The End of Esq. [Never] - Final Post

When I first started this blog, I was not sure what direction it would take. While I linked to the other scam bloggers, I think I saw this blog as more of an attempt to chronicle my quest to find a non-legal job and to occasionally share my thoughts about law school, the legal industry, and, of course, the dishonesty involved in both.

(As it turned out, however, the career search aspect became a secondary concern as my contempt for the law school scam began to take prominence. More on that in a moment.)

One thing I did know from the start was that I didn't want to end this blog until I could triumphantly declare that I had secured a serious, decent paying, non-legal position despite my J.D., work experience gap, and the miserable economy.

I sincerely regret that this will not be the case.

A few posts ago, I informed you that I was taking on a temporary, contract position with a company that was designed to evaluate whether or not I would receive a permanent offer. While I am pleased to report that my "employer" envisions me working at the company well past the initial evaluation period, it is going to take them longer than expected to determine if they plan to take me on as a permanent employee.

While this is a contract position, I still work long hours and have a long commute. This has left little time for blogging. While I have not run out of things to say, I have exhausted my motivation to say them.

Over the past month, I had hoped to receive the final word about the position, my specific role, and my annual compensation. Sadly, it appears that it could be weeks or even months before this is settled. There is also the possibility that in the end, I will not end up working full time with this company.

With no particular date in sight when I can foresee declaring victory, and with little time to blog, I have decided to "prematurely" bring this blog to a close.

As mentioned, I have run out of steam to maintain this blog. After 100 posts, while I may have some additional thoughts to share that may be either interesting or entertaining, I don't know if I can really add anything more of substance. I've made my case as best I could through personal anecdotes and more detached analysis.

In addition, whether this present position works out, or I am just able to finally have some recent, substantive work experience on my resume, I believe I am on the road to leaving the law and securing an actual career.

Moreover, while I stand resolute that the law school deans and their cohorts are as crooked as the day is long, I am somewhat concerned about the cynicism and bitterness that I have expressed in this blog. In all honesty, I do not want to be an angry or resentful person.

I believe most of what I've said on this blog is accurate and defensible. I know that one man's sincere regret is another man's "whining", and I am not oblivious to the duplicitous tactics of some of the law school apologists and administrators. That said, I do not think it's healthy to be a in a bitter feud with anyone - even the more corrupt and miserable elements of society.

I certainly am glad that there will continue to be a scam busting community, and I hope it grows into a larger, more visible organization, but I'm not the right person to be part of this movement. I don't regret most of what I've written, but I do regret some of the occasionally snide and nasty ways in which I've expressed myself.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the post, this blog went in a somewhat different direction than I expected. With my resumes ending up in oblivion and my networking connections flaming out, I didn't have much to write about regarding my job search.

When "A Law School Carol" unexpectedly garnered national legal press attention, I was pushed into the forefront of the scam busting movement. I hope this event was able to draw greater awareness about the community and in some ways contributed to the success of some of the more popular blogs such as Third Tier Reality, But I Did Everything Right, and the Jobless Juris Doctorate.

I would have never believed that simply by creating a blog and some simplistic cartoons I would be featured in three national legal publications and the Wall Street Journal blog. Moreover, being able to draw hundreds and sometimes even thousands of hits every time I publish a new post has been an honor. Maybe I should write into my law school's alumni magazine to advertise these accomplishments!

I contemplated revealing my law school in my final post, but I decided it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. Listing the school could possibly hurt me in the future, and my objection is to law school as a whole and not specifically Syracuse Law....oh wait, I mean the University of Florida Law...oh, I mean Loyola Law, uh, yeah that's it...

I did, however, plan on posting a narrative about my job search, a closing argument about why law school is a bad idea, and a final farewell after I posted my intended "victory" post. While I don't have the energy to write three full posts, let me conclude with three micro posts within this one:

***

In all, I spent 13 months unemployed since I graduated law school. Eleven of those months were post the bar exam. Eight of those months were months in which I was seriously committed to finding a non-legal job.

I sent out over a hundred resumes. I probably received a total of fifty responses - most of which were outright rejections. I was asked to come in for four interviews for serious, professional positions.

The first interview went well at first but quickly collapsed when it turned out that I lacked the requisite technical knowledge to succeed in the position without additional training. I was annoyed that neither the job listing nor my resume made any mention of serious programing experience. I was also displeased because I couldn't get a hold of anyone at the company to find out my status.

