Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

Christo Lassiter and Sharlene Boltz have had a divorce more protracted than most. Their marriage commenced in 1986 and ended in 1996. Since then, they have each used the court system as their personal attack dog. The divorce case now exceeds 1400 docket entries, with two lawsuits remaining to be decided.

Our concern however, is with law school and its diminishing value to students and society. To that end, let's see whether they were able to keep their end of the bargain as law professors: producing "scholarship" and teaching. Both of these fine individuals became law professors in 1991.

Christo Lassiter:
His complete index of publications can be found here. Since 1991, Mr. Lassiter created 10 articles and gave 4 presentations. Make note, however, that after 2000, all he has done in the way of "scholarship" is publishing two articles in 2007.

Does he make it up with an increased teaching load? To some extent. He teaches the following courses:

• Antitrust
• Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure I
• Criminal Procedure II
• White Collar Crime

Of these five, my experience indicates that the only courses that are taught with any regularity are Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. Antitrust and White Collar Crime are likely seminar courses offered when Mr. Lassiter feels like it.

I'm using Brian Tamanaha's estimate that a single class takes 5 hours per week of a professor's time during the semester.

So, Mr. Lassiter is probably working 10 hours, maximum 20, per week regularly.

Sharlene Boltz:
Ms. Boltz's body of "scholarship" is short enough that I can list it as follows:

I HAVE A TESTIMONY, WinePress Publ'g (2002)
From Hoof To Hamburger: The fiction of a safe meat supply, 33 Willamette L. Rev. 411 (1997)
Hein   LexisNexis   Westlaw
What Is A Lawyer Really Worth? An examination into the true value of attorney labor, 25 Cumb. L. Rev. 23 (1994)
Hein   LexisNexis

Notice that she hasn't produced any scholarship since 2002, and only three articles since 1994.

Does her teaching load make up for it? She teaches the following courses.  

• Contracts I
• Contracts II
• Domestic Violence Prosecution & Trial
• Domestic Violence Seminar
• Introduction to Legal Studies
• UCC: Payment Systems
• UCC: Sales & Secured Transactions

Well, she's a little more of a hard worker in the classroom than her ex. I'm assuming that she teaches Contracts, the UCC classes, and Introduction to Legal Studies regularly. The Domestic Violence courses are probably seminars.

Again using Tamanaha's estimate, she's working 15 hours, maximum 20, in the semesters she teaches three courses. Otherwise, she's working as much as Mr. Lassiter.

Finally, here are the costs to attend each school for three years, courtesy of Law School Transparency:
University of Cincinnati: For non residents, $213,606; for residents: $150,797
Northern Kentucky: For non residents: $185,919; for residents: $118,379

So, these two role models for budding legal minds have spent parts of three decades attacking each other in court, while being paid handsomely to work part time. I have been an attorney on divorce cases, and know how time intensive they are. So, while their students take on astronomical amounts of debt at each of these mediocre schools, these two see fit to spend the majority of their time over the last seventeen years on a divorce proceeding that has now outlasted the original marriage by seven years. How much lower could tuition have been at their respective schools if these two wastes of space actually held up their end of the bargain instead of treating their law professor careers as a way to fund their personal animus against each other? Honestly, I'd be less angry if they had students drafting all the motions, because then at least a few of them would be somewhat practice ready.

At this point, reading about law schools is like reading about third world countries where all the money is pocketed by government officials while the citizens starve.

Note: I made some minor grammatical edits to this post after it went up.

Yet More Unsolicited LLM Programs in the Mail (Tax Edition)...

Two things are guaranteed after you graduate from our LLM program...and one of them does indeed involve taxation...!



Ah, yes, another LLM program. This time, in taxation.

Tax is touted as the "most useful" LLM program, and it certainly seems to be at face value. When contrasting this with Space Law or International Civil Sports Environmental Justice Rights Law, one would think that they would get more bang-for-the-buck with an LLM that deals with something so "certain", along with other well-known verities of life.

 

　

　

"Degree and non-degree seeking students are encouraged to apply." Wait, what? Why would "non-degree seeking" students or auditing students even attend in the first place? Boredom? The facinating intricacies of Federal and State taxation? Beats rearranging the sock drawer or drying one's hair? No need to be gainfully employed or otherwise generate income?

"CLE/CPE Credit for the courses is available." At $1,625.00 per credit hour ($3,250 for each two-hour class, 7 classes per semester), one would hope that those who need educational requirements for licensure could get their CLEs/CEs/CPEs/whatever elsewhere for less, as opposed to $3k per class. But no worries, full-time students are eligible for partial-tuition scholarships! And I should certainly hope so, because the full-time program costs $37,000.00 ($45,500.00 on a part-time basis, and no scholarship help there). This is basically the same price as a "4L" year, if there was such a thing (hmmm...waitaminute...).

