Monday, May 1, 2017

The Baghdad Bob of the Law School Scam

Were you ever convinced that the Iraqi army would repel and defeat the invading U.S. forces in 2003? If you lived in Iraq and only listened to Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's broadcasts you may have been so persuaded. Better known as "Baghdad Bob", this colorful propaganda minister was widely ridiculed pretty much everywhere outside of the Middle East for his bombastic and disingenuous predictions that Iraq would prevail against the American onslaught.

Enter Stephen Diamond, who has been dubbed by some of our friends at JD Underground as the "Baghdad Bob of the Law School Scam". Like his Iraqi counterpart, reality has little bearing on this man's pronouncements and predictions. Diamond wasn't particularly active at the start of the scam blogging movement, but over the years, as the walls of the scam have begun to crumble, he has become one of the more vocal defenders of the law school cartel.

Like some of his compatriots, he has sought to dismiss criticism of the scam as gross exaggerations of the public service I'm sure he thinks (or wants others to think) that he provides. Periodically, Diamond chimes in with claims that the employment market for lawyers has improved and all the anti-law school hysteria will soon be put to rest. Here's an example from early 2015.

Apparently, this extraordinary rebound in the attorney labor market couldn't save Indiana Tech or (more recently) Whittier Law from taking academic dirt naps (to say nothing of plunging enrollment and revenue at law schools across the board). Undeterred, the good professor's latest foray into the post law school employment discussion was made in conjunction with Whittier's announced closing: He points to some irrelevant uptick in the legal market in Orange County and then sits back expecting us to deduce that this means the average Whittier grad has nothing to fear at graduation.

Like the actual Baghdad Bob, the man is just blowing smoke while the tanks come rolling in. Similar to most law school defenders, Diamond treats all law graduates equally in his "analysis". A generally improving labor market for attorneys may be just dandy for those BigLaw practitioners with several years of experience under their belts. It doesn't really mean much, however, to those toiling away in document review, sharing desks with debt collectors in some shady "small law opportunity", or who aren't even practicing law. It also means little to most Whittier grads who are likely to both end up in one of the aforementioned sorry scenarios and have a $170k+ bounty on their heads.

Let's put Diamond's thoughts on Whittier to the side for a minute, though. After all, what brought Diamond to prominence in the law school scam debate wasn't his incisive analysis of labor economics. Instead, it was his penchant for bizarre conspiracy theories. While he may be a political liberal, when it comes to defending the cartel, Diamond goes full "Alex Jones" on us.

When David Lat wrote an anti-LS op-ed in the Washington Post, Diamond first hinted that his grasp on reality may be a couple bucks short of a full student loan payment: "Above the Law’s David Lat was let into the pages of the Washington Post today in an attempt to feed the beast of myth making about law school. This is becoming a bit of a habit at the Post which recently allowed one of its own columnists to mislead the public about law schools as I explained here. Perhaps it’s the influence of their new owner, Jeff Bezos, known to lean libertarian."

Whatever one thinks of libertarianism, it would be pretty hard to argue that the Washington Post is exactly its flagship publication. Nonetheless, in Diamond's mind, if the libertarians haven't yet fully infiltrated the Post, they are at least the driving force behind the anti-scam movement: "It's a "fact" that this crowd is out to destroy the American law school and higher education itself as an institution. That is the clear goal of the Koch Brothers backed Cato Institute. Anyone who tries to deny that is either collaborating in that effort or naive beyond belief. I have made this crystal clear from the earliest days in which I joined this debate. " (Comment @ Apr 30, 2015 6:16:48 PM)

One would assume, friend of this blog, Paul Campos, who shares Diamond's liberalism but not his alternative reality, would dispute that he's just a tool in the Koch brothers' nefarious scheme to destroy the social welfare state by forcing people like Diamond to get a job that isn't funded on the back of 20 somethings assuming six figures of debt.

It's clear that all is not well on Planet Diamond, but what of his recent comments on Whittier Law biting the dust? As mentioned, he ties some moderate improvement in the local economy to (yet another) predicted boom, which will leave the average Whittier grad rolling in dough - or being able to fight Trump - or both!

Diamond, however, goes further; it's not just that he thinks Whittier may have been in a dire but salvageable situation. No, in his eyes, Whittier Law made a BIG mistake. Let's get this straight - this is a school with only a 22% bar passage rate, 30% employment in ANY JD required job, and where students graduate with an average debt load of $179 large - and he can't fathom that there's any reasonable justification for closing the school down???