The second interview was a disaster. The security guard didn't even have me in the computer to let me up to the office. The guy who interviewed me clearly had no idea what was on my resume and asked a total of three questions. I had to fight traffic and pay for parking. Obviously, I couldn't get a hold of anyone in the office after the interview. I'm still shocked by the lack of professionalism I experienced.

The third interview was far more professional. The interviewer was the CEO of the company. He was polite and professional but not very friendly. I appreciated that he not only read my resume but also memorized it.

Unfortunately, this was the interview I was dreading. The first three questions were essentially "Why the #$%! did you go to law school if you don't want to practice law?" I actually think I handled these questions well, but his interrogation pushed me into defensive, moot court mode, and made me come across as too adversarial and quick talking throughout the rest of the interview.

In the end, I'll admit that I blew the interview by coming across as too aggressive and over-eager. Though, I don't think the interviewer and I would have gotten along very well, so maybe it was for the best.

While the interview was as professional as could be, and everything that went wrong was entirely my fault, I did become annoyed after the interview. I called the guy afterward, but he kept brushing me off instead of just thanking me for coming in and but saying that they had gone with another candidate. Moreover, during the interview, he actually promised to put me in touch with a networking connection (not a great sign at an interview), but he never followed through despite my requests.

My fourth interview was with my current employer. I actually wasn't expecting to get a job. I had a phone interview with my company, and it turned out that I wasn't at all qualified for the position for which I applied. Nevertheless, they invited me in to talk more about the company.

I didn't think this would amount to much, but I figured I'd go because it wasn't like I had much else to do. I actually considered not wearing a suit, and almost walked out when one of the interviewers took a call during the interview without excusing himself.

Then something odd happened - after I reiterated that I probably lacked the requisite skills to fill the role, he brushed it off by saying that it didn't matter. He then had me interview with another employee. Then he came in and talked to me again. Then I talked to another employee. Then he came in and asked me about my salary requirements. Anything above minimum wage that didn't require me to wear a paper hat sounded pretty good at that point, but I gave him a realistic figure.

He said he'd think about it, and the next day called me back to offer me a contract position that paid around what I wanted (albeit sans benefits and with the requirement to pay the SE tax for the time being) to evaluate my work before taking me on permanently.

The position could generally be called an IT/business position, which is what I wanted. I would prefer it to be a little more development/tech oriented, but otherwise it's pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

I was generally offered this role because my "employer" (technically "client" since I'm an IC) thought I was an intelligent guy with a pretty solid computer background. For the record, yes, they did see the JD as a plus, BUT before you apologists start yucking it up, let me point out the following: 1) This was one 1 of over 100 employers; 2) I presently make less than I did at my pre-law job; 3) I'm not even a permanent employee; 4) I still have a mountain of debt to worry about - IBR or no IBR.

I am, however, very grateful for this job, and I enjoy it. I'm also learning a lot of new thing, which will be marketable should I have to move on. I don't think I will voluntarily do so because there are some great opportunities available at this company.

For those of you still looking for work, I'm afraid I don't have much new advice to offer. Trying to sell yourself as a generally intelligent and capable person is a good idea, but learning some new, marketable skills is really the best approach. Try finding software that is used in the field in which you're looking and see if you can master it to give yourself a head start. If you're a writer, learn about SEO. If you're creative, look into learning about filming and video editing.

Besides that, just keep trying. If you have something to offer, eventually you'll find somebody who will pay you for it.

***

While things seem to have turned around for me, I wouldn't wish this experience on my worst enemy - maybe a law dean or two, but I'm talking about actual humans here.

If you're a prospective law student, I don't know what I else I can tell you that isn't already available elsewhere on my blog to try to convince you not to go to law school.

At the end of the day, if you ignore these warning, I guess it doesn't really affect me. I have my debt and my shame already, but you see, I do care. Maybe you think I'm a loser. Maybe reading my blog makes your blood boil. Maybe you're a pompous punk who thinks that he'll sooner grow a tail than end up begging for an unpaid internship with the local DA after passing the bar. It doesn't really matter; I still don't want this fate to beset you.

In other posts, I've tried to appeal to your reason; let me use this last post to appeal to your emotions.

Aside from those of you who know you want to be lawyers - and unless you've actually worked closely with practicing attorneys, you DON'T know - the people who go to law school are either recent college graduates or dissatisfied young employees who think a legal career will be more lucrative and/or more exciting than their present options. (Law schools prey on these poor souls with the ruthlessness of a lioness picking out and pouncing on a wounded wildebeest.)

