Tuesday, June 4, 2013

More News Round Up


Money Quote: "There's nowhere in the United States that new JD's have it especially good; but, man, are there spots where they have it especially bad."

It really sucks to be in Mississippi and Michissippi.

*****
"Too Old to Judge? Albany Reconsiders," by Jesse McKinley (New York Times)

Money Quote: "The [New York State] Legislature has been considering a bill that would amend the State Constitution, if approved by voters, to extend the retirement age to 80 for hundreds of judges statewide, including the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman. 'The 70-year-old that existed in the 1890's is not the 70-year-old of today,' said Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein, Democrat of Brooklyn, who sponsored the bill."

Ya, there will be plenty of jobs when the Boomers all retire. Just keeping telling yourself that.

*****



"Stats Show Almost All UVA Law School Grads Find Work," by NBC29.com

Money Quote: "At law schools across the country, only about 50 percent of the class of 2012 has found work, but the University of Virginia School of Law is being recognized for its job placement success: 99 percent of the graduates find meaningful work."

99%? Really?

*****

"Fired Profs School Phoenix School of Law," Courthouse News Service

Money Quote: "Phoenix School of Law fired two tenured professors who objected to its attempt to reduce students' ability to transfer, which a dean called 'building a better mousetrap,' the professors claim in court."

Deansters hit new low.

41 comments:

  1. More flattery, but RAB - these news roundups are some of the best posts on the blog. While our chatter and arguing and pettiness is unlikely to influence too many law school lemmings, they will probably listen to "real" news sources like those you're collating for us.

    And UVA? That is a T14 scam school if ever there was one. Tommy J will be spinning in his grave at how perverted his vision has become.

    99%. Yeah, and my wiener is 99 inches long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll take all the flattery I can get. :)

      Delete
  2. Me again. Odd that the judges want to work for longer - I thought judges had gold plated retirement plans that basically gave them a full salary after five years of service or something outrageous like that. I would have thought that they would be running out of the courtroom as fast as they could.

    But then again, judge appointments are often used as a way for state politicians to boost up their retirements after leaving the legislature, so I guess increasing the retirement age would allow more of those corrupt old men to circulate through the court system and get their judge retirement boost.

    Plus I'm sure many judges are literally being paid under the table by various interests, especially in states like NY where corruption is the name of the game. Prolly just too lucrative a gig to give up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are set for life financially so I don't think that's the reason most of them want to hang on until they drop dead on the job. It's a cushy job--good working hours, everyone bows and scrapes to you, you feel important, and can pretty much set your own work schedule. I guess it becomes a part of one's identity and it's hard to let go. A lot of older lawyers just keep on working, even if they don't need the money, because it's more meaningful than just sitting at home doing nothing.

      Delete
    2. Spot on. I know several judges that kept hanging on. They were afraid their phone would stop ringing---no more syncopate calls. When the retired, it did.

      Delete
    3. It is about power and about not letting change happen until these guys are on ventilators. I hope the bill to extend the terms fails, as it has in other states. Do we really want our courts full of octogenarians (well, worse than now)?

      Delete
    4. If judges hang on past the point where they are able to think nimbly and process information in a timely fashion, it hurts everyone's chance of getting their case addressed fairly. One judge I know of recently retired at 70-something and for at least a year it was becoming apparent that this person was having trouble remembering details, asking attorneys the same questions repeatedly, etc.

      Delete
    5. Yeah - that is not uncommon. Now think about them hanging on for ten more years of senility.

      Look, there are plenty of sharp older people and even Stevens is still sharp. But it drastically increases risks of senile judges and it slows progress by always having the judiciary two generations behind the average citizen.

      Delete
  3. This Phoenix article is the worst. The professors were protesting the school's new policy of trying to stop students from transfering. So you can get fired from a law school if you do the right thing. There is a fuller article on the ABA Journal Website. One part of the policy was discouraging letters of recommendation for transfers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know of a couple of other profs who got fired for objecting to their law schools scam policies. Don't assume that every prof is dishonest. A few have spoken up and suffered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Few suffered and all the rest use it as the excuse for their complacency.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Fire one or two profs and across the entire industry the rest cower and hide, trying desperately to protect the golden fucking goose that is law school tenure. $150000 for 5 hours a week of work, with paid foreign vacations. It is disgusting. Law profs know they have the easiest job in the world.