For that money you get partner-level practicing attorneys as instructors, along with the Director/Senior lecturer of the program. That's at least something for the "practical" side of the endeavour.

What does one receive for this effort and hard-earned cash? A "Dynamic view of the big picture," "learn[ing] theory and keep[ing] pace with important current issues," "theory and practice," and don't forget "command of the tax issues involved in today's sophisticated business and financial transactions." So, in reality...I'm not sure what you get. What speaks volumes to me is that this program is for people already well-involved in the field and looking for another (employee sponsored) credential, not for those wanting to break into the field in the first place. Only BigLaw, BigCorp, or BigFed would be willing to fork over this cost, and then again only for their "rising stars." In my oh-so-lauded JD-Advantage position, do you know how much value I would receive, career-wise, for undertaking this program? That's right, zero, thanks for playing. And my employer certainly wouldn't spend $40k in the process, even if it was "valuable".

This program may be mutually beneficial and worthwhile for a select, select few, but overall the LLM-advocates have no business marketing their programs to a broader audience. Period.

You know, this pattern starts to sound vaguely familiar...high tuition, open-door policy, allegedly sexy (but hopelessly vague and undocumented) outcomes for graduates, hmmm....what is it...?

Law Schools Have Been Gaming Income Based Repayment Programs All Along

How Georgetown Law gets Uncle Sam to pay its students' bills
Money Quote: The tuition paid by new students — tuition they’re often paying with federal loans — includes the cost of covering the previous students’ loan payments.

ABA Changes Graduate Data Collection Timeline
Law schools now get a whole extra month to game report jobs data.

Law School Professors Face Less Job Security
Money Quote: "I understand the need for academic freedom…. But as an industry we have a need for flexibility that we just don't have right now."

Counterpoint #4: Reasons you SHOULD go to law school (World's Worst Advice)

Today, free of charge, your local career services gives you the world's worst advice. Let's flat out list all reasons left that you should attend law school:

Southern California Institute of Law: Where Bar Passage Has Gone Out Of Style

Over the past four years, I have conquered the timidity and embarrassment that I had failed because I hated the close to useless legal degree I was paying a handsome sum for. The ways in which law schools and professors obfuscate the truth is appalling. It has caused some of our nation's best and brightest to ruin their lives chasing the alleged prestige that society places on lawyers.

I thought that the recent "Million Dollar Law Degree" study by Michael Simkovic was the point at which the law school scam had hit rock bottom. But then, I read this article about a suit being brought by the Southern California Institute of Law (SCIL). The school is arguing that being required to publish its student bar passage rate infringes upon the school's free speech rights. The utter shamelessness and self-seeking attitude of the school's administration caused me to fly into a deep rage from which I may never emerge. If any of you didn't think that the law school scam existed, the proof is right here.

Let's look at the points brought up in the article:

"A California law school is claiming that it has a First Amendment right not to help students find out how many of its graduates are passing the state’s bar exam."

We have reached the point where any pretense of providing an education has been thrown out the window. To the fine folks at SCIL, a law school's main purpose is to line the pockets of its dean and professors. Why would students expect that law school would teach them (perhaps, poorly) the central concepts that lead to admission into the tarnished fraternity that is the law? Much better that the school operates as a reverse Robin Hood, leaving professors free to produce "scholarship".

"It claims that [the bar passage statistics] forces them to endorse the notion that a school’s exam passage rate reflects the quality of its legal education. SCIL thinks one has nothing to do with the other.

“[D]efendants have no right to foist their ideology onto SCIL and compel it to refer or disclose bar passage rates of its graduates,” the school stated in a legal brief last week. "

To analogize: Should people pass their driving tests even if they hit several cars while out on the road and don't know how to reverse the car? Sure! Why not? Acquiring the skills to pass a driver's test has nothing to do with driving. If you see the logic in this, please replace the large spike that must be lodged in your frontal cortex. Or apply to be a professor at SCIL.

“There are good years, and there are bad years when it comes to bar passage,” said SCIL’s attorney, George Shohet. “It’s not something that the school can control.” He said going to law school and passing the bar require “different skill sets.”
Mr. Shohet says about a quarter of SCIL’s students ultimately pass the exam — a statistic he views as more meaningful."

I sincerely hope that the attorneys for the bar examiners plan on filing Rule 11 sanctions against Mr. Shohet. The legal theory the school is hoping to ride to victory is a farce. The fact that this suit was even filed shows us that many attorneys are content to completely abdicate any and all professional judgment in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Would Mr. Shohet allow his child to attend SCIL and pay thousands of dollars for the privilege? Shohet is just as disgusting as the thieves and scoundrels running this abomination of a law "school".

"In the original complaint, SCIL also objected to a new requirement that California-accredited law schools maintain a pass rate of at least 40%."