If this is you, let me empathize with you. I was fortunate when I graduated college. The economy was doing well in 2004, and I landed a decent paying professional job. In some ways, I had it all. I lived in a luxury apartment (albeit sharing the rent with a friend), I had savings, and I had no debt. I could eat out with friends, and I could pretty much buy (within reason) whatever I wanted.

Yet I wasn't happy. My job was mundane and boring, and while it paid the rent and let me live a stable life, I wasn't exactly rolling in the dough and didn't think I could support a family on my salary. I also envisioned holding a job that was exciting, challenging, and lucrative.

Then I drank the law school Kool-Aid. I believed the data about the average starting salaries. I listened to the anecdotes about appearing in court, working with interesting clients, and researching compelling issues.

Sure, I knew that at the very big firms, the work wasn't that interesting, but I was never all that interested in working at the largest firms anyway. Besides, if the money ever seduced me into taking such a job, I could always move over to a smaller firm with more interesting work later on.

All I "knew" was that there's lots of work for lawyers because everyone needs lawyers, even the average law graduate was making good money, and whatever job I received, it would have to be better than my current job.

Sound familiar?

So I dutifully dumped tons of money into LSAT prep courses and the application process. I researched the schools and essentially felt like I was a senior in high school again, weighing my options as I embarked on a new chapter in my life.

I actually laid awake paralyzed with fear one night, worried that I had blown the LSAT and would have to stay at my job and forgo law school (back then you only had one chance at the LSAT). If only I HAD bombed the LSAT!

Maybe my job was boring. Maybe I wasn't making enough money. Maybe I needed to find a new career path, but the answer certainly wasn't to be found by going six figures into debt and wasting three years of my life all to attend a school that would give me neither practical training nor a pipeline into a new and better industry.

On the eve of law school, I had a good job, my own place, and a positive net worth. When I graduated law school, none of these facts were true.

Let me put it this way, if I had access to a time machine, I would go back in time to find myself sitting at my desk, reviewing law school brochures. I would then rip the glossy brochure out of my former self's hands and throw him to the ground. I would proceed to kick him several times and tell him if he ever even considered applying to law school after this, I'd be back to finish the job.

Sure, I'd probably have a few bruised ribs today, but I'd also probably not be in the process of requesting Sallie Mae to put me on the IBR, so I "only" need to hand over 10% of my salary for most of the rest of my life.

***

With that, I guess it's time to close up shop. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read, comment, or contact me with your stories.

It was an honor to hear from so many people who changed their minds about law school because of this blog, derived some comfort by reading my posts, or just found this blog to be an entertaining way to kill some time at work.

If this blog has helped one person find a non legal job or convinced a single person not to go to law school, then I'm convinced that my efforts have been worth it even if "Esq Never" hasn't moved the law school industry even an inch towards reform.

While I don't have any intention of pulling a "Brett Favre", I may occasionally post articles on Underdog, Esq. if I believe I have anything particularly compelling about which to write, but I wouldn't expect any such articles for a while.

I will leave this blog up (but not add to it) and available until Blogger goes the way of Geocities and deletes all of its pages.

I wish everyone the best of luck, and I hope that all of you who are currently suffering from unemployment and underemployment (thanks to your JD's) end up landing on your feet.

While I don't want to discuss law school or the scam anymore, if I can ever help anyone in the future with advice about transitioning into a non-legal job, please feel free to e-mail me. I can't promise an immediate response, but I'll do my best to check my esqnever at hotmail dot com account and try to respond.

With that, this is Esq. Never - signing off.

Esq, Never's 100th Post

Well, after nine months of blogging about the non-legal job search and the law school scam, I've finally reached 100 posts. It would be great if I could use this occasion to make an exciting announcement - but I can't. I wish I had something particularly creative for this post - but I've been too busy.

Instead, I'm going to do what every great production of the past has copped out by doing when it reaches a milestone of some sort - A "Best Of" episode!

For those of you who have been regular readers since the beginning (or those who have read through the archives), I'm afraid there won't be much new in the post. For those who may have missed some of my earlier posts, I'm going to try to highlight some of the articles I've enjoyed the most that you may want to check out.

If you've already read these posts, I'm going to provide a few additional comments that you may or may not find interesting.