Of course, "Baghdad Bob" Diamond won't even concede that the sub 25% bar passage rate is cause for concern. On this one, he just outsources the analysis to his fellow law school apologist, Professor Simkovic. (Comment @ Apr 24, 2017 9:27:01 PM) This isn't surprising as Simkovic is the Michael Jordan to Diamond's Scottie Pippen when it comes to spinning LS employment data given his million dollar JD guarantee. Of course, even if Whittier's bar passage rate doubled, that would still be pretty pathetic.

Diamond, however, isn't content just to serve up this thin, Simkovic brand gruel. Once it became clear nobody was willing to swallow his malarkey, he became agitated, and in a Ron Artest-like fashion, jumped into the metaphorical stands throwing rhetorical haymakers - complaining about cyber-bullying, conspiracy theories, and racism(??). (For example, "Unfortunately they won't get any help from at least one past president of the AALS despite his leading role in pushing for a racially insensitive bar passage standard. " [Comment @ Apr 25, 2017 12:12:03 PM])

Sure, Diamond and co. are more than happy to speak of access to law school for minorities, so that the trodden can exercise their inalienable right to pay people like him lots of money for very little in return. Once these URM's are out the door and saddled with $200k in debt and lousy job prospects, for some reason it seems like his egalitarian impulse isn't quite as strong.

In fact, while we've made much of this august scholar's tenuous grasp on reality, there's also a distinct lack of compassion on his part for any graduate: whether black, white, or purple. You see, most of Diamond's (et. al.) arguments about employment hinge on the idea that the legal market's woes are purely the result of the recession. Sure, for the elite graduates, times were good before the crash, but the document review cesspools were operating at full tilt long before the downturn. Furthermore, freshly minted JD's, who had  expected reasonable working conditions after graduation, were toiling away in sadistic legal mills for terrible pay, and plenty of students cut their losses and found jobs that didn't require a JD prior to 2009.

What about people in these situations either pre or post recession, Diamond? Do you just deny they exist? Are they myths perpetrated by the Cato Institute/Illuminati/Lizard-People cabal, which is apparently behind the rest of the transparency movement?

It's amazing how much ink the law school scam defenders will spill as they seek to exploit every avenue to justify a system that charges too much, fails to train attorneys, and offers lousy job prospects. In their zeal to defend their paychecks, however, they'll nary give one thought to someone who just wanted a decent career but now spends day after day mindlessly clicking a mouse in a document review sweatshop just to stay afloat. How about those who look at their monthly Navient statements in despair and see a debt that can never be repaid and will inhibit home ownership or having a family? Would one of the law school apologist professors really want to trade places with someone "practicing" cut-n-paste, slip-n-fall law in a shady back office?

I could go on, but I'm sure Diamond and co.'s response would be that I'm just making things up or relying on a few isolated anecdotes. After all, if he can look at the abysmal employment figures and deny there's a problem, nothing is going to move him.

Of course, it's pretty understandable why he's treating the fall of Whittier like Christendom treated the fall of Constantinople. You see, Diamond teaches at nearby Santa Clara. Like Whittier, SC is a lower tier school, which also "boasts" pretty lousy numbers of its own: 28% unemployment rate (class of 2015) and only 40% actually employed as attorneys. For the time being, a majority are able to pass the bar (66%), but given their student profile, who knows how long that will last?

The Turks are in range: With declining revenue and no real prestige, it probably wouldn't be farfetched to predict that that the larger university will eventually pull the plug on Santa Clara law and with that Diamond's cushy job.

I remember reading a sports publication where a journalist was talking to a recently graduated frat bro. His description of the the despair of the poor young man whose life had transitioned from the frat house to the corporate cubicle was palpable. You could practically see the tears in this guy's eyes as he recounted how he was cast out of his bacchanalian world of sleeping until noon and partying like a rock star into one that featured fighting rush hour traffic and calculating sales figures in Excel.

Like the Whittier Law faculty, so too may Diamond very well be cast out of his own academic paradise. Sorry, bro - it's time to get an actual job, but don't worry, I hear the market for attorneys in Orange County is quite strong.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

We Have a Scalp - Whittier Law's Last Stand

You know that neighborhood restaurant that has been around since your parents or even grandparents were kids? Everyone loves it - the food is pretty good; the staff is friendly, and it has that great nostalgic feel. Then one day, it's forced to close its doors. Usually little things have chipped away at it for a while: Newer, hipper restaurants have come onto the scene, older patrons move on or pass away, etc. Finally, their rent gets jacked up and they're forced to close. They have a nice sendoff and everyone is a little sad that an era has come to end.

Yeah, this is nothing like that. While Whittier Law has been in business for decades, no one should shed any tears about this "going out of business sale". It may be unfair to say the school has been a scam since its inception, but it certainly has been part of the greater law school swindle for the past couple of decades.

