA-Accredited Trash Pits Over Their Weak-Ass Gainful Employment Outcomes


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/department_of_education_flags_5_law_schools_debt-to-income_ratios_including

Five Toilets Get Flushed: On January 11, 2017, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward story that was headlined “Department of Education flags 5 law schools’ debt-to-income ratios, including 3 in Infilaw System.” Enjoy the following portion:

“Two for-profit law schools are not meeting the U.S. Department of Education’s gainful employment standard, which measures debt-to-earnings ratios, the agency reported Monday.

If Florida Coastal School of Law and Charleston School of Law fail the gainful employment standard again next year, they lose access to federal student aid, the National Law Journal reports.

The Infilaw System owns Florida Coastal. Two of its other law schools, Charlotte School of Law and Arizona Summit Law School, were given a “zone” rating by the Department of Education, which means the schools were close to not meeting gainful employment standards, and must pass the gainful employment standard in one of the next four years to stay in good standing.

Federal student aid for Charlotte School of Law students is already in jeopardy, after the department in December found that the school made “substantial misrepresentations” to current and prospective students regarding its compliance with ABA accreditation standards. This fall, the ABA placed the Charlotte School of Law on probation, but it remains an accredited law school. 

A Charlotte School of Law spokesperson told the ABA Journal on Jan. 10 that spring semester student loan proceeds will be disbursed. A Department of Education spokesperson would not comment on whether that was correct, but he disclosed that the agency was “in conversations” with the law school about students “getting an option to participate in a teach out for next semester. ” 

Western State College of Law, a California school owned by Education Management Corporation, also received a zone rating by the department.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, InfiLaw has had one hell of a recent run, huh?!?! Still want to attend these festering stench pits, Lemming?! Do you believe that spending three years in a toilet is a wise “investment” in your future, Dumbass? Sadly, mental midgets and unemployed college grads will continue to take the TTTT plunge. 

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/2-law-schools-fail-governments-gainful-employment-test-3-more-on-chopping-block/?rf=1

Other Coverage: On January 12, 2017, Staci Zaretsky posted an ATL entry labeled “2 Law Schools Fail Government’s Gain Employment Test, 3 More On Chopping Block.” That’s not 2 hard 4 U 2 understand, is it, prospective law student?! Take a look at this opening:

“In 2010, the Department of Education introduced a landmark initiative designed to keep students from being buried beneath mountains of debt after obtaining degrees that had otherwise proved to be useless when it came to securing meaningful employment. Schools that failed the Department’s gainful employment standard — a test that measures graduates’ debt-to-earnings ratios — would risk losing access to federal loan funding. Degree programs fail this test if a typical graduate’s loan payments exceed 20 percent of his discretionary income or 8 percent of his total earnings. 

These regulations took effect in July 2015, and earlier this week, the Department released its first gainful employment report, and while three law schools were notified that they were in danger of failing, two law schools failed outright. 

Which schools came up short? 

Both Florida Coastal School of Law and Charleston School of Law flunked the Department’s gainful employment test, meaning that if they fail again next year, they will lose access to the federal student loan program. Florida Coastal’s debt-to-earnings annual rate was 21.35 percent, and its debt-to-discretionary-income rate was 34.63 percent. Charleston’s debt-to-earnings annual rate was 20.42 percent, and its debt-to-discretionary-income rate was 31.7 percent. Arizona Summit Law School, Charlotte School of Law, and Western State College of Law received a “zone” rating, meaning that they came precariously close to failing the gainful employment test, and must pass at least once in the next four years to remain in the government’s good graces. 

(The Infilaw System owns Florida Coastal, Arizona Summit, Charlotte (which has already been denied access to federal student loans), and was once in talks to purchase Charleston before the deal was quashed thanks to student and faculty opposition.) 

Immediately after finding out that Florida Coastal had failed the government’s gainful employment test, Dean Scott DeVito sent a lengthy email to students, questioning the validity of the gainful employment rule in the first place, and letting them know that the administration had already appealed the results. Dean DeVito also notified students that not only had Florida Coastal been trying to lower its students’ debt loads and improve its admissions criteria, but also that the school had been working to become part of a “non-profit, major university,” and had been in discussions with potential partners for the past two years.” [Emphasis mine]

The fact that the three piles of excrement that entered the “zone” rating only need to pass the test one damn time in the next four years shows you how serious the Department of Education clowns takes their own “standards.” Also, did anyone else laugh when reading that Pig Scott DeVito went into damage control immediately upon receiving the news? Yes, that shows that he and the other swine at Florida Coa$TTTTal Sewer of Law care deeply about their victims/students!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, student loans are the lifeblood of the law school scam. The pigs are able to charge $45K or more in annual tuition because the student loan scheme enhances demand and the “ability to pay.” This is why even FOURTH TIER TRASH PITS, such as all five cesspools cited in this article, get away with setting outrageous cost of attendance. You can bet your ass that the bitches and hags will place blame on others, including “lazy graduates.” Plus, the ABA cockroaches will come to the aid of their member schools. Don’t expect these leeches to be removed from the government teet for long.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

