Monday, March 18, 2013

Does society need another JD bartender?


“Scott Prouty, the 47 Percent Video Source, Opens a Legal-Assistance Fund,” by David Corn (Mother Jones)

David Corn reports that the former bartender who videotaped Mitt Romney make the infamous 47% comments is establishing a legal-assistance fund with any remaining funds being spent for him to go to (wait for it) law school.  Does society need another JD bartender? Is there a synergy between law and bartending that will actually help land some clients?

Money Quote: “I've been bartending for eight years and I'd like to move forward with a job that lets me help others.”


“Problems persist with law school jobs data, watchdog says,” by Karen Sloan (National Law Journal)

NLJ reports on Law School Transparency’s efforts to curb misleading or incomplete employment data. LST claims close to half of law schools haven't met the expectations set by Standard 509, the ABA's tougher reporting requirements and that the ABA has taken no enforcement measures beyond emailing law schools to remind them of new reporting requirements. The ABA disputes this saying it is working “behind-the-scenes.”


“Law Life: Student Loan Law: A niche for a few good lawyers?” by Sylvia Hsieh (Daily Record Newswire posted by Detroit Legal News)

Money Quote: “’Everyone has student loans. It’s a uniquely American thing. There’s over a trillion dollars in student loan debt,’ said Adam Minsky, a lawyer from Boston….[whose] own student loan problems drew him into representing clients with similar issues.”

The Profound Philosophies of Philosopher Leiter

There has been a lot of hating on Philosopher/Professor Leiter, and it has been unfair. Cruel even. The way people talk, if he were in a Harry Potter book he would be called Professor Dumbledumb. But we should not be juvenile. Others have addressed his legal views, but I think we should address his status as a philosopher, because our professor is both. I think a proper comparison can be made to show that he is capable of hanging with the biggest boys of Académie. Leiter's work clearly stands firm and hard, even against the so-called great philosophers of the past. The scam has truly brought the best from our man, and his blog is a gold mine of metaphysical and moral insights. Please compare and contrast Philosopher Leiter with the other guys, and you will see:
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. 
—Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
I do think we law professors, and especially those with blogs, have been far too tolerant of malicious and unprofessional conduct by usually anonymous or pseudonymous lawyers and students. 

—Leiter, "We Get Mail: Thomas R. Grover, Esq. Edition"
_____________________________
I see very clearly that one has to exist in order to think 

—Descartes, Discourse on Method

. . . even Paul Campos has realized that his blog didn't have much content, apart from insulting and deriding Deans, faculty and anyone else who contested his claims. 

—Leiter, "Paul Campos's final bit of revisionist history"
_____________________________
I am responsible for everything ... except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world ... in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.

—Satre, Being and Nothingness

. . . by Campos's own admission, there really isn't much content to his routine. 

—Leiter, "Paul Campos admits he doesn't "even [know] what it means" to think like a lawyer"
_____________________________
In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.

—Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The article does include one dangerous innuendo, namely, that somehow the current difficulties in the job market and the current need for more differentiation in models of legal education can somehow be laid at the doorstep of "tenured" faculty.  In fact, the lack of differentiation in models of legal education can be laid at only one doorstep, that of the ABA, and the dismal economy might be blamed on a variety of parties, from the deregulation of banking that began in the Clinton era, to miscreants on Wall Street.   Tenure remains an important feature of all serious academic institutions, and it would be a travesty were the current "crisis" mentality to undermine it.

—Leiter, "'Drastic changes' in how we educate new lawyers?"
_____________________________
If a person is stupid, we excuse him by saying that he cannot help it; but if we attempted to excuse in precisely the same way the person who is bad, we should be laughed at.

—Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation 

And in other breaking news, a failed legal academic who refers to legal education tout court as a "scam" complains when someone points out that it is absurd to say getting a law degree is worthless.  One can't make this kind of stuff up, as they say.

—Leiter, "Cato Gets in on Law School Bashing"
_____________________________
Education has for its object the formation of character. To curb restive propensities, to awaken dormant sentiments, to strengthen the perceptions, and cultivate the tastes, to encourage this feeling and repress that, so as finally to develop the child into a man of well proportioned and harmonious nature — this is alike the aim of parent and teacher.

—Spencer, Social Statics

The last paragraph encapsulates the juvenile irrationality of these folks quite well, and it is the theory that has underlay the lawsuits against law schools, which have been uniformly dismissed by the courts outside California.  With the legal strategy apparently having failed, "Law School Transparency," which made common cause with the plaintiffs' lawyers in those cases, has now switched gears to filing frivolous complaints against law schools with the ABA. 