Thanks to everyone for reading. I hope others have found my blog to be either informative or entertaining.

The Best of Esq. Never

Not Another Law Blog

My very first post. Find out why not all unpaid internships are bad. Mine, for example, finally convinced me to move on with my life and leave the futile search for an attorney position behind me.

But I Have a Law Degree!

I wish I had put more effort into getting more people to adopt this catch phrase. Sure, you know somebody who graduated from Bob Jones University who is doing just fine while you're barely qualified to pick up cans on the side of the highway with you first tier J.D., but you have a law degree!

A Law School Carol

I'm probably the only 2009 law school graduate (at least from my school) to be featured prominently in the National Law Journal, the ABA Journal, the Wall Street Journal (law blog), and the National Jurist.

Is this because I'm secretly some hotshot attorney biting the hand that feeds me? No, it's because I spent part of my year of unemployment creating a cartoon known as "A Law School Carol".

The Thanksgiving Day Turkey

Thanks to law school, I'll probably have to eat crow at every single family gathering for the next decade.

E-Mail Scam Alert!

This is almost as honest as the marketing materials that most of the law schools use.

The Fallacy of the Sunk Cost

Say it with me: There's no use crying over spilled milk. There's no use crying over spilled milk. There's no use crying over spilled milk.

This makes sense, so why do so many people continue with law school or with being lawyers just because they've incurred some associated expenses? My guess is that most lawyers never took an economics class in college. Oh wait, I majored in economics, and I still made this mistake. Never mind.

The Greatest Sham on Earth

"Wow! You passed the bar! Congratulations! Now, let's squeeze you into an overflowing room for one of our fifty swearing in ceremonies this year. See everyone else who is here? You'll be competing against them for the eight attorney positions that are available in the state."

I'm Everything I Ever Hated

I used to be pleased with myself for avoiding falling into the trap of earning a worthless liberal arts degree. Thanks to law school, that's no longer the case.

The Federal Student Loan Program

Speaking of economics. Here's an economic analysis of why the law school scam has been able to prosper and thrive. Hint: Free student loans + shameless law school deans = lives of misery and shame for law school graduates.

Esq. Never's Season's Greetings to Law School Deans

I'll bet you think I don't like law school deans, but this year I actually had a present for them: An Esq. Never original poem.

Pride and Prejudice

Remember how that after Elizabeth married Darcy she found out that his wealth was actually illusory and that Pemberley was financed through his Sallie Mae student loans, so she subsequently left him for that loser who was in the military? No? Well, that's probably why Jane Austen made Mr. Darcy a businessman and not a barrister.

Yes, I'm kind of ashamed I know that much about a romance novel aimed towards women. Another reason why I'm glad this blog is anonymous.

In any event, if you're prideful about going to law school, I can guarantee you that you won't live happily ever after.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Look at this picture and tell me it doesn't send a chill up your spine. Bonus: If you're a recent graduate who still thinks you have a crack at a serious attorney position and can look at this without breaking a sweat, you must be fearless, an idiot, or legally blind.

The Networking Trail of Tears

What's worse? Being a Cherokee who is forced to live in Oklahoma or being an attorney forced to rely on the kindness of your network to get you a job? This is an honest question. I don't really know.

The Craigslist Test

Want to find a used washer, an apartment, or a one night stand? Craigslist can help. Want to find an attorney position - or at least one that pays better than home depot? Craigslist probably won't be quite as helpful.


There are some more recent posts that I think are pretty good, but I assume most people have read them.

I know plenty of people question whether it has been worth my time to run this blog, but if it has stopped one person from going to law school or plays any role in eventually encouraging some reform, then it has been worth it for me.

Law school is a scam. There's no reason for there to be an entrenched system that charges thousands of students so much money while providing a reasonable rate of return to only a tiny percentage of graduates. It shouldn't be allowed to be propped up by unjustified loans and distorted employment data.

I'm glad that I've been able to play a small role in attacking this corrupt system for 100 posts. I also hope I've been able to assist those looking for non-legal jobs. It's been my pleasure to bring you this blog, and I hope you've enjoyed it.

I Joined the ABA

If learning this comes as a surprise to you, it actually came as a surprise to me as well.

Apparently, while the law school scam is humming along nicely during the recession thanks to an endless supply of federally backed loans, the ABA hasn't been so fortunate. (I guess even recessions have bright sides.)