TTTT Turmoil Continues at Charlotte School of Law: Pigs Force Academic Dean to Resign


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article125476134.html

Fourth Tier Chronicles: On January 9, 2017, the Charlotte Observer extended its series on CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law, in a Michael Gordon piece that was entitled “Top academic dean forced to resign as turmoil at Charlotte School of Law continues.” Check out the following lesson on passing the buck to someone down the line:

“The turmoil at Charlotte School of Law appeared to continue Monday with the dean in charge of curriculum telling students she had been forced out of her job. 

In an email, Camille Davidson said she was asked to resign as the school’s head of academics by Jay Conison, the head dean of the school. Davidson, a Georgetown University law graduate, said she would remain on the CSL faculty. The change comes less than a week before the beleaguered school is scheduled to reopen for classes. 

“It is with much regret that I inform you that Dean Conison has asked me to step down as Academic Dean,” Davidson wrote, according to a copy of her message obtained by the Observer. “As of today, I will no longer serve in such capacity.” 

In her job as dean, Davidson helped plan the school’s curriculum and schedule of classes. She also assigned teachers and addressed academic issues with students, while also teaching classes. 

Davidson is the wife of Trevor Fuller, a Mecklenburg county commissioner who was recently deposed as chairman by his colleagues. She did not respond to an Observer phone call or email seeking comment for this story. 

One of her former colleagues at the school said Davidson regularly served as a shield between faculty and students and InfiLaw, which operates CSL and two other for-profit law schools in Florida and Arizona. 

“Camille had an incredibly hard job. She did it as well as anybody could,” said the former faculty member, who asked to remain anonymous due to the school’s current problems with the federal government and the American Bar Association. 

“She stood up to Infilaw on behalf of students and faculty when it was possible to do so. But she was the person who had to have difficult discussions with students and was often the messenger for things students didn’t like. Honestly, I’m happy for her that she doesn’t have to do it anymore.” [Emphasis mine]

Sadly, you know that mental midgets will continue to apply to, and enroll in, this certified cesspit. After all, “One can do anything with a law degree!” Yeah, make sure to tell that to bill collectors, your landlord, and the utility companies, bitch. In the end, people attend professional school so that they can enter secure, rewarding careers. Going to law school without the intention of becoming an attorney is idiotic. How many of medical or dental students go to school with the idea of doing something else?!?!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article125098999.html

But the Trash Pit Will Remain Open: On January 6, 2017, Mark Washburn and Michael Gordon tag-teamed the commode in a Charlotte Observer article, headlined “Charlotte School of Law will reopen, students told.” Take a look at this opening:

“Charlotte School of Law – battling lawsuits from students, a federal cutoff of student loans and financial problems – has notified students that it would reopen for the spring semester. 

“We are very pleased to announce that after extensive discussions with our regulators, we will be starting classes as scheduled,” dean Jay Conison told students in an email. 

Classes are to resume on Jan. 17. 

No further details were provided. 

Spokeswoman Victoria Taylor said officials at the school were not immediately available for comment on the news, which signaled that third-year students would be able to graduate. Students were told earlier that administrators had determined that at least 500 students – about two-thirds of its current enrollment – would need to commit to taking classes this spring for the school to reopen. 

“This is a step in the right direction,” said Margaret Kocaj, a third-year student one semester from graduation. “However, because there is no information about funding, I remain cautiously optimistic.” [Emphasis mine]

The only thing that matters to the law school pigs is getting their hands on tuition dollars, preferably via the federal government. Somehow, misguided Margaret Kocaj does not understand the real purpose of law school: to provide high-paying “jobs” to lazy-ass “professors” and administrators. Heaven forbid these academic thieves have to ever practice law again. By the way, from the picture provided, Kocaj will also be hampered by her looks. Unless you are connected or strikingly pretty, your job prospects as a TTTT grad are weaker than a paper sack filled with piss.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the scum at InfiLaw – including Jay "Pass the Buck" Conison at Charlotte Sewer of Law – needed a scapegoat. Hence, we see this TTTT action. In most ABA-accredited rat holes, an academic dean has about as much clout as a law librarian. The school figured that they could use the lady’s title to give the impression that they are holding themselves accountable. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think – for one goddamn second – that this academic dean was responsible for the toilet being placed on probation by the American Bar Association?!?! Anyone out there believe that the U.S. Department of Education decided to cut off student loan funds to this pile of excrement due to the actions of this academic dean, which is basically a liaison between the students, faculty and InfiLaw? Perhaps, she tried to stand up to the for-profit cockroaches, and this is the end result. What a bastion of integrity, huh?!?! Then again, morons will continue to apply to this garbage heap.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Excrement Runs Downhill: Saga at Fourth Tier Charlotte School of Law Continues, as Pigs Halt New Spring 2017 Enrollment


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article124292714.html

Power Flush: On January 3, 2017, the Charlotte Observer published a Michael Gordon piece entitled “Lawsuits grow over Charlotte School of Law woes; students plan Wednesday rally.” Enjoy this opening:

“The legal challenges continue to mount against embattled Charlotte School of Law, which had a deadline Tuesday to appeal the federal cut-off of tens of millions of dollars in federal student aid. 