      Delete
    3. Yep. The answer to this dilemma is to line up a new job and then whistleblow. People have done this for years in a variety of fields - if you find your line of work morally suspect, then (1) protest with your feet and then (2) with your voice.

      The problem is there is nowhere to go but down. Where else are you going to find such a cushy gig for $150k plus sweet tenure benfits? Certainly not in the "real" world, so expect more cowering and hiding.

      People accuse GenX and GenY of being slackers...please. LawProfs have got a lock on that.

      Delete
  5. I simply can't wait until News Roundup publishes the first article saying "XX Law School Announces it Will Close its Doors." Any thoughts on which of the putrid little diploma mills it might be?

    This site should keep up a Death Watch on likely candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The enrollment numbers for this fall's incoming class should be telling.

      Delete
  6. Here's an interesting paragraph in the Phoenix article. "O'Connor and Rumann say they "objected to Dean Mays approach, and argued that building a law school that emphasized strong teaching, individualized attention for students, increased opportunities for elective courses, greater and more nuanced financial grants, and aggressive job placement would create a greater value for students and thus better address transfer attrition."

    No wonder they got fired.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/law-students-at-a-top-school-protest-continued-unemployment/

    On March 29, 2011, Elie Mystal wrote an article about unemployed graduating UVA law students talking to prospective law students while wearing T-shirts that read: "Virginia Law $40,000 a year and NO JOB”. At the time, UVA Law was rated as the 9th best law school in the country, according to US “News” & World Report.

    And the law schools would never KNOWINGLY publish false info, in order to attract more students, right?!?!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-lawyers-newyork-idUSBRE88I14K20120919

    Regarding Pig Jonathan Lippman, what more can you say? This is the same politician who issued the ruling that NY bar applicants must complete 50 hours of pro bono work. For $ome rea$on, this fiat does not apply to currently practicing,older lawyers, i.e. the ones who can better bear this burden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm yeah thanks for the timely news updates Nando. Two-year old stories? I think we got this from here on out.

      Delete
    2. Don't forget: out of yet another side of his crooked-toothed mouth, Lippman wants to again screw younger lawyers by allowing non-lawyers to engage in the limited practice of law without sanction. All in the name of closing the "justice gap":

      http://law.fordham.edu/29962.htm

      So, not only are law students now compelled to do 50 hours of pro bono work in order to sit for the NY Bar Exam, they will get to compete in a market with their shiney ever more devalued brand new law license against people who:

      1) Are not forced to do pro bono work. They are not subject to the same rules and restrictions as lawyers

      2) Did not incur $150k in non-dischargeable debt to attend law school

      3) Did not have to pass any Bar

      4) Will not face sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law

      Wow! New law grads are getting such a great deal!!

      Delete
    3. Somehow, I'm guessing Lippmann never had to "pound the pavement" before, in any real sense of the phrase. That's the only explanation for why someone can be so out of touch with the realities facing people.

      Delete
  8. Lippman and four of his lackeys also rejected a review of the fatuous appellate decision ending all NY scam suits for now. I was looking forward to a fresh chief judge next year...but this has me worried. If all the boomers stay in judgeships, younger lawyers will not fill their ranks. The same happens at other government agencies where ancient boomers keep the top legal aid and prosecutor positions...which makes the glut and the budget stasis that much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm surprised scam deans can fire tenured profs with such ease. -jim

    ReplyDelete
  10. the reason jeffm is here? ego boost. I have seen these guys come through the scamblogs and jdu for years. They come here to boost their pink little ego and then they leave. What do you bet he had a wife or family supporting him for years while he built his practice?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grow up. Most of the original "scamblogs" have disappeared because their on/off, black/white/ with-us-or-against-us attitude was dumb and people lost interest. This blog thrives on discussion of the issues in a more mature manner. I welcome JeffM's comments because he argues his points well and makes us all think.

      If you want an echo chamber of toilety scam frenzy where you can all scream "scam scam scam" and attack those with grown up opinions, go play with Nando. But if you want to be part of a blog that is generating buzz by debating these issues in a way that real adults listen to, you're in the right place.