Check out the profile of those unfortunate enough to graduate from this school from the New York Times: "Last July, only 22 percent of the school’s graduates passed the California bar exam, according to state data. The employment rate for long-term jobs requiring a legal degree was 29.7...Students who graduated from Whittier last year had an average of $179,000 in pre-interest debt..."
There are reports that some stakeholders at Whittier Law are suing to try to keep the doors open. Might I suggest that they instead express gratitude that they aren't being arrested and charged with fraud for abusing the student loan system for years via misleading marketing materials and gouging their students?

For those who are unaware of the details, Whittier College decided it had enough of the antics down the street at its eponymously named law school. By "antics", I mean Whittier Law had become a financial liability. Prior to the scamblog and transparency movements, law schools were reliable cash cows for the larger universities and colleges. Now that Whittier Law has ceased to serve this purpose (and is likely costing big bucks for Whittier proper to subsidize it), it has been cast aside like a Whittier Law grad's resume at a respectable law firm - or for that matter any half decent Burger King.

I'd like to think that someone on the Whittier board of trustees looked beyond the dollars and cents and recognized that it was unethical for a school with such pitiful outcomes to be kept afloat. Nonetheless, the decision was probably all about the money. This is fine. It means that word is getting out that one shouldn't go to law school, and if one does, one shouldn't do so without a generous scholarship. The combination of declining enrollment and the need to offer deep discounts for those who do enroll apparently torched Whittier; other schools are likely also feeling the same burn.

In January 2015, I wrote:

This means, that unless the ABA abruptly jettisons all standards, the absolute garbage schools are going to start coming close to the end of the rope. They may be willing to tolerate students who don’t know the difference between long arm statutes and chewing on their own arms, but the state bar examiners won’t be so kind.
For many schools, this is the pathway toward a level of financial calamity that was once only reserved for their graduates. Nevertheless, the alternative – academic degradation – will instead send bar passage rates into the cellar (with the attendant possibility of loss of accreditation).

I wish I could claim to be prophetic, but this really was just common sense. (Sorry, I don't know what the stock market will be like in a month nor who will win the World Series.) For the abysmal schools (like the late Whittier Law), when the choice is between liberalizing your admissions policy to enroll barely literate knuckle-draggers or lowering tuition to $99.99/semester (after discount), it's axiomatic that you aren't going be long for this academic world.

As others have pointed out, what makes this so monumental is that this is the first fully ABA accredited institution to bite the dust. Cooley had to close a campus. I think some dinky unaccredited schools closed their doors. Indiana Tech barely took flight before its engine burst into flames. Charlotte Law's board is still shopping around its collective soul to see if there's some way to salvage that scholastic toilet.

The law school scam has been stubborn to roll over. Heck, it has been nearly a decade since the Great Recession wave of scam bloggers were active and this is the first real scalp we've taken.

I know referring to "scalping" isn't exactly politically correct, but I'm actually a bit "liberal" when it comes to Custer's Last Stand. General Custer was an arrogant officer, who couldn't fathom that he could be beaten but a bunch of Indians - sorry, Native Americans, and his hubris cost him his life.

I see a bit of a parallel to the present situation. I have never forgotten an early article about the scam when one dean dismissed us as just a disgruntled minority of graduates. After all, at the time, the law schools were printing money, and we were unemployed and underemployed losers typing away on our free blogging platforms.

Now, however, the tribe is bearing down on the beaten and bloody law school cartel. If the fall of Whittier Law has paved the way for other universities to be so bold, prepare yourselves for the forthcoming massacre, scammers.

In the meantime, play us off, Atlanta Braves fans:

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Villanova Law: A Case Study in Second Tier Employment Outomes

I have to concede, there are times when I truly miss having this blog as an accessible platform to denounce the law school scam. Nevertheless, while I have been a victim of such an insidious system, I have been very blessed in recent years and wallowing in this pool of injustice just isn't healthy. That's why I left my blogging venture behind me years ago.

Moreover, the environment is very different than it was during that tumultuous time. Back then, it was just the bloggers versus the law school cartel. Today, any honest person with a modicum of sense recognizes that the law school emperor has no clothes. Blogging won't move the goal posts any further - only economic and political forces will bring the system crashing down.

Thus, as I have allocated my limited free time, I have resisted the temptation to post my thoughts on such topics as law professors who claim that a law degree virtually guarantees an additional one million dollars in lifetime earnings or the travesty that was the Thomas Jefferson Law School verdict.

I still peruse JD Underground for updates on the scam, and one post recently caught my attention because it included a link to the ABA's compilation of employment statistics - broken down by school.