CSL is the country’s first accredited law school to lose access to student loans and other money administered by the U.S. Department of Education. The agency’s decision has left hundreds of students scrambling to find other means of paying for tuition and fees of about $60,000 a year. 

Government documents last month accused the school of misleading students and the public about its graduates’ performance on the state bar exam, their success rate in finding jobs within the legal profession, and CSL’s troubled standing before the accrediting American Bar Association. 

Education officials said it cut off the money because the school’s admission policy and curriculum left students unprepared for legal work and saddled with heavy debt that they have little chance of paying back. That leaves taxpayers footing the bill for unpaid loans. 

The ABA put the school on two years’ probation in November. The Department of Education announced last month it was revoking the school’s access to loans and other taxpayer supported dollars, effective Dec. 31. 

Two groups of students already have filed class-action, federal lawsuits accusing the school of deception and fraud, among other violations.” [Emphasis mine]

In the end, federal student loan dollars are the lifeblood of the law school scam. Let’s see how the cockroaches operate, when they need to rely on big-ass donations, tapping into their endowment, wealthy students, or enrolled chumps who receive private loans.

Later on, the author continued:

“In their last statement to students and alumni on Friday, CSL leaders said they remain “cautiously optimistic” that the money will be restored and classes will resume on schedule this month. However, the school also said that because of the “uncertainty” over tuition loans, it will not be admitting new students in January. On the surface that appears to be another financial blow against the for-profit school. 

The DOE has cut off money to more than 40 schools over the past three budget years. Only four of those institutions have successfully appealed and reversed that decision, government spokesmen say.

CSL President Chidi Ogene and Jay Conison, the law school’s dean, also said school leaders are working on a transfer plan with Florida Coastal School of Law, an arrangement that Ogene and Conison say “would protect our students and ensure that they can complete their program of education.” The Florida school and CSL are part of the InfiLaw group, which also operates a for-profit law school in Arizona.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, the pigs are confident of obtaining access to Department of Education loans, huh?!?! How many of the dolts will make the TTTT move to Jacksonville, Florida – in order to continue their garbage “legal education”?! 

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2017/01/03/charlotte-law-new-spring-2017-enrollment-halted.html

Other Coverage: On January 3, 2017, the Charlotte Business Journal featured a piece from the handsome Jennifer Thomas, under the headline “Charlotte Law: New spring 2017 enrollment halted among financial aid ‘ambiguity.’” Take a look for yourself:

“Charlotte School of Law won’t enroll a new spring 2017 class amid ongoing uncertainties tied to its federal financial aid. 

The for-profit law school says it has notified those incoming students of that decision.” 

Now, scroll down to her conclusion: 

“The law school also is working with Florida Coastal School of Law on options to facilitate transfer opportunities for students effective for spring 2017.

It is preparing what is known as a teach-out plan to be considered by the bar association when it meets in March. That relationship with another ABA-accredited institution would help protect students and ensure they can complete their education.” [Emphasis mine]

How thoughtful of the bastards, right?!?! They ought to shove that "teach-out plan" up their portly asses. [Read: the “relationship” would help ensure that the swine at InfiLaw can continue to get their greedy hooves on bags of federal student loan money.]

Conclusion: If you are a student of this ABA-accredited trash heap, why not just abandon this sinking TTTT ship? Hell, this is a glaring red flag that you should not be attending this law school. In fact, if this is the best commode you can get into, then you should have questioned your decision long ago. Then again, that would require an IQ above room temperature – and you idiots don’t meet that threshold. Instead, those enrolled in this certified pile of rancid waste will bemoan their possible fate of “not being able to complete their law degree at Charlotte Sewer of Law.” You had no decent employment prospects coming out of this cesspit anyway, genius.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Law Firms Race to Replace Unnecessary Attorneys and Paralegals With Legal Technology


http://www.jdjournal.com/2016/12/31/how-will-automated-legal-services-affect-you/

Boom!: On December 31, 2016, JD Journal published a Teresa Lo piece that was entitled “How Will Automated Legal Services Affect You?” Take a look at this opening:

“This month, Axiom announced that it had inked a five-year deal with Johnson & Johnson to provide contract management services. Axiom is a large provider of technology-enabled legal services (i.e. automation), and its Executive Vice President and Head of Commercial Al Giles said that Axiom will apply “standardization, automation and process” to Johnson & Johnson’s global contracting function. This includes thousands of agreements in more than 10 languages. 