—Leiter, "Why most faculty steer clear of engaging the irrationality of the "scam" bloggers"

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Campos Revisited: Scam After Scam

I wrote a few of the emails that Prof. Campos posted on Inside the Law School Scam.  I want to revisit one of them: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/search?q=cle

In that post, I discussed the New York State Bar Association's requirement that new lawyers complete hundreds of dollars of live MCLE courses in the first two years (after charging $750 for applications and dues and bar exam fees).  The NYSBA allows a tuition reduction if a person applies for it.  However, even if this person qualifies for government assistance because she is below the poverty line, the bar only will provide a $50 coupon or, if she is lucky, 50% off of the course, which will still cost $75-$125.

The NYSBA also offers week-long courses, which require $300+ fees and travel/lodging expenses.  For example, they are running a week-long trial advocacy camp for new lawyers near Cornell, meaning that most interested in this program will have to take a week off of their Starbucks job to travel and sleep away at Cornell.

As we all know, the normal MCLE courses could be offered online for $20 or less.  Alternatively, the live courses in New York City could be hosted at much cheaper locations than, say, the most expensive midtown hotels.

I took an MCLE class again yesterday, and based on the number in attendance and the cost of the class, this one-day MCLE workshop generated over $21,000 in revenue (before factoring in the merchandise sales).  The bar hosts a dozen of these classes each month!

I have tried getting answers about these high costs from the person in charge of the Continuing Legal Education in New York, but he will not discuss the hard numbers or the reasons for so little relief for new attorneys despite the required live courses and the higher number of credits required to stay in good standing.

Again, this is all indicative of the clueless or the outright gouging of an out-of-touch generation.  The lawyers teaching my criminal law workshop did not understand that half of the people they were instructing were unemployed (a fact that came out toward the end of the day after someone asked for a show of hands).  Yet, there we were, learning strategy for murder trials and other felonies that few of us will ever handle.

Interestingly, a New York Times article today echoed my "Jobs Now" post about the huge number of poor people without access to legal help despite the huge number of new attorneys available to work for low pay and/or loan forgiveness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/us/16gideon.html?hp

The good news: I feel that the USNWR's attempt to posture--pretending that they were harbingers of the truth--and the mainstream media stories published each week about the law school collapse, the lawyer glut, and the public's lack of access to legal services means that change is starting...even if slowly.  Don't expect those in charge to help--they will continue to posture and to take credit for change after we force it.

The best pressure now is shaming the bar associations, who often block many talented young lawyers from jobs and government revenue, and expanding the audience receiving our message.

Friday, March 15, 2013

U S News Rankings as a force of good? Are State Bar Associations starting to step up?


“New data ‘unmasks’ schools, says US News law school ranking czar,” by Bloomberg Law.

Any thoughts out there about this comment? It seemingly gives credit to US News for acquiring new data to unmask the true law school employment figures:

“The new data “unmasked” that some of those schools had a relatively small number of their students taking full-time long-term jobs that require a JD, Morse tells Bloomberg Law’s Lee Pacchia.”

Or this non mea culpa statement?

“As for the power of US News’ rankings, which some deans blame for legal education’s woes, Morse says, ‘US News isn’t the ABA . . . We’re not responsible for the cost law school, the state of legal employment, the impact that the recession has had on hiring, or the fact that there are 10 or 20 new law schools that have opened over the past couple of decades. And we’re not responsible for the imbalance of jobs to graduates.’”

“Law School Affordability,” by Claudia Johnson (Alton Daily News/WBGZ Radio)

This article reports on various recommendations by the Illinois State Bar Association related to law school affordability. This particular recommendation should give some law school deans heartburn:

“Rather than allowing all accredited law schools to enroll students receiving federal student loans, Congress should restrict federal loan eligibility to schools whose graduates meet certain employment and debt repayment outcomes.”



Press Release: Leiter wins Pulitzer Prize for Poetry‏

The Pulitzer Committee is proud to announce this year's winner for poetry, "Maurice" Leiter (relation unknown but suspected), a great soul that has graced this country for too long to not be officially recognized. Leiter has been a scarcely-published writer of verse since the mid 1990's, when his "Poems II" was first written. This first work was a sensation, taking the literary blogosphere by storm:
Poems in the roadway found in tire tracks
Poems on soiled napkins rescued from trash
Poems inside matchbooks like something to buy
Poems on toilet paper unrolling without end
Poems in cereal boxes like prizes to be tried
Poems shaped in seaweed delivered by the tide
. . .
Death poems ringing coffins wrought by wriggling worms
Love poems found at morning drying on the sheet
Poems    poems    poems     poems     poems
This is the genius of Leiter, and why he is an American treasure, the Whitman, or even Ginsburg, of his generation. The images presented by Leiter surpass "Leaves of Grass" one-hundred fold. When an ordinary man sees a piece of trash, Leiter sees glory; when an ordinary person sees a soiled napkin, Leiter sees a story; when an ordinary person sees a fragment of rotting kelp at the beach, Leiter sees Neptune's beard. Does this not teach us how to think—nay, how to live? And the poet does not shy away from stark images: of "coffins wrought by wriggling worms". How exactly a coffin was created (wrought: beaten, or shaped by) by mere worms, the poet does not stay, but leaves us to mull over it, until we can grasp what he has long known. And when an ordinary person sees a suspicious stain on the mattress, Leiter sees only the residue of love: "Love poems found at morning drying on the sheet". Then our poet repeats the word "poems" five times, so that we will not forget we are reading a poem on a page full of poems about poems. Why? His poetic power is unstoppable.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

JDs and the Myth of Meritocracy

No one has it easy.