      The scamblogs are no more for a reason, that reason being childish attitudes like yours. We've moved on.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the back-up. So many people just jump on the bandwagon and stereotype everything to fit their microcosmic view of the world. Me stroking an ego? Laughable. The commenter probably has not seen where I have stated several times that I am not rich, that law is not the be-all/end-all of careers, that I would advise/warn 0-L's to really learn about the career and go in with open eyes that it's not what they have been told or see on TV by watching "Denny Crain." On top of that, I have mentioned a few times that I am making arrangements to segue out of practicing law. It's unfortunate that anyone would want to think I am lying to build some sort of ego I don't have.

      Delete
    3. Don't rag on Nando. Just as the Civil Rights movement needed the pathetic and disgusting visual of firehoses being turned on minorities in order to help fully awaken the conscience of an apathetic country, so too does the visual of toilets etc. hit home a needed point. Neither are pleasant to look at for a moment, but they drew/draws attention to an otherwise glossed over point.

      Delete
    4. O hai Nando!

      His blog is the equivalent of the minorities squirting themselves with water, then saying "don't blame us for being wet".

      He is not some Dr. King of scamblogging. He is an embarrassment who needs to be called out as much as law deans for the damage he is doing. As long as he is allowed to declare this "his" movement and threaten and dictate the rules via his little Syrian kingdom of his blog, we are all worse off.

      He is the main reason people still see us all as a crazy antisocial fringe.

      Delete
    5. Nando has an off-color sense of humor. Just because the scam deans might try to use him to paint all scambusting as juvenile, that does not mean it is not effective for younger readers -- an important demographic. The rankings parody is funny.

      Likewise, JeffM is welcome to express his counter opinions, mainly that all is not doom and gloom. Even if he may act like a know-it-all occasionally (or often) he also offers sometimes valid reflection and criticism and advice.

      Delete
    6. All fun and games until he turns on you.

      Delete
    7. "Even if he may act like a know-it-all occasionally (or often)..."

      It's not my intent to be that way. I think it's more my writing style. C'est la vie!

      Delete
  11. You said "danger". I said, "gravely unemployed?" you said, "is there any other kind?"

    Stats on "worst states for job" is, like all things law, an academic exerise. [Whisper] they're all bad.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OT: Meanwhile, over at The Faculty Lounge, Dan Filler addresses the big social problem of our age:

    Ted Seto: Law Graduate Shortage By 2016?

    Filler notes:

    "There must be room for discussion and debate. I will moderate comments."

    After all, there needs to be limits on acceptable discourse...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Original article written by a law school professor (of course). His conclusion is based on the following argument:

      "Demand for legal services, however, probably increases as population increases."

      He gives no further explanation or justification for this argument at all. Fail.

      Delete
    2. Someone should trace the intellectual genealogy of the theory that America doesn't have enought lawyers (and lawsuits), and therefore they need to be massively overproduced. And then when did the ABA shift policy in agreement with the theory. Then we'd have an even better understanding of the theory's flaws and the people whom we have to thank for this part of the law school/profession scam. I believe some of the people are still alive and Marc Galanter is one of them, if I recall correctly.

      --Jim

      Delete
  13. "building a better mousetrap"

    Folks, if that doesn't sum it up right there, then nothing else will. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here is what Dan Filler said about Phoenix on the Faculty Lounge.
    "I would have expected the folks at Phoenix to have worked mightily to avoid this complaint, and the attendant press.

    I mean really: reducing attrition by refusing to write recommendation letters for those students seeking to transfer??"

    Here's right. The school has really made a public spectacle of itself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A major problem is that the ABA does not generally disclose violations of its standards to the public. When it finds that a school has an inadequate facility or library it tells the school but not the public. When the ABA catches a school cheating such as with gpa, lsat, or student/faculty ratio it usually does not tell the public. The ABA needs to be transparent concerning violators. Potential students have a right to know.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If the ABA isn't willing to properly regulate the law schools, the feds should replace it as the law school accrediting agency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should ask ourselves why a private trade organization was ever allowed to regulate the entry into its own profession. It's a recipe for corruption.

      Delete
  17. There should be full disclosure by the ABA. All the law school reports should be available on-line. The same thing with complaints against law schools that have been found to have merit.

    ReplyDelete