Financial peril by law school

Paul Campos, whose long-defunct blog Inside the Law School Scam inspired our name, has just published "Is Your Law School Going Broke? A field guide for interested parties". Conclusion: all but a dozen or so of the ABA-accredited law schools face substantial peril, in most cases grave. Presenting data and estimates derived from 184 of the 195 ABA-accredited law schools open today, Campos finds that 14 are at low risk, 29 at moderate risk, 66 at high risk, and 75 at severe risk of financial difficulties that could lead to drastic restructuring or outright closure.

Operationally, Campos takes $700k of effective tuition per faculty member (meaning actual tuition received, so excluding discounts passed off as "scholarships") as the approximate amount needed to pay for a law school's operations. He admits that some law schools do function on considerably less but also points out that many spend a great deal more: toilet Brooklyn, for instance, spent twice as much ($1.34M) in 2024–25. He also considers such factors as the size of the law school's endowment, to the extent that this information can be found or estimated, and the change in effective tuition per faculty member between 2010–11 and 2024–25. That change, incidentally, is slightly positive at 23 law schools and strongly negative at the great majority: the average change for all schools was –33%, a decline of one-third.

Of the 14 that appear safe for the near future, the most surprising is Montana. How did this über-toilet-tier establishment secure its financial position? By hiking tuition greatly, increasing enrollment slightly, and slashing faculty by more than a quarter. Perhaps its location in a large, relatively empty state enabled it to jack tuition higher than could the typical miscellaneous mediocrity or toilet school in a state or region abounding in comparably bad law schools.

At the other extreme, those at severe risk include several sub-élite poseurs that pretend to be in a league with Duke and Cornell even though everyone knows that they're not. UCLA in particular, by his estimate, spends about three-quarters more than it generates; no doubt it survives at the expense of the rest of the university and therefore represents a large drain on the university's budget. Twelve state flagship schools—Alabama, Colorado (where Campos works), Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio State, Utah, Wisconsin—congratulate themselves on being in the "first tier" by bullshit US News nomenclature (they are in the fourth tier or lower by Old Guy's ranking); all have long posted large annual deficits that, again, must be made good from the parent university's budget, to the detriment of other programs that are arguably much more deserving. (Campos points out that law professors are frequently paid a great deal more than their counterparts in arts and sciences, for no clearly justifiable reason.) Although these are hardly likely to dry up and blow away in the manner of the InfiLaw scam-schools and thirteen others in the past decade, their days of lavish allowances from the administrative sugar daddy are rapidly ending.

Some severely endangered law schools don't generate enough revenue to cover payroll, never mind their other expenses. Campos convincingly estimates that more than 90% of the budget for Michigan State's toilet law school comes from the central administration. No doubt the university can find better uses for its money than the maintenance of a discredited law school in a region housing two dozen other law schools within a four-hour drive.

The new cap on federally guaranteed student loans for professional programs will bring additional pressure to bear on law schools ranging from the near-élite to the über-toilety. A few law schools have offered to make the difference up with discounts, but only a handful can afford to. 

Campos points to one potential source of savings: abandonment of the ill-fated campaign to secure a higher ranking from bullshit rag US News. It is well known in and around legal hackademia that elevation outside the top 14 or so doesn't matter and that entry into the top 14 is practically out of the question. As Campos shows, those absurd "rankings" brought about the wave of discounts grandiloquently styled "scholarships", which were only ever bribes for applicants with high LSAT scores (and, secondarily, high undergraduate GPAs) that could help to push an inferior law school up a position or two. By giving up the bribery and charging full fare, law schools could generate more revenue, at least in principle. Increasingly schools have been refusing to take part in the US News circus; perhaps they will also stop cutting deals for high scorers.

Several law schools now fill their classes primarily with people not pursuing a JD, be they foreign students seeking an LLM, administrative workers foolishly seeking advancement by means of another Mickey Mouse master's degree, or undergraduates majoring in law. No such school existed a decade ago, yet now several are trying to sustain themselves with this transition away from professional qualification. Whether they will succeed remains to be seen. 

Campos's analysis suggests that the law-school scam merely caught its second wind a few years ago but remains financially precarious—and, Old Guy would add, ethically and academically bankrupt.

Six million visits

OTLSS has been visited more than 6 million times. Thanks to our readers for their dedication and support.