Many other organizations such as Law School Transparency have extracted and crunched the numbers - exposing most schools as very poor investments. I, however, thought it would be helpful to create a case study of a single second tier school to evaluate the employment outcomes graduates can expect.

I have decided to profile Villanova Law for the class of 2015 (the latest data available). Villanova makes a good case study because it is neither an urban school in the heart of a metropolis like the New York schools nor is in the middle of nowhere like a more rural institution. It has access to the Philadelphia, New York, and DC markets. It also resides in a large state and borders New Jersey and Delaware (which has no law school of its own.)

The conclusions derived from this analysis should be applicable to most schools ranked between 26 and 100 in US News and World Report while graduates from schools ranked lower probably will have worse outcomes. If one disagrees, this analysis can easily be applied to any of the data sets for other schools.

There is no way to directly link to the data set, but the data for the Villanova Law class of 2015 - as well as all other classes/schools - can be downloaded here:

For May 2015 graduates, the survey includes ten months of post-graduate data (i.e. graduates had ten months in which to a find a position in order to be considered "employed").

According to Villanova's own website, tuition and fees are now roughly $43,000 or $129,000 over three years. The school estimates the total cost of attendance (including living expenses) is about $66,000 per year or just under $200,000 for three years. Throw in interest and any undergraduate loans and a graduate could easily find himself approaching $250,000 in debt at graduation.

It certainly would be reasonable for a prospective student to question what type of return he's going to receive if he's going to go a quarter million into the red.

Based upon the hard (and self-reported) numbers compiled by the ABA, a $200k JD is hardly a sound investment.

The data indicates that there were 213 graduates in 2015. After 10 months, 27 were unemployed and seeking employment. That's a 12.7% unemployment rate after nearly a year of job searching. The national unemployment rate in May 2016 was 5.5%. For such a massive investment, graduates are more than twice as likely to be unemployed than the US population as a whole.

The data further notes that 138 of graduates found employment in jobs that require bar admission - the types of jobs people would expect if they graduate law school. This comes out to just under 65% of graduates - or nearly two-thirds of the class.

Of those who are neither employed as attorneys nor unemployed, a smattering (8 students) are not seeking employment, employed by the law school, pursuing another degree, or have been deferred by their employers.

Virtually everyone else has a non-legal job - the bulk of whom are classified as having "JD Advantage" jobs. Only two are listed as being employed in another professional field while two others are listed as being employed in a non-professional field.

(Sidebar: I'm not sure how this proud alumnus' career choice will be classified next year.)

This is where some of the chicanery of self-reported data begins to show. Let's be clear: there is virtually no such thing as an entry level "JD Advantage" job unless you're talking about being a Lexis or Westlaw sales rep or the school is shoving doc review roles into this category. Otherwise, feel free to search the job listings and see just how many non-attorney roles you can find where a company is really looking for someone with a JD.

Trust me, as someone who has had to answer the interview question - "So, why do you have a law degree?" - more times than I can count, a JD confers no advantage.

Anyway, back to the numbers. Given that it's unlikely any of these non-legal positions actually require a law degree, I think it's fair to lump these jobs (JD advantage, professional, and non-professional) together with the number who are unemployed after 10 months. If you add these groups up, the sum is 67. Divide by 213 and you get 31.4%.

This is what I call, the "Worthlessness Factor". These are the people, who after investing in a legal education either can't find a job or can only find a job that could have been secured without enduring the law school ordeal. Therefore, their law degree is essentially worthless.

If you remove the aforementioned special circumstances - the 8 people who pursued an LLM, landed an MRS, etc. - the breakdown is that almost exactly 2/3rds of the class found attorney positions and 1/3rd of the class would have better off buying lotto tickets.

Back when law schools used the the first year to weed out poorly qualified students, they used to scare the 1L's during orientation with a line like, "Look to your left, look to your right. After this year, one of you won't be here." They should amend this adage to read, "Look to your left, look to your right. One of you is essentially going to borrow and flush 200 large right down the toilet."

But what of the other 2/3rds. Theoretically if you can finish in the top two thirds of the class, you should okay, right? Well, let's take a look at the second table where the ABA breaks down the data for those are able to find employment.

It's impossible to link the data from the two tables directly because the categories shift - though we know the unemployed and special cases are no longer included. The "Business and Industry" category roughly matches the size of the "JD Advantage Category" - though some "advantage" jobs may be with the government.

"Business and Industry" - like "JD Advantage" - is also code for "does not require a law degree". Unless, you're offered a role to be a GC for your buddy's hair-brained startup that hawks some crummy mobile app, you're not going to work in a corporate legal office right out of school. It's not surprising that there's overlap between the two categories.