Bulls**t, I hear you say.  That homeless dude I stepped over on the way to work?  Get a job.  That worthless slob over at the DMV?  No way.  That prissy pharmacist’s assistant at the local Walgreen’s?  It’s not who you know, it’s who you blow.   That know-it-all HR woman at the office?  Same thing, if not more so.  And what does that Boomer CEO actually do all day, besides play golf?

Notice the progression.  Job or no job, it doesn’t matter.  As we move up the educational ladder, it doesn’t matter.  If we change genders, it doesn’t matter.  If we modify the starting conditions and social capital, it doesn’t matter.  “I” work hard.  “You people” are entitled, special snowflakes that don’t deserve anything because you don’t work hard.

Our culture takes the Myth of Meritocracy to the extreme, and it’s destructive.  It paints people into organic robot slaves at best, and completely inhuman trolls at worst.  There is no “we”, only “I” and the rest of you dolts.  And any respect or fealty that is given to others is ultimately grudging and false.

The Law School Scam plays right into this hubris and confirmation bias.  “Yes, THOSE people couldn’t cut it, but YOU can.  We are willing to anoint you with legal knowledge and expertise, because we bestow merit when we see merit.  With this degree, you will change the world.  95% of our graduates have jobs requiring a JD at an average $135k per year.  Sign here.”  And then they diligently trot out the graduate from 10 years ago or more, who (if they are honest) talks about how they “fell into this such-and-such practice, then fell into that such-and-such practice, presto-change-o, so can you!”

Amway, higher-ed style.

What is the response of the masses?  After the ego-stroke and the shock-and-awe tactics, one thinks “Well, in spite of all the bad data and the terrible odds, I’m willing to work hard.  That will make the difference as to why I will succeed, and the other schleps will fail.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!” See, e.g., http://subprimejd.blogspot.com/2013/03/fine-wine-and-law-school-applicant.html

Wait, but everyone “works hard,” remember?  That’s not unique, it is actually beyond common.  That is the flip-side of “no one has it easy.”  Meritocracy is not where it’s at.  We know this.  The world demonstrates this on a daily basis.  We’re not all special snowflakes.  Grades are on a curve.  Despite best efforts things sometime fail, even if they are the “better quality” solution (Hello, Betamax).  What does succeed is often a serendipitous combination of things no one could have foreseen nor purposely, intentionally brought together (Hello, Facebook), or things that were just plain flat-out given to you and not to others (Hello, fourth-generation legacies).

Even with all of his advantages, did Mitt Romney just not “work hard enough” to become president?  That’s the only “rational” conclusion, right?  Did Hillary Clinton just not “want it bad enough?”  I guess so.  What other explanation can there possibly be?

The Law School Scam?  They know the truth about the practice of law and of the marketplace – most of them got out as soon as they could, frankly, if there were ever in it in the first place.  They know that “merit” only works for the top 5%, if it even works at all.  I knew the top-five (not top 5%) at my school, and strangely they were not drowning in offers.  The schools know what it is really all about.

Do they say so?  No.  They play right to our worst nature, and try to cover it up with a fancy façade of “defending liberty” and “pursuing justice.”  At outrageous costs that are detrimental to most graduates.  Once the snake-oil checks have been cashed, then and only then do they say “Look to your left, look to your right, because one of you won’t be here by the end of the year.”  My, how quickly things change once the money changes hands.

Do we need lawyers?  Yes.  Do we need 40,000 new lawyers a year?  No.  Do we need Law Schools to revert from profit centers to institutions that actually practice what they preach and serve their mission (which might not actually involve pumping out as many lawyers as possible)?  Yes.

In short, we need Law Schools to stop shilling the Myth of Meritocracy, because, frankly, they know better.  Their endowments are supposed to allow them to take the high road on these issues.

Oh, and also stop the lying heretofore about employment outcomes in general.  That too.  Kthxbai.     

Spot the False Law School Myth Game


The below two articles are classic examples of the type of information routinely fed to undergrads to convince them that law school is “a good idea.” Just for sport, let’s play a game of “spot the false law school myth” and see how many we can find. First one to five is the winner. (No need to post a comment on Mr. Applbaum’s essay since he seems to be taking a fairly sound drubbing already.)

“The opportunity of law school,” by Aaron Applbaum (The Daily Princetonian)


“Prominent lawyer, Phila. Native talks law school,” by Fola Onifade (The Daily Pennsylvanian)