Unfortunately, after being beaten down for a decade, the law-school scam has been asserting itself anew, even opening hopeless scam-schools. Vigilance is as important as ever.

ABA accreditation: the beginning of the end?

Alabama has now joined Texas and Florida in eliminating ABA accreditation as a requirement for admission to the bar, and Tennessee may soon follow.

Under Alabama's new rule, graduates of five law schools in Alabama are admissible to the bar, as are graduates from otheir law schools if they are admissible in the state in which the law school is located. Thus all graduates of ABA-accredited law schools are still admissible, and now so are graduates of various state-accredited and even unaccredited law schools in some states.

Meanwhile, the ABA today cravenly acceded to the federal government's demand that it revoke its rule requiring accredited law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity in admissions and hiring. Suddenly the spineless ABA is singing from the oppressive régime's songbook, condemning the already tame requirement as an error. The ABA has been warned, however, that its status as accreditor may still be withdrawn despite its dutiful revocation of the rule respecting diversity.

We at OTLSS have long taken the position that the ABA should lose its status as accreditor. But there seems to be no coherent strategy for replacing it. Will we end up with a free-for-all? inconsistent policies from state to state? another arbitrary accrediting body with no real standards?

Public money down private toilet: Appalachian Law School to get $3.4M

We at OTLSS have been following the decline of über-toilet Appalachian Law School for years. Now the discordant notes of its swan song resound far from Grundy, Virginia.

A week and a half ago, the supervisors of Buchanan County voted 5–2 to give Appalachian Law School $3.4 million out of the public coffers. This handout still requires approval from the county's Industrial Development Authority, although it appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with industrial development. Half of the money will be disbursed in early March if the IDA agrees and Appalachian tenders financial records that it has previously refused.

Leading this campaign, apparently, within the county government was Supervisor Trey Adkins, who ever so coincidentally "was recently appointed to the law school’s board of trustees". Can you say conflict of interests? Might this little appointment have been a little quid pro quo? How happy will the public be to know that their board of supervisors just voted to hand dying Appalachian 6% of the county's $59M annual budget?

Not very, according to Supervisor Roger Rife—himself a former trustee of Appalachian. Reluctantly voting to give Appalachian "one more chance", he lamented: "What we’re creating is going to come back to bite us." Specifically, he expects the county to raise taxes just for this piece of lagniappe. 

Yes, even some of the board members who voted in favor of this pork-barrel graft are anything but sanguine about Appalachian's prospects. Supervisor Craig Stiltner observed that no bank would lend money to an institution perenially swimming in red ink. Appalachian never repaid a $6M loan extended by the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority in 2016. 

Adkins promoted this rip-off of the public coffers as an endeavor vital to the survival of Grundy, which happens to be the county seat. Forty-one jobs at the über-toilet depend on it—22 of them held by natives of Buchanan County. In the vulgar expression of Adkins, the IDA would "tear their arm off" to save 22 jobs at the trifling price of $3.4M.

Well, before so dramatic a performance of self-mutilation, the IDA might like to do a bit of arithmetic, if anyone there is up to the task. That sum is more than $150k per job—for the next two or three months. That vastly exceeds the value of those 22 jobs to the county. 

Over the past ten years, Buchanan County has lost almost half of its population. As one might guess from the name Appalachian, the county is situate in an area historically devoted to coal mining. In a remote, mountainous county with no economic prospects, whose very geography militates against anything industrial and whose population lacks the education for learned professions (even if demand were present), a law school stands out like a sore thumb, its gleaming brick building and manicured lawn clashing with the scarred, black hillsides and piles of slag that typify the landscape. It does not serve the largely impoverished population that will soon see its taxes go up to pay for a predatory über-toilet that gives Cooley stiff competition for the title of lousiest law skule in the US.

Appalachian can do nothing to help. It turns out to be in dire financial straits: without $2.5M in a big hurry, it will not see the end of the semester. Long-term survival, according to the dean, will require an infusion of some $10M.

Now, if you have just read that paragraph and are still thinking of enrolling at Appalachian, please stop and read the paragraph again. This so-called school had to go begging just to survive for the next two months. It was prepared to shut up shop in the middle of the semester. And if it does get this money for the second half of the current semester, where will it get enough money for the next semester and the one after that? Do you really want to take the evidently high risk of having your über-toilet law school bolt its doors on you in the middle of the term, leaving you to hold an empty bag?