If an institution is unable to maintain even a minimal standard of competence, it needs to be shut down immediately. The veneration of universities as ivory towers far above the mundane every day world must stop. These institutions are now being allowed to rob the taxpayers in the guise of providing "access" to a legal education to everyone. The scam has officially crossed the bounds of all decency and morality. We must put a stop to it before an entire new generation of students is forced into a life of debt slavery.

Interesting deleted comments on Prof. Seval Yildirim's Faculty Lounge thread.

The Faculty Lounge recently published a series of posts by tenured Whittier Law Professor Seval Yildirim, in which she described some of the adventures she had on a recent summer trip to Istanbul.

In Prof. Yildirim's first post, she recalled that she held an "interesting conversation on gender with my female taxi driver." She also recalled that she spoke to two friends who had been active in the protest movement, and stayed at a hotel near where, two month earlier, protestors clashed with the police. In her second post, she described attending a small demonstration and, later, attending a communal meal, where she listened to her tablemates' "stories of vulnerability" and then gave up her seat to a homeless child.

An Open Letter to Indiana Tech Law School

Dear Indiana Tech:

 

I realize that it must seem like an exciting time right now, what with twenty-some-odd students enrolling for your first class.  I know you are already looking ahead to accreditation, to expanding the roster, and producing freshly-minted JD graduates in the next three years.  There is a lot to do, and the thought of the tasks ahead in becoming a Practicing Law School can be exciting and invigorating.

 

It reminds me of when I, as a student, applied to Law School several years ago.  There was so much to consider.  So much to plan for.  I bet it is similar with you right now - you researched the market for potential law students, talked to other Law Schools about their careers, and everything seemed promising and bright for joining the ranks of Practicing Law Schools.  However, when I as a student researched the market, went to Law School open houses, and talked to the attorneys I knew, there are some frank things I wish I had known and some things I wish I had been told, and I want you to have the advantage of the general insight I didn't have access to.

 

First, have you considered market saturation?  There are already four other established Law Schools in your jurisdiction that have been in business for some time now.  There are scores of such Law Schools across the country.  Let’s be honest: there has been overproduction of Law Schools for a long time now...is this really the best use of your talents and abilities?  I don't say this to say you "can't cut it" (I really don't want you to try to "prove yourself"), I say it because the market is tough out there.  Do you want to be part of a scholastic profession that already has so many Schools scrambling for so few entry-level students?  Based on merely a pre-packaged and almost mythical idea of how cool it would be to be a practicing Law School?  Have you considered looking at an underserved market, like Nebraska, instead of doubling down on Indiana?

 

Second, do you realize that becoming a Law School has very little to do with being an actual, practicing, established Law School?  Yes, I realize that per the ABA you have to have a large library with print materials, a fax machine, and impressive facilities among other things.  Certainly you will produce many, many law reviews and scholarly journals.  Certainly you will open clinics and give symposia on various academic legal matters.  But have you considered that fact that scholarly work-product and a large building doesn't remove you from the hard work of actually have to drum up students?  That you have to produce actual, real results for your graduates (i.e. the ability to get jobs), otherwise future students would be foolish to apply to your program?

 

Third, consider the statistics.  Other Law Schools may say that "now is a great time to become a Law School," but have you looked at the actual law student application data?  Many schools like to tout how many applicants they get, but rest assured that there is a bimodal distribution of students when you look at LSAT scores and GPAs.  Are you banking on getting hypothetical "median" law students that don't actually exist, as there are actually very few high LSAT/high GPA candidates but many, many low LSAT/low GPA candidates?  Perhaps you should consider some sort of "Law School-Advantage" position - maybe retool the facilities into a Graduate School that is more in demand.  While it may take some time to garner the credibility necessary to move away from being a Law School, that would be better, long-term, than trying to force something to happen that doesn't want to happen.

 

Please, don't take this as an insult.  This is really intended to make you think before you commit.  Theory-vs.-practice is worlds apart in this case.  It's possible to change gears now, and end up in a place you would actually like to be.   Becoming a Graduate School where the students have actual career prospects, instead of being known as a money-sink that sucks students dry and tosses their carcasses away in a large heap, is much more rewarding.  Yes, you many have one or two students who are the children of judges or partners at large law firms, but do you realistically think you can get access to that clientele all the time?  Moving into an area in actual need is not a failure, unless you choose to perceive it that way.

 

I sense, however, that you are a "special snowflake" Law School and won't give real credence to the points I have brought up.  That you are going to "beat the odds."  That you are "better than the rest and will be in the top 10% of Law Schools," even though that's not really what this is all about.  Again, I tried to give you fair, honest warnings about your career choices, something I never had in my own right when contemplating Law School. 

 

Oh well.  If nothing else, at least your debt will be dischargeable in bankruptcy.  That's something.