Taking a look at the numbers, let's first look at the number of graduates who landed a position at a firm...any firm: 85. I'm going to calculate the percentage out of the the graduating class as a whole - not just the number employed - because we're looking at overall outcomes for graduates.

The percentage employed at a law firm is pretty dismal: 40% (rounding up). That's right, only 2 out of 5 LAW graduates end working at a law firm. We're not even being selective - this includes everyone from the Skadden bound graduate to the guy working part time for a shady firm located underneath a highway overpass.

Let's examine the breakdown a little more. Most - though not all - law students dream of the elite jobs. The jobs that will produce six figure salaries and will confer upon the attorney the prestige he so desires. When you're talking about six figures of debt, it is probably fair to expect a pretty decent return on that investment.

The jobs that pay such impressive salaries are referred to as BigLaw. BigLaw usually is defined as firms that are larger than 100 employees. According to the ABA data, there are 27 such students (interestingly this is the exact same number as those who are unemployed). It's probably fair to throw in the three graduates who landed federal clerkships because they are likely BigLaw bound.

Combining the various tiers of BigLaw (most fall into the 500+ attorney bucket) and those with federal clerkships, the percentage comes out to 14%. Because maybe one or two other students have a BigLaw caliber government or PI job, we can call it an even 15%.

This isn't horrible for a second tier school. (Typically the cutoff for attaining such a job is being in the top 10%.) Nonetheless, 85% of graduates are walking away with non-elite jobs. That should definitely give anyone pause before assuming a mortgage size student loan balance.

A common fallacy among prospective law students is that even if they fail to land a BigLaw or another elite job, they'll just settle for a "mid law" position. It's a fallacy because the distribution of entry level law firm roles is bimodal rather than normal: the bulk of law jobs aren't at mid-size firms; instead, they are concentrated at the extremes (small law or big law).

The data supports this analysis. If we exclude the 30 students who landed elite jobs, only 8% of the remainder (everyone who didn't land a BigLaw or fed clerkship position) ended up at a firm with between 26 and 100 attorneys. Even if we're generous and count everyone employed by a firm with 11 - 100 attorneys, it only comes out to 15%. That is if you miss the BigLaw ship, you pretty much only have an 8-15% chance of landing a mid law job (most of which are likely uninspiring insurance defense shops paying between $60-80k).

If a graduate does land a law firm role, chances are he or she is going to end up joining a small firm of 2-10 employees. A plurality - 31 graduates with law firm jobs - ended up working for a firm of this size. A majority worked for a firm that was between 2 and 25 attorneys.

While there may always be a small law gem here or there, small firms tend to be the most likely to have high turnover, psychopathic employers, and fail to provide basic benefits that the employees of Starbucks and Whole Foods take for granted. Salaries rarely exceed $50k and may even dip down into the $30k or below range. Because the law schools aren't forced to disclose salary data, we don't know exactly how bad median salaries may be. Nonetheless, you probably don't want to gamble nearly a quarter of a million bucks hoping that this analysis is too pessimistic.

Moreover, of all graduates who end up working for small firms, one out of five of them aren't even employed full time.

The public interest and government employment numbers are probably the hardest to parse, but only about 10% class end up in either category. Even if someone claims that he/she doesn't really want to go into private practice and instead wants to serve the public interest, this isn't a significant portion of the class. These categories presumably include all assistant DA, PD, legal aid, and general bureaucratic (including non-attorney) roles.

Finally, there are state clerkships. Aside from *maybe* one or two graduates who end up working for a state supreme court, these jobs are mostly with low level state courts, don't pay much, and aren't designed to be long term career opportunities. Yes, they can sometimes serve as launch pads for better roles, but often it's a stepping stone to moving to an aforementioned small firm. For every clerk who lands a decent role at a boutique firm, many more will wrap up their New Jersey traffic court clerkships only to be unemployed or left scrounging around for work fighting speeding tickets.

This leads us to another figure, the combined percentage of graduates who end up unemployed, in a non-legal role, working at a small firm, or working in a state court clerkship. This comes out to 62% of the class. If you throw in the "special circumstances" - not looking for work, pursuing an LLM, etc., the number is 66% - just under 2/3rds.

Early on we noted that about 1/3 of the class pretty much has nothing to show for their time in law school. This figure indicates ONLY 1/3 of the class is likely to have a job that even begins to justify the six figure price tag: BigLaw associate, Fed clerk, potentially interesting public/government role eligible for PSLF, or anything that could be theoretically considered a mid law associate role.