This makes sense as struggling solos and unemployed lawyers, who need to decide between heating their homes or eating from somewhere other than the nearby dumpster, probably are not in the position to pay the annual $125 dues to the ABA.

Therefore, it looks like Ms. Lamm and her criminal buddies need to engage in some creative marketing techniques to ensure the long term fiscal help of this worthless organization. One such tactic is apparently to offer free one year ABA memberships to "recently" barred attorneys with the hope that many of us will lazily renew our membership at cost the following year.

I put "recently" in quotations because the ABA granted me free admission to the ABA under the guise of congratulating me for passing the bar - a "feat" that is now several months old.

The letter they sent me promises that as an ABA member I'll get networking opportunities, access to the ABA website, and use of the ABA's "economic recovery resources". In other words, I get nothing.

Oh, but they are going to mail me my PRESTIGIOUS ABA membership card. Yes, they actually used the word "prestigious". I didn't realize that being able to write a check for 125 dollars is all it takes to earn prestige.

The most insulting part is that they advertise my ability to sign up for CLE's and that if I send in a survey, they'll match me with appropriate products and services. Pretty much they have to hide behind the veneer of doing me a favor when they're just trying find a way to sell my information to make more money for themselves. Thanks for looking out for me, ABA.

Ah, but it isn't entirely a loss. After all, I received a certificate of membership to the ABA, which can double as a place mat for my Chinese food, and I was able to save a whopping ten bucks on a car rental thanks to some deal they have with Hertz.

That almost makes up for the $90k I wasted on law school. Oh wait, it doesn't.

Carol Lamm, if you're not going to do anything about the law school scam, please just leave its victims alone. Thanks.

For Shame

The other day I was talking to an elderly lady I knew. Sadly, she felt compelled to ask the question I dread hearing the most these days, "So, how's the job search going?" I tried to brush it off by saying I was still looking.

Nevertheless, she persisted. She wondered how I was supporting myself, and I was again forced to remind her (and myself) that yes, I am a 28 year old with both a college and graduate degree who lives at home with his parents. She continued to lightly reprove me by reminding me that this was a long time to be out of work and that I needed to find something soon.

Had this not been an old lady, who probably thought she was being helpful, I probably wouldn't have tolerated this line of questioning, but in truth, she was only expressing in words what I'm sure many people are usually thinking when they learn about my situation.

What acceptable response can I possibly give? The myth of the law degree permeates society (at least for people who don't make hiring decisions). Nobody understands just how few legal jobs exist - and just how crummy most of them are. Few people realize that the J.D. will automatically exclude you from many non-legal positions.

It's next to impossible to explain that because of the dearth of attorney positions and the difficulty of transitioning into another field, many law graduates are left in unemployment purgatory where the odds are stacked against them in finding any work at all during a recession.

Over the course of writing this blog, I've written about most of the woes related to attending law school: the debt, the lousy employment prospects, toilet law, doc review sweatshops, arrogant professors, all of the incidental costs associated with attending LS, etc. These are all bad, but the worst part is the shame.

When expectations are so high for law graduates and opportunities are so limited, people are confused. An unemployed lawyer? Something must be wrong here! And guess what? In the eyes of most of these people, that "something" is YOU.

It's amazing the number of people who ignore first hand accounts of just how bad the job prospects are out of law school. I had a friend who went to a TTT law school (and is continuing after his first year) even though he knows all about my situation and that I went to a better ranked school than him.

It doesn't matter if you went to a good school, had average to good grades, or a strong resume, these prelaws "know" that they just have to do better, and they'll be fine.

In the same way, people who don't go to law school will judge you based upon what they "know". Can't find a job? You must either be a real loser or you're just not trying hard enough.

The latter assumption has underscored what many people seem to feel about my job search. It doesn't matter that I've submitted tons of resumes, gone on interviews (which plenty of JD's can't even get), gone to job fairs, and networked with just about everyone I can. This is practically a full time job to me, but no, if other people don't see results, they assume you're just sitting at home watching the Cartoon Network instead of trying to find a job.

There's nothing I can really do to rectify this problem. It isn't like I've been particularly picky when applying for jobs. I've told temp agencies I would accept clerical positions. I've applied (and begged for) entry level positions designed for recent college graduates. I've been willing to accept salaries south of $40k.