Axiom’s announcement is on trend with what is happening in the workforce. Robotics are not only replacing cashiers and factory workers, but they are starting to take on attorney and paralegal duties. For instance, BakerHostetler uses the skills of a “digital attorney” named ROSS to do low-level attorney work. At the “Watson, Esq.” conference for law and artificial intelligence, ROSS’s co-founder Andrew Arruda said that other law firms were looking to follow BakerHostetler’s lead. 

ROSS is an artificial intelligence program that can analyze billions of documents to find an answer. It also can include citations, track changes to laws that affect pending cases, and learn as it goes. ROSS is based off another IBM-powered machine called Watson, and its technology has advanced thanks to an investment from law firm, Dentons. 

The people in the legal world most negatively affected by artificial intelligence right now is first-year associates and paralegals. However, a survey from 2015 found that some law firms would be interested in replacing second and third year attorneys with technology. The survey asked 320 firms that had a minimum of 50 lawyers if they would be interested in replacing associates with robotics in the next ten years. Thirty-five percent said they could imagine first year associates being replaced, 20 percent said they saw second- and third-year attorneys being replaced, and 47 percent believe paralegals will be eliminated.” [Emphasis mine]

Still want to take the plunge, Dumbass?!?! Low level lawyers are being replaced by advances in technology. Do you think that now is a good time to incur an additional $163,217.23 in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a law degree from a second tier sewer?! Wake up, before you financially ruin yourself. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markcohen1/2016/12/30/automated-and-agile-the-new-paradigm-for-legal-service/#205b0a77ac7e

Other Coverage: On December 30, 2016, Forbes featured an article from Mark A. Cohen, under the headline “Automated And Agile: The New Paradigm For Legal Service.” Read the following portion:

“Axiom, a legal staffing-turned-technology company, recently announced a five-year deal with Johnson & Johnson (J & J) to provide multi-shore contract management services to the pharmaceutical giant. Axiom will support J&J’s global procurement contracting function, helping to standardize its vast trove of procurement agreements across a dozen contract types and 10 languages. This is not Axiom’s lone big dollar, long-term contract with a major corporation. A couple years ago, it inked an eye-popping $73 million deal with Credit Suisse to process the bank’s “master trading agreements.” 

Axiom’s metamorphosis from staffing to technology is emblematic of the maturing face and changing focus of legal service providers. They have come a long way since the early days of staffing and legal process outsourcing (LPO). The first generation of sourced work performed outside law firms involved high-volume/low value tasks-- principally document review. Labor arbitrage was the lynchpin of the early service provider model. Their greatest contribution was to debunk the myth that all ‘legal’ work must be delivered from the law firm structure. ‘Disaggregation’ of legal services spelled the beginning of the end of law firm hegemony over legal delivery. Law firms have not only ceded work to service providers, but also corporate legal departments—initially seen as another form of labor arbitrage—have expanded their breadth and scope dramatically at the expense of law firms. 

Market acceptance and an increased emphasis on technology and process in legal delivery has enabled leading service providers to vie for more complex and scalable matters--‘legal service 2.0.’ Labor arbitrage is an element in this second phase of disaggregated legal delivery, but its centerpiece is automation, data, and knowledge retention. Service providers’ corporate delivery model— on-demand or ‘gig’ (even when the gig is longer-term)-- enables them to deliver services more cost-effectively than law firms that are saddled with embedded cost escalators—‘partner tribute,’ expensive real estate, and employees with fluctuating workloads. Service providers have also replaced certain ‘services’ with ‘products,’ further reducing cost and promoting timeliness (e.g. subscription legislative and regulatory updates). They have also leveraged technology and process to create 'agile' workforces that are well-suited to the unpredictable, on demand and geographically disparate needs of their customers.” [Emphasis mine]

Can you compete against these firms armed with the latest in automated services, as a solo practitioner, Stupid?!?! Have you been accepted to Harvard or Yale? Do you have an article III clerkship waiting for your ass?!

Conclusion: Can you, as a human being, process billions of documents, including court cases, statutes, news regulations, etc.? Will you have the funds to purchase such a program, as a recent law graduate? In the end, these developments may not affect the average ham and egg lawyer who practices toiletlaw. However, that is low-paid legal work anyway. In the event that you are still considering law school at this point in time, then you are not looking at the big picture. If you have not suffered a stroke or brain injury – and you still want to pursue this route – then you deserve your fate. You have been warned sufficiently.
 
Web Analytics