Enrollment, at 184 students, is far below the level of 300 that, in the words of dean David Western, would be needed to sustain Appalachian. Indeed, OTLSS estimated some years ago that a law school cannot survive over the long run with fewer than 75 students per class—and right now Appalachian has only 61. 

I admit that Appalachian, evidently because of millions of dollars in welfare payments, has survived longer than I had expected during the wave of shutterings of toilet law schools that started ten years ago. I predict, however, that Appalachian will soon be the seventeenth institution in law-school-scam history to close its doors for good. And when it does, good riddance.

Five million visits

On February 9, 2026, OTLSS achieved its 5 millionth visit. Thanks to our valued readers for their support.

Unfortunately, the law-school scam has regained strength in recent years. Despite the abundance of anti-scam literature here and elsewhere, lemmings keep rushing headlong into scam-schools, usually using federally guaranteed student loans that bear high interest and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. Until the scam, and its monetary underpinning, have been eliminated, our work will not be done. 

Exceptionally bitter?

A little anonymous discussion on the Internet labels Old Guy "an exceptionally bitter 40-year-old T14 law student". The person who started the discussion refers to OTLSS as

mostly the bitter ranting of a blogger ("Old Guy") who attempted to go to law school over 30: despite going to a top-ranked school and securing a federal clerkship, he seemingly had so much trouble securing gainful employment that it left him profoundly contemptuous of all forms of legal education. In his worldview, going to law school is the very worst thing you can do: law schools, even many T20s, are predatory "toilets" that exploit naive students with dreams. His writing is crisp, socially progressive, and yet sneeringly elitist somehow. ¶ Reading this blog, he's so over-the-top in his bitterness that it almost discredits him a bit.

A few other people chime in triumphantly with reports of well-paying jobs obtained on the strength of a JD from some inferior law school, often with poor grades to match:

And then There is me, getting a 6 figure job offer after graduating from a T-30-50 school (depending on the year) getting average grades all because the partner ran into my LinkedIn profile and emailed me asking if I wanted to apply.

Same but from a T-150 (b-50; aka bottom 50) with grades in the bottom 25%. Work hard and don’t be insufferable, you’ll be fine.

I went to a non-elite law school, had less than stellar grades, needed to take a 1 year break due to family stuff, graduated without employment, still eventually ended up working at a great firm, and now have a great career. It is possible, you may just need to hustle a bit harder than others.

Some blame or disparage Old Guy:

Reading his blog, you see why he's had trouble getting a job.

If you have work experience, went to a top school and clerked and you cannot get a good job, that is 100% on you lol

Judging by his writing style and blog content, he’s probably a perpetually negative asshole. Those kind of people don’t do well in any industry.

If you go to a T14 and have a federal clerkship and then cannot find a job, you or your expectations, are almost certainly the problem 

Why does he always write in third person. This guy seems like a drip. Every story has a “that definitely happened” energy to it. I don’t know how anyone can read it and believe they’re getting the whole story.

Low self esteem issue. Sometimes, what passes for “elitism” is a manifestation of low self esteem. No one with a law degree should complain about unemployment. Graduating from law school, even if it’s from Oxford or Cambridge, and expecting that someone will hand you your dream job is naïve. Part of intellectual maturity is the ability to have plans A,B, and C, before even contemplating law school. ¶ The question is always what are you willing to do to be successful with your legal education, even if you have to defer your immediate financial expectations? ¶ If you’re lucky to get your dream job immediately after law school, splendid. If not, it means you have to apply the critical thinking skills you learned in law school to make adjustments and pave your own way. ¶ It’s important to understand that not everyone graduating from law school will start off making a six-figure salary. That’s part of the intellectual maturity required to face reality. Some, including those who have achieved their professional goals, never achieve that maturity and it manifests itself in different ways. . . .

Others take a contrary view:

I wouldn’t pay sticker to go to any law school in America (unless you are fully committed to PI and they have some loan forgiveness program that you fully understand)

The 30-35 year olds of my T14 were in higher demand than the 20 year olds, but it dropped off sharply. No over-35 year old in my class of 330 found Biglaw employment and no over-40 year old found any type of law firm employment. ¶ This was at a T14, I doubt it gets better outside of that. Anyone who will graduate over 35 should be prepared for reality.