The shame game doesn't necessarily end after finding employment either. Suppose I did land one of those low level positions, that's not exactly the sort of thing that's going to be trumpeted in my law school's alumni newsletter. Even if I could get a decent $40k a year, corporate job with room for growth, that still wouldn't impress too many people (even though it'd be a dream come true for me). Heck, if I became a corporate VP making $100k, I know some people would still be disappointed in me for not being a lawyer.

For those who do become attorneys, there's still plenty of shame to go around. If you're paying back loans while finding yourself in small law, people are going to wonder why you don't drive a fancy car and live in a luxury condo. If you're chasing ambulances, you better believe people are going to make fun of you.

How about being a doc review prol? Trying to explain what you do to a non-attorney probably isn't exactly fun. "Well, I essentially click a mouse all day in a windowless basement. Those three years of law school really were necessary for this."

Going to law school certainly is a good antidote to pride. It's hard to be arrogant when you're in your late 20's or early 30's and either living with your parents or barely squeaking by while working a job that doesn't require a GED. There's not too much room for boasting when you spent three years in law only to make less money than you could make with a college degree.

If you're somebody who hasn't been able to reign in his ego through any other means, give law school a try. It'll certainly help bring you back down to earth (and even lower). For everyone else, unless you want to be filled with shame every time anyone asks you about your career prospects, please stay away from law school.

Hiatus

Hi, everyone. As most of the regular readers of this blog (or anyone who can read the date of the last entry) probably know, I haven't posted in a while.

Nothing particularly interesting or cataclysmic has happened, but I am taking a break from blogging for a while. Writing lengthy (at least by blog standards) pieces for about half a year has been a bit draining. Also, searching for a job and attending to other projects is quite time consuming. In addition, consistently reflecting on my own job search plight and focusing on the corruption of the law school industry gets pretty depressing over time.

I do plan to eventually return with some new posts, but for the time being (probably a couple weeks to a month), I plan on taking a break from being 'Esq. Never'. This will give me more time to focus on my pro-MSU Law blog (j/k).

See you in a few weeks.

QA with Esq. Never

Let's go into the weekend with the QA I promised you a while ago. These questions appear in no particular order. I've tried to limit my answers to keep this post to a reasonable length.

How old are you, E.N.?

I am in my late 20's.

What led you start this website?

I sort of touched on this in my first post, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share both about law school and trying to find a non-legal job. I initially thought the main point of the blog would be to chronicle my quest for a job, but given that a lot of my time was spent sending resumes off into oblivion, I focused a bit more on other subject matter. As I became more frustrated with how useless my degree truly appeared to be and learned that many, many other people were in the same or a worse boat, the blog took on more of a "scam busting" flavor.

How did those job fairs work out?

I actually only went to one of the three for which I signed up. I ditched the first two because the paltry number of companies present didn't seem to make it worth the trip. The one I did attend was actually quite good. I plan to blog about it in the future. I did get a few leads, but so far, nothing has worked out. It did help that this particular fair was aimed at a specific industry.

Why won't you reveal where you went to law school? What are you afraid of?

My job search is difficult enough without possibly exposing myself and having an angry law school, alumni, etc. doing everything they can to further frustrate it.

That said, even if I wasn't concerned about my anonymity, I'm not sure I'd really like to get into a fight with my particular school. I've said before that I don't think it's as sleazy as say Seton Hall or NYLS. It is, of course, overpriced and generally a useless institution, but it isn't the worst of the worst.

This really isn't about Esq. Never vs. Law School X. It's about an entire industry that engages in deceptive marketing, exploits the cheap credit that flows from the student lending system, and doesn't really care that its "customers" end up indebted and unemployable.

Why are comments now censored (they used to display immediately)?

At one point I didn't monitor comments. I wanted to allow everyone to voice their opinions even if was the typical "You're a whiner" and "You should have done more research" canards.

Sadly, one person wanted to post identifying information about me and ruined it for everyone. That said, I do not censor comments. They are only on a delay. I recognize this may discourage discussion, but for the time being, it is necessary.

Aside from attempts to "expose" me, I have rejected comments that are entirely off topic, spam, or duplicate posts. If you search through my comments, you will find critical remarks about my opinions and even a decent amount of name calling aimed towards me.

Why are you so hesitant to weigh in on politics?

Personally, I see it as irrelevant. Most people who go to law school have developed some sort of political viewpoint, and by siding with or against certain politicians, I believe I would unnecessarily anger other people who do not agree with me.

