Over at American Thinker, Thane Messinger and I have just published an article entitled The Law School Con, our response to a very pro law school article, The Law School Crisis, published there recently by Ben Taylor.
Have a read of Ben's article first, then the response. Also, read the comments to the articles, as they give some good insight into the pulse of the general public on this issue.
The message is getting out there to a wider audience, and they are listening.
Charles Cooper is the author, along with Thane Messinger, of “Con Law: Avoiding...or Beating...the Scam of the Century (The Real Student's Guide to Law School and the Legal Profession)”, in addition to being the moderator at Nontradlaw.net and the author of “Later in Life Lawyers”. He can be contacted at charlescooperauthor@gmail.com.
Have a read of Ben's article first, then the response. Also, read the comments to the articles, as they give some good insight into the pulse of the general public on this issue.
The message is getting out there to a wider audience, and they are listening.
Charles Cooper is the author, along with Thane Messinger, of “Con Law: Avoiding...or Beating...the Scam of the Century (The Real Student's Guide to Law School and the Legal Profession)”, in addition to being the moderator at Nontradlaw.net and the author of “Later in Life Lawyers”. He can be contacted at charlescooperauthor@gmail.com.
The obvious question that should've been asked is whether or not Indiana Tech rejected a single applicant.
ReplyDeleteLike most reasonable persons tasked with defending a lackluster proposition, the author of “The Law School Crisis” begins by conceding his opponents’ points and acknowledging reality:
ReplyDelete“Certainly, some of the teeth-gnashing is well-founded. As a combined result of the global economic recession, new do-it-yourself legal services, and an over-saturated market of lawyers, the legal profession was due for a downturn.”
At least he acknowledges there’s a downturn and that the market is not simply saturated, but over-saturated. Progress has been made. The author uses the rule of 3s, placing the most significant negative (i.e., over-saturated market) in last place. The first 2 negatives (global recession and DIY kits) are placed up front. These are straw men. The world will surely climb out of the recession and while DIY legal kits are annoying, they can’t replace counsel for non-routine matters.
Scamblogging didn’t emerge because of the Downturn or DIY legal kits. It arose because the “over-saturated market of lawyers” –a reality the author concedes– created a crisis in legal employment. The over-saturation is neither temporary nor recession-linked. Over a prolonged period of time, the oversupply has driven earnings and opportunities through the floor. The over-saturation is cumulative and grows worse with each successive graduating class. It didn’t arrive with the Downturn; it only came out of the closet because the Downturn brought the evidence into sharp view at a time when the Internet blog has come of age. If the Downturn ended today, the lawyer oversupply wouldn’t vanish. If all law schools went on a 10-year graduation moratorium tomorrow, the lawyer oversupply will remain.
The thousands of persons ushered through a 3-year course of intensive schooling and herded into the legal profession aren’t suddenly going to become CPA’s, petroleum geologists, MD’s, dentists or state governors. They aren’t going to move to Serbia and teach English. They can’t. They’re out-of-shape, and would get their asses kicked if they tried to work on a road gang. They’ll stay here and be underemployed lawyers, taking desperate steps to try to survive, driving down the market rate and reputation of lawyers while they’re doing it. And they won’t be happy doing it. And the public will despise them. No one’s happy.
That’s the reality Scamblogging’s fighting against.
The illness can’t be swept under the rug by pendulum analogies. The over-saturation was there in the late 1980s grows worse each year. Only now, there’s this thing called a “blog” so it can be discussed in public. This pendulum ain’t swinging back when the Downturn goes away. The over-saturation has permanently altered the climate and the landscape. Law schools are responsible for the over-saturation, the over-saturation has killed the legal jobs market, and that’s the problem that has killed the prospect of law school for all but the very top of the heap.
Great points - and I am glad that Charles and Thane wrote and published a well-written response to the vapid article.
DeleteToday someone took a Seton Hall Law so large that part of it was sticking up out of the water. The janitors arrived just in time and were yelling obscenities and flailing at it with their plungers just as I arrived.
ReplyDeleteGreat article, and a measured response to Ben Taylor's article that didn't make us all look nutty. I'm glad to see the fight being taken outside the walls of this blog for a change.
ReplyDeleteComments Army! Time to hit American Thinker!
The comments evidence the general public perception that lawyers are to be despised and the fewer the better. Nobody will cry over unemployed/underemployed lawyers. I've been practicing for decades and even i have contempt for our profession. Primarily because we will do anything to make a buck.
ReplyDeleteGreat work, guys! I'm glad that you guys picked up the torch from Campos.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the commenter from 8:21 am provided a great summary of events. Now that we can conduct extensive research online, and publish our viewpoints immediately, the game has changed a little. Consumers should be much better informed. The veil over the law school pigs' snouts has been removed. We have shed a light on the cockroaches, and now they are running for the dark corners. Good luck with that, bitches.
Taylor needs to be profiled on Third Tier Reality. There is enough info out there for Nando to go to town, complete with baby faced photo.
ReplyDeleteUnderwhelming response, both here and there.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder people can't be bothered to do anything.
Thane and Charles, thank you both for writing this. Without people willing to stand up and counter these fallacious arguments and sheer bullshit elsewhere on the internet, we'd have been dead in the water years ago. You have at least one appreciative fan.
There are some fucking stupid people in the pro-law school comment thread. And by fucking stupid people, I mean self-important irrational libertarians who exemplify the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
ReplyDelete"Contingent fees and laws allowing lawyer's fees and court costs to successful plaintiffs are the worst evils. Of course, both were created by politician/lawyer sleaze-bags."
Uh, no. And also contrary to libertarianism, since a potential tort claim is a property interest and allowing individuals to transfer a share of the interest in order to get a benefit (legal representation) is central to libertarian philosophy. Very Lockean. Fee-shifting statutes are an entirely different matter, but they aren't what's wrong with law.
"The legal profession was tainted since Roscoe Pound changed the Harvard curriculum from Constitution to Case Law focus. Just as other half-educated idiots graduating with social studies Degrees, the lawyers have been taught how not to think along logical lines, but to slither in the mud to find some "Precedent" to steal."
This is so nonsensical I don't even know where to start.
"It isn't the school that necessarily makes the graduate; it is the hunger and motivation by the student that lay the foundation for learning. Refer to cell house lawyers in prison. They work their tails off to learn criminal law, yet most had no criminal law background until they went to prison."
And most of them have no knowledge when they leave, either.
"there is no "downside" for attorneys who get things wrong."
Really?! You mean having your reputation trashed, losing tons of money on fees, and possibly losing your business isn't a downside?
Great response Charles.
ReplyDeleteAt this stage the Law School Shills have been reduced to waving their arms and saying "look, just ignore the facts! Think about the brand! Think about long-term prospects!"
The truth is, if they had any decent facts on their side they would have trotted them out long ago. You and the others have destroyed every rational argument for going to law school, so this is what they're been reduced to. Smoke and mirrors and a healthy does of bullsh*t.
The most unbelievable part of the pro-law school guys article was when he talked about what the "New York Times envisions" for the legal profession. As if the speculations of a newspaper or opinion column are ironclad evidence. He might as well have cited a TV show or fictional novel...
ReplyDelete