Now, I can see someone criticizing these calculations or this analysis. Maybe someone feels I'm too pessimistic or I wasn't consistent in calculating the various rates. My calculations were intended to provide the most clarity regarding prospective employment outcomes, but it's fair to disagree. The numbers are out there and anyone is welcome to drill deeper into the data.

In fact, while I used Villanova's numbers, my point wasn't to vilify this particular school. (I intentionally veered away from mentioning the school's name too often in this post.) It's merely a case study. I hope this blog post will instead serve as a catalyst for prospective students to apply a similar analysis to the school he or she is considering. The breakdown will likely be similar (if not worse) for any school outside of the top 25.

You see, regardless of whether you'd spot the school a few additional percentage points here or there, it doesn't change the overarching analysis. Graduates will still face twice the unemployment rate of the population as a whole. Only around 15% of graduates are going to end up with the type of elite positions most law students covet. Mid Law is hardly a backup plan as it still constitutes a small portion of the class. A full third of the class won't end being attorneys. Most of those who are employed in the legal field are heading to small law or low level clerkships.

This isnt' conjecture, hearsay, or propaganda. This is based upon real, SELF-REPORTED data. As a prospective law student, you have to ask yourself, do I really want to take out a mortgage (in essence) for these results? Do I really want to forgo three years of work experience, retirement savings, etc. to possibly end up as state judicial clerk or personal injury associate pulling down $45k a year?

Obviously the choice is yours, but if you're a potential law student, you're the one - not a smooth talking dean or a law professor with a phony baloney "study" - who will assume the debt and the career options (or lack thereof) with which your degree will saddle you. If you borrow and gamble six figures worth of tuition for a limited chance to get a decent legal job and you lose, there will be no sympathy and no turning back.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Bell Tolls for the Scam

One of the ironies of (at one point) anonymously managing  a blog lamenting the plight of dejected law grads is that I achieved a certain level of fame – most likely the greatest celebrity I will ever experience in my life.

No, it didn’t amount to the fame of a well-known legal scholar nor of even some of my other former “scam blogger” contemporaries. Nevertheless, I certainly never expected to be interviewed or profiled by the National Jurist or the Wall Street Journal.

It was, of course, ironic because all of the attention was directed towards a pseudonymous caricature, and instead of heralding success, it was a byproduct of my miserable condition.

Nevertheless, my anti-LS scam compatriots and I were usually one side of a story that also featured at least one apologist for the reigning system – whether law school dean, an ABA representative, or just a general mercenary for the machine.

In those days, condescending and dismissive remarks were the norm. I remember one dean bemoaning that LS critics tended to make the most noise because they were the most displeased. She further asserted that the majority of graduates were happily and quietly pursuing post-JD endeavors.

We now know this to be nonsense. In the years that have elapsed since this and other blogs have gone dormant, the mainline media has recognized that something is amiss as class after class of law grads are thrust into the unemployment grinder.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and Slate have all run stories to this effect. If they don’t fully endorse the idea that the law school cartel is managing  a full blown scam, they are at least exploring the repercussions of saddling freshly minted JD’s with mind blowing debt while the schools shout ‘caveat emptor’ and hungrily look towards the next harvest.

Sure, every now and then an apologist pops his head up from the trenches in order to predict the imminent recovery of the legal market or to offer an unpersuasive case for paying the equivalent of three or four Mercedes for an unmarketable degree.

Nobody is buying it, though. The damage has been done. Yes, law schools are still signing up poor naifs who never paid attention to begin with, but class sizes have shrunk drastically. Anyone who has done a modicum of research knows that a nightmare awaits most law grads.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, though. What changed between 2009 and our present period in which enrollment is tanking, faculty is being axed, and even multi-campus outlets are shuttering some of their satellites?

For one thing, while the conventional wisdom about law school has moved closer to the truth, it still adheres to at least one fallacy: The idea that law school was an A-Okay option prior to 2009.

This was not the case. Yes, between 2003 and 2008, a T-14 degree probably would land you solid employment. Even grades in the top 50% at a top 25 school would make you competitive for large firm jobs.

This more sanguine picture, however, concealed the dark truth about the fates of non-elite students. After three years of study and tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt, these students ended up in toilet law legal mills, document review sweatshops, or non-legal roles that would have been easier to secure without the JD.

For years, the strategy of the law school cartel was clear: dangle the ostensible treasures afforded to the top 10% in front of prospective students and then lump toilet law proles and document  review slaves into the ‘ol “Employed – JD required” bucket for reporting purposes.

The masses bought it; the mystique and prestige of the law degree was preserved while unctuous law administrators and professors feasted on the ceaseless blood money flowing from Sallie Mae and Access Group via the financial futures of so many deceived souls. 