I do not see the problems with higher education (and law school specifically) as part of a systemic problem with America. I see it as a bad "product" that deserves to be criticized. Just like there are websites dedicated to exposing "get rich quick" schemes and other ripoffs, I believe this blog serves the same function for the law school industry.

The recession aside, I think life would have been just fine for me had I not made such a bad decision in attending law school. I believe the problems with law school can be solved through realistic changes to how legal education is provided that do not require ushering in the workers' revolution.

That said, I do think there are governmental issues that relate to the problems with law school. Chiefly, I believe the culprit is the limitless supply of student loans. To remedy the situation, I advocate two policy positions. One "left-winged": Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy; one "right-winged": End the federal student loan program at least for graduate, professional schools.

These measure would cause the COA to plummet, force many TTT's out of market, and probably require the restructuring of the entire legal education system around a more practical model. The only expensive, theoretical institutions that would survive would be the ones that could truly guarantee jobs to their graduates that would allow them to service their debts.

What will happen to Esq. Never when you get a job?

Good question. For the time being, that isn't much of a concern.


Feel free to continue e-mailing me questions, and I will continue this series when I get enough to warrant an additional post.

A Scam Within a Scam...Within a Scam?

If you've ever read Shakespeare's famous play, A Midsummer Night's Dream, you probably know that it is famous (in part) because it features a play within a play. I'm knowledgeable enough about literature to know that fact. I, however, am not quite sophisticated enough to realize why it is particularly noteworthy.

Nevertheless, while I may be ignorant when it comes to the intricacies of the Bard's greatest works, over the past several months I've become quite adept at recognizing the shady tactics of our friends in the law school and higher education industrial complex.

First, there was Solo Practice University. For hundreds of dollars they promised to give solo practitioners (even those right out of law school) the tools they need to succeed. Of course, those tools consisted almost exclusively of a bunch of (non-state specific) videos for practicing different areas of the law. Like a set of videos for "Do-It-Yourself Surgery", such an approach to learning the law was a bit perfunctory, and the results were more likely than not destined to be rather messy.

Then our friends at Law Crossings started spamming the job boards, claiming they could help graduates find their first attorney positions regardless of whether the applicant's GPA was 2.0 or 4.0.

I watched a story on 60 Minutes the other night where a couple of psudeo-doctors convinced patients with a certain terminal ailment to pony up some big bucks in exchange for a nonexistent cure. You know what? I'll bet those "doctors" would be thoroughly disgusted by Law Crossings.

Seriously. What type of scum bag is willing to further rip off somebody who already is unemployable and under a mountain of debt? They'd honestly be less repugnant characters if they just took your money in exchange for a swift kick to the groin.

So now comes the latest in a long line of swindles. But this swindle actually has multiple layers. (Hence it being a "Scam within a Scam".)

I recently received an urgent piece of mail from some company called ECMC. Prior to reading this piece of mail, I had no idea who ECMC was. In fact, I'm still not 100% sure who they are except that the company guarantees federal loans. Apparently, however, this company was in possession of personal data related to me. It also seems that their crack security team allowed said personal data to be compromised.

Great. So let me get this straight. My law school and Sallie Mae conned me into going into massive debt for a worthless degree. Then for some reason they handed over my personal information to some other student lending company of some sort without telling me about it - though I'm sure it was buried in one of the 39 letters with 8-inch font they send me every week. Now, thanks to their bungling, another con artist has absconded with my sensitive, personal information.

It doesn't end there, though. Even though they insist that no "savings, checking, or credit card account numbers" were compromised (uh, what about SS numbers?) - which there's really no reason they should have in the first place - they're offering 12 free months of credit monitoring through another company.

Now call me cynical, but I can't help it at this point. If important data truly wasn't compromised, is this really necessary? If I sign up for this, how come I anticipate seeing myself being automatically re-enrolled at $59.99 a month once the free trial is over? Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in a company that uses some doofus playing the guitar in a pirate-themed restaurant to advertise for its product. (Maybe that guy should go to law school - then he'd really have something to sing about!)

So in addition to all my other woes, I have to choose between trusting that recently released inmate #68934 isn't selling my personal data over the internet to some guy in Nigeria or risk spending eight hours on the phone in 12 months trying cancel my brand new credit alert contract.

Is paying that Law Crossings guy to kick me in the groin an option?

All the world's a stage filled with potential law students,
And all the men and women merely a source of revenue;
They have their savings and the ability to sign promissory notes,
And one man in his time can be conned many times,
His indebtedness being seven ages.

