Outside the Law School Scam is delighted to present this special two-part report on the woes of InfiLaw. As our friends know, scam-firm InfiLaw as recently as a year ago operated three profit-seeking über-toilet law schools that drew their "students" largely from the bottom quartile of the LSAT pool: Charlotte, which suddenly shut up shop this time last year; Arizona Summit, slated to lose its ABA accreditation unless (fat chance) an appeal succeeds; and Florida Coastal, which has had to move its dwindling student body to cheaper quarters and put its building up for rent.
PART IV: ARIZONA SUMMIT STOPS OFFERING CLASSES
Less than two weeks before the new semester, Arizona Summit told its students that it would "not offer any classes" in the fall of 2018. It advised them to transfer to another school.
How generous of Arizona Summit to give its students a few days' notice of the cessation of classes! Charlotte didn't even announce its closure last year; it simply went tits up.
The article cited above lists three options for those foolish enough to be enrolled at Arizona Summit:
1) Double down on InfiLaw by transferring to Florida Coastal or taking on-line classes there. With only one semester to his credit, lemming Kurt Fernandez plans to do just that: "I have a 2-year-old and my wife is pregnant, so I'm sort of stuck in Arizona." Enrolling in a dying über-toilet with one small child and another on the way, then undertaking an on-line degree from the same scam-chain that has now left the students at two über-toilets high and dry? History repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce…
2) Transfer to another school. In late August, this is more easily said than done. Arizona State will take the eight or so who are within a semester of graduating, but only as "visiting students": they will still get their degrees from Arizona Summit. Arizona State will not accept all Summitoids: in the words of assistant dean Tom Williams, "We don't have the places for them, and honestly there are a lot of students who wouldn't succeed in our program." Perhaps for similar reasons, Harvard and Yale have not offered to salvage the wretched refuse of Arizona's teeming desert.
3) Hope that by January 2019 Arizona Summit will have concluded a "teach-out plan" whereby Arizona State will take the remaining Summitoids in. As I recently explained, the Summitoids would still get their degrees from long-defunct Arizona Summit, not from Arizona State.
Old Guy meekly proposes a fourth option:
4) Quit, damn it! You dolts never belonged in law school. Now you may have the chance to get your student loans discharged on the grounds that your school shut down on you. That will be the best opportunity of your life. Take it! Take it!
PART V: CHARLOTTE STILL LIABLE FOR LEASE
A recent decision of the Superior Court in North Carolina came to Old Guy's attention. Get a bag of popcorn before you read the story.
Charlotte signed, and InfiLaw guaranteed, a thirteen-year lease beginning in August 2013 for a quarter of a million square feet of first-class office space in which to run its law school. In August 2017, with nine years left on the lease, Charlotte lost its license and ceased operations. In October 2017, it failed to pay the rent and vacated the premises.
The landlord sued Charlotte and InfiLaw for breach of the lease and the guaranty, respectively. Since the facts were undisputed and the law was clear, the landlord sought summary judgment. The defendants opposed that motion on the grounds, typical of a Charlotte-an charlatan, that frustration of purpose relieved them of their obligations under the lease.
The judge, of course, would have none of that. He granted summary judgment against both Charlotte and InfiLaw.
The only disappointing part of the decision is the court's refusal (¶ 40) to say whether the loss of Charlotte's license to run a law school was foreseeable. I agree that the court did not have to speak to that question, but I would have appreciated a little obiter kick in the scamsters' asses. Charlotte's demise was not only foreseeable but foreseen: we in the anti-scam movement had been talking about it for years.
Anyway, now the landlord can set about the task of enforcing its judgment against a defunct über-toilet and the parent scam-company. Presumably the asse(t)s of Arizona Summit and Florida Coastal will be available to satisfy the debt. My advice to the landlord: hurry!
Not to pick on Fernandez, but...oh my God, quit. A two year-old, another on the way, no income. There HAS to be something to do in Arizona that is at least mildly profitable, even as a 9-to-5 job. If you're "stuck in Arizona," make use of it rather than avoiding it.
ReplyDelete"We don't have the places for them, and honestly there are a lot of students who wouldn't succeed in our program." Ouch! Go to DeVry and then work for a defense contractor as an engineering tech, anything. There has to be something else other than nebulous "law school," especially from a for-profit that is out to screw you every.step.of.the.way.
Things to do in Arizona:
Delete1) Install and repair air conditioners.
2) Sell orthopedic stockings or funeral services.
3) Tend lawns for retirees from Peoria who expect to grow lush grass in a goddamn desert.
Any of those is better than law, particularly for the sort of dolt that goes to Arizona Summit.
"Frustration of purpose"
ReplyDeleteIf the purpose was bilking dolts out of hundred of thousands of dollars, then yes. Clearly an activist judge not giving due deference to scamdeans and lawprofs who deserve the money at the expense of society. Contracts are only enforceable when the scam is actually working.
OG-how much longer will Florida Coastal remain in business?
ReplyDeleteGood question.
DeleteLast year Florida Coastal drew in only 106 first-year students. It may get a couple of dozen from Arizona Summit, but only for two or three years. It is in financial trouble, unable to afford even its building. Unlike Cooley, it can't expect much favor from the ABA.
I expect Florida Coastal to announce its closure within two years.
Unfair question, OG, but what will it take to get people like the student in the above article to realize their good fortune-really, truly the Proverbial Gift from God-and act on it, by fleeing AS ASAP? Anyone with any basic objective reasoning skills would recognize it's a pretty shoddy outfit which as late as July represents it's going to be open, then less than two weeks before school starts announces "never mind". That alone should give the student pause, but combined with the less than flattering quotes from AZ State in the article, should convince him his future lies elsewhere-anywhere elsewhere-than Summit.
ReplyDeleteWill anything ever get through to people?
Good question. I don't consider it unfair at all.
DeleteAs you know, "basic objective reasoning skills" at Arizona Summit are as rare as hens' teeth: witness the LSAT scores. Nonetheless, even the, er, logically challenged should hesitate to trust the InfiLaw chain after being fucked over in this way, particularly since defunct InfiLaw über-toilet Charlotte even more egregiously fucked its lemmings over by closing last year without notice.
Arizona Summit has reportedly been locked out of its premises by the landlord for non-payment of rent.
ReplyDeleteArizona Summit now appears to be effectively defunct: even if it won its appeal and therefore retained its ABA accreditation, it could not easily resume operations with neither a location nor the library, furniture, and other assets that presumably are under the landlord's control.
Here's hoping for a trifecta, with Florida Coastal biting the dust in the immediate future. And if you're a student at FC-especially a soon-to-be 1L-how do you convince yourself that the shameless folks running FC aren't going to leave you locked out, too?
ReplyDeleteOld Guy,
ReplyDeleteThe facts section of the N.C. order states CSL's lease required InfiLaw's guaranty, not an unexpected provision for a decently well-counseled landlord to require, and the suit itself includes both (only) CSL and InfiLaw as defendants.
However, one wonders whether that single guaranty is/was sufficient to cover the lease obligations, given that InfiLaw itself is a corporation owned by various private equity funds, and no other guarantors are mentioned as being on the lease (if there were, they'd be additional defendants here). In its current reduced state, InfiLaw assets are Coastal (going), Summit (going), and CSL (gone), all of which are/were on leased space, so there really isn't much for the landlord to look to here, just used furniture, computers (probably also leased), and law books (worthless).
Private equity partners and investors are usually well-insulated legally from liabilities incurred by a portfolio company (like InfiLaw), with losses limited to their investment. So, the economic basis for this suit is a bit of a mystery to me.