It’s little wonder that the perpetrators of the scam saw the crash as more of a hiccup than a catastrophe. In their collective minds, all they needed to do was enjoy the influx of prospective students fleeing an ailing labor market and lie and deny whenever pressed about the fate of their recent graduates.

They reasoned that once the market rebounded, it would be business as usual. There would once again be enough elite, “golden children” to mask the plight of the average graduate, and the scam could start humming along as usual.

The law schools, however, grossly miscalculated the extent of the crash. When the bottom fell out of the legal industry, it didn’t just filter out some participants, it utterly obliterated the sector’s very infrastructure.

Cost conscious firms carefully scrutinized their legal bills in an effort to save costs; the reverberations impacted the entire industry all the way down to the mills and document review.

BigLaw associate classes appear to have permanently shrunk. The ripple effect has made hiring down the chain even more competitive than it previously was. Less funding for public legal resources has introduced added pressure, and the once safe haven of document review – if safe havens can be found in poorly ventilated, converted boiler rooms – is nothing like it used to be.

While the overall economy has more or less rebounded from the Great Recession, the legal industry remains stagnant.

We can quibble about the mechanics of the sorry state of legal employment, but it is undeniable that five years out, there isn’t enough good news for the LS cartel to countervail the tales of debt and despair that dominate legal employment articles.

The economy is likely the best it’s going be during this present expansion, and at some point, there will be another recession. This will bring only further misery to attorneys and further deprecate the law school brand.

The jig is up. Even the slickest deans haven’t been able to spin the situation. Their previously enticing coos of prestige and prosperity sound more and more like a cacophony of used car salesmen trying to unload those jeeps from the 90’s that used to flip over.

This, however, still begs the question why haven’t we seen the cartel collapse under the pressure of these seemingly irresistible economic forces?

The easy answer is to point to the ubiquitous loans and their “generous” repayment terms.

To be sure, were the federal student loans to disappear tomorrow (particularly if coupled with the ability to discharge private loans in bankruptcy), the law school cartel would vanish as well.

Moreover, without GradPLUS loans and the IBR/PAYE repayment plans, the default rate among recent graduates would be astronomical. As depressing and infuriating as the post-law school horror stories are today, the criminality of such a situation would quickly bring the enterprise crashing down whether by the market or the courts.

Nevertheless, from a short term perspective, you can essentially go to law school for free. Moreover, when you graduate, you will never pay more than 10% of your AGI in student loan repayments.

Two hundred large in debt is hard to overlook even under these conditions, but if people really did believe that signing some promissory note and spending three years at school meant entrance into the upper middle class upon graduation, this might still be enticing.

The “free” education argument, however, isn’t washing with more and more prospective law students. Sure, the debt may be “manageable” (though non-repayable), but if there’s no pot of gold at the end of rainbow, why even assume supposedly manageable debt.

The law school machine has been routed in the PR game, yet despite the hits it has taken, no major, accredited law school has fallen.

While discouraging, I am nevertheless optimistic that we’ll eventually see some of the schools give up the proverbial ghost. The student loan elixir has delayed the inevitable, but at some point, market forces will give way to a necessary correction.

It remains to be seen whether the closing of a few law schools will either result in institution wide reform – more practical coursework, lower tuition, and fewer semesters – or simply a reduction in the number of “firms” in this saturated sector.

For the time being, however, law schools have to grapple with the present economics of reduced demand for their services.

With fewer prospective students, law schools only have two unpleasant choices: Reduce tuition and hack away at the scam’s raison d'ĂȘtre or attempt to retain the present cash flow and torpedo the prestige to which these pseudo-august institutions so jealously cling.

There really is no other choice. Bread and circuses won’t fly anymore. If prospective students are unpersuaded that there are ample legal jobs available, no amount of moot court rooms with mahogany benches and cutting edge technology is going to drive them in.

If enrollment continues to decline, maintaining both high academic standards and fiscal solvency will be a difficult feat. There will be a smaller and smaller pool of quality applicants, who will be on the lookout for either bargains or true prestige.

Prospective students will still be courted heavily with scholarship offers from schools that at one time would have been far outside of their leagues. It’s unlikely that the “pedigree” of a top 50 or even 25 school would be enticing in comparison.

As enrollment tanks, this will be a very costly strategy to pursue. Cutting costs could mitigate the impact of decreased revenue from tuition, but less impressive facilities and fewer perks like lavish moot court trips could make law school an even more miserable environment.

Moreover, cutting faculty could mean the availability of fewer interesting courses, and a reduced support staff would likely result in delays in important administrative tasks (transcript requests; graduation verification).