Yes if you want a big law job and don't have connections you absolutely need to go to a top law school and a bunch of other things (including age) will absolutely disqualify you. But if you want to hang out your own shingle or work as a PD or DA in an average jurisdiction any law degree will do.

Yeah I think law practice is so much about perceived years of experience that being a first-year associate at age 40 really works against you.

[Answering the question of why a big law firm would hire a 40-year-old:] They're like 20 years from retirement, likely set in their ways, and unlikely to want to listen to people either their age or younger who may be in positions above them.

Rather than responding myself, I shall open this topic for your views. 

Medicine and law: apples and oranges

Comparisons are often drawn between law and medicine, mainly because they are viewed as learned professions with high potential incomes. The differences, however, render such comparisons quite deceptive, to the advantage of the law-school scam. 

To study medicine, one must first pass a range of difficult courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, as well as an exam (the MCAT) that covers substantive material in all of these fields and in medicine itself. One must also complete a stint of volunteer work in a medical setting, typically a hospital. All of this is required for admission to medical school.

To study law, by contrast, one need only complete a bachelor's degree in any field, even underwater basketweaving. Not a single course is required. Nor is any work in a legal setting, and most law students have no such experience. Traditionally the LSAT—a mere test of logical reasoning and reading ability, unrelated to the substance of law—was required for admission, but recent years have seen it pushed to the side, with the possibility of substituting the GRE or another test of questionable relevance. And even the bachelor's degree isn't necessary in some places: the state of Michigan, for instance, accepts two years of university (a fact exploited by Cooley).

Do not suppose that completing the requirements will get you into a medical school. Admission is highly competitive, with many being turned away everywhere. Practically nobody, however, fails to get into a law school. Many law schools draw most of their students from the bottom 50% on the LSAT, and it is not unknown for a person with a score in the bottom 10% to get in. Indeed, a score below the fiftieth percentile may well attract a "scholarship" (a discount on tuition) at a number of predatory law schools. 

Once admitted, medical students must complete a challenging program of study and pass various exams; they can be expelled for failure. The courses are almost all directed at practical needs. Training in the practice of medicine is an essential component of the program. Almost all professors are practicing physicians.

Law students are lucky to get a glimpse at practice, which professors disdain. They take a few basic courses on contracts, constitutional law, criminal law, torts, and the like, all of them based on some appellate cases that come up over and over again. After those courses, which occupy the first year, they take two years of electives that may well have no meaningful application, such as "Law and Popular Culture", "Critical Legal Pluralism", and "Hip-Hop and the US Constitution". Professors use this fluff to burnish their alleged intellectual credentials, and in many cases as cover for their lack of competence as practitioners. Rare indeed is the law professor who practices law; many are not lawyers at all.

Medical graduates are not yet ready for practice: they must still complete a residency and possibly more training in a specialty before they can become qualified as physicians. Law graduates, however, can go straight into practice after passing a fairly easy exam, even though they have never seen the practice of law before and have not even studied it. Most of them, including those from élite schools, freely admit that they do not know what they are doing as junior lawyers.

Good jobs for medical graduates are abundant: everyone who is serious and not too particular or demanding can get a well-paying job as a physician. Graduates of law schools face a very different reality: many cannot find work as lawyers ever, even if they are admitted to a bar, or get only short-term or low-paying (or even unpaid) work. The law-school scam promotes "JD-advantage" jobs as an alleged consolation prize for the many whose JD is not needed. Few lawyers make anything like the income of a physician, though the handful at the top garner the bulk of the attention.

Physicians tend to stay in medicine; lawyers tend to leave law, with most lasting less than five years. Many physicians teach medicine part time, but lawyers are ordinarily excluded from the academic ranks, which are peopled with young aristocrats with academic doctorates and little to no experience in the practice of law. A practicing lawyer cannot expect to get more than a position as an adjunct, teaching a single class for some such payment as $3000—perhaps enough to cover the cost of travel, with no office or secretarial support or even access to the law school's library. This sort of work is done as a labor of love, because the paltry fee is around the minimum wage.

This little exercise should show the folly of comparing law to medicine nowadays.