I’m certainly not advocating retaining the largesse of the cartel, but for students with shorter-term time preferences, the loss of such immediate perquisites could serve as disincentives to matriculation.

While reducing tuition either directly or more subtly via increased financial aid is a costly endeavor, sacrificing student quality could be an even more dangerous game.

Schools somewhere in the middle can tolerate poorer LSAT scores and GPA’s for a while. They just need to hope that their peer institutions need to make similar sacrifices, and they can at least hold their relative place in the LS pecking order – for whatever that’s worth.

While the mid-tier schools can try to wait out the rough seas in their metaphorical dinghies of reduced academic standards – awaiting either miraculous salvation or the final storm to take them under – the bottom feeder schools don’t have such luxury.

At first blush, one might see this as business as usual for the true toilet institutions. These schools never really served any purpose but to separate the fool from his money to begin with. What should they care if someone barely signed his name to the LSAT and did nothing else?

While the TTT(T) class of schools may have no problem emptying the local sanatoriums and having classes full of law students drooling on themselves while some old codger drones on with a canned lectured about Penoyer, the ABA may think differently.

Sure, the ABA and related bodies have been pleased to let the cartel run on its merry way, but they are starting to face more pressure. Moreover, even during the heyday of the scam, they were only willing to tolerate a certain bar failure rate.

This means, that unless the ABA abruptly jettisons all standards, the absolute garbage schools are going to start coming close to the end of the rope. They may be willing to tolerate students who don’t know the difference between long arm statutes and chewing on their own arms, but the state bar examiners won’t be so kind.

In summary, as long as conditions remain the same or continue to deteriorate, the law schools are stuck in a vicious cycle of financial decline and academic debasement.

Only the most elite schools – the only ones with any purpose under the present law school model – can attract strong student bodies. Middling schools will have to contend for what were once mediocre matriculants (and will pay heavily for them).

For many schools, this is the pathway toward a level of financial calamity that was once only reserved for their graduates. Nevertheless, the alternative – academic degradation – will instead send bar passage rates into the cellar (with the attendant possibility of loss of accreditation).

The nation’s fixation on higher education at any cost and the undying spigot of student loans mean that law schools still have time to limbo to see how low they can go both financially and academically.

Nonetheless, as mentioned, nothing short of a radical reversal of fortune for the legal labor market will change this trajectory. With this phenomena unlikely, the collapse of the law school scam is all but inevitable if not immediately imminent.

Yes, it would be nice if the courts or the government did their job and pulled the plug on this colossal fraud. Nevertheless, the slow, painful death of the scam is underway even if the government won’t give it the swift execution it deserves.

The law school apologists may be able to grab a few more bucks on the way out. They may even be able deny and continue to spin on their way to their demise, but evidence of the collapse abounds.

Faculty buy-outs are on the rise. One law school is teetering on bankruptcy. Enrollment rates are low as they’ve ever been. Deans are sucking in as many transfer students as possible to try to simultaneously retain revenue and preserve their academic rankings.

Perhaps the most telling sign is that the deans are even marching to war against each other in an academic survival of the fittest. The aforementioned scrounging for transfer students has pitted the American and George Washington deans against each other.

Regardless of the specific observations, the once unsinkable scam has hit the iceberg and is taking on water faster than it can bail it out.

When I was consistently blogging about five years ago, the debate was somewhat theoretical. It was a political debate like the death penalty or tax policy. Each side had their own arguments and metrics.

Sure, the anti-scam movement was correct, but in the same way you may feel you’re correct about the political issue de jure. Someone is always going to disagree with you, and the debate will often get lost in a morass of competing statistics, rhetorical barbs, and outright insults.

While debates over philosophy and theory may be difficult to resolve, debates over the feasibility of a commodity are subject to a market test. A business owner (or shifty law dean) can proclaim to the world that his product is the best, but if the masses believe he’s hawking overpriced schlock, he’s out of business.

Sure, he can believe that consumers are fools and they don’t know what they’re missing, but that will be all the consolation he will have as he fills out the bankruptcy paperwork.

I began this article with the irony of attaining “fame” while guarding my anonymity, so let me end with another unexpected twist.

At one point, the law school cartel and I actually had the same thought process. We both assumed the secret sauce of their scam just needed two ingredients: Easy money (in unlimited student loans) and a healthy dose of marketing deception.

In the case of the law school cartel, the realization of this miscalculation has resulted in the gnashing of teeth as they recognize Rome is burning. For me, however, it is an unexpected signal that - after all the debt, despair, and ruin imposed by the law school machine – an immoral empire will eventually be brought to its knees.

Web Analytics