-As The Law School Industry Likes It

Ask Esq. Never

I receive quite a bit of e-mail and comments seeking my opinions, thoughts, and (yikes!) even advice on certain matters. People are also occasionally interested in more information about this blog and the anti-law school backlash in general.

I think I do a pretty decent job replying to people when it comes to e-mail, but because I'm always careful to protect the privacy of anyone who contacts me, I never share their often interesting questions on the blog. As for the comments, I admittedly tend to do a poor job of responding to anything other than direct challenges to a position that I take.

Therefore, I would like to publish a "mailbag" post in the near future. I'm not sure how popular this will be, but I figure it's a good time to give this a try.

If you have something that you'd like me to address for the mailbag, please send me an e-mail at esqnever@hotmail.com with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject (or mention in the body of the e-mail that you'd like to have your question included in the blog post).

Feel free to ask questions about this blog, law school, scam blogs in general, the "alternative" job search, or anything else you think is relevant. If you have a comment to which you'd like me to react, please feel free to share it as well. Also, feel free to ask multiple questions (to be answered separately).

Try to keep the question short enough for a blog posts (no more than a few sentences). Also, please don't ask questions that would take an entire blog post to explain.

Questions that are not serious, will not receive serious answers. If you do politely ask a critical question in good faith, I promise not to make fun of you.

I will not answer questions that would compromise my anonymity (e.g. where I live; where I went to school). In order to maintain the philosophical neutrality of this blog, I will also not share my politics or personal beliefs on serious subjects that are unrelated to law school. Obviously, I will not entertain questions or comments that are particularly offensive or obscene.

If I receive enough questions/comments in short order, I will respond with a blog post this week. If it takes longer to gather enough responses, I will wait until later in the month. If this feature proves to be particularly popular, I'll categorize the questions and break up the blogs posts accordingly. If this feature is a complete bust, I'll cry myself to sleep and just make up some fake questions...or I'll just forget about it and turn my attention to other posts.

If you do not note that you want to be included in the mailbag, I'll keep your e-mail in confidence. I'll print your first name only if it appears in the body of your e-mail. I will respect requests to remain anonymous.

Please do not post questions to the comments section. (I have disabled it for this post.)

Thank you, and I look forward to responding to the questions and comments that you send to esqnever@hotmail.com (with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject).

Prelaws Say the Darndest Things!

Remember the movie The Truman Show? I was personally a little disappointed when I watched it and learned that it had little to do with our 33rd President. Nevertheless, it did present a somewhat interesting concept - a guy lives in a manufactured world only to eventually discover everything he thinks he knows about the world is a farce.

Personally, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I was on the set of the 'Esq. Never' Show. That way I'd eventually be able to open the door and exit to a world where I'm not both massively indebted and pretty much unemployable.

That's right. Ha ha, guys, okay, I fell for the joke...You had your fun...Can I get off the set now?

Of course, I know this isn't true. After all, if my life was a show, it would have been canceled long ago. Somehow I doubt that even the most voyeuristic audience would tune in to watch me type away at my computer, eat Chef Boyardee from the can, and sit in the corner of my room and cry.

Nevertheless, there is a place where you can go where everyone is so detached from reality that they all live in blissful ignorance about the environment around them. In fact, there are a number of these fantasy lands that exist around the web - perhaps you know them better as prelaw message boards.

Two of the most popular of such boards are Law School Discussion and the Top Law Schools Forums On the sets of the Prelaw Show you'll read fantastic statements that claim that some fourth tier dump is "highly respected" in a certain city or that finishing in the middle of the pack at a second tier school is going to guarantee you an $80k salary at a mid-sized firm.

But let's not just stick to generalizations. For your reading pleasure, I bring you the Top 10 Most Amazing Prelaw Quotes on the Internet...that I happened to stumble across during my five minutes of reading over these boards.

(For anyone who thinks that instead of making fun of these prelaws, I should be trying to help them, let me assure you I've already tried to weigh in. Nobody on these boards is willing to listen to reason. If you don't believe me, try it yourself and see just how receptive these folks are to your objections to law school.)

10. So I have to make a decision between the two. I haven't really heard much about either since they are both Tier 4 schools [Valparasio and Nova Southeastern], however, that doesn't mean anything to me. If you know anything about these two schools, please let me know it would be very helpful.

Because you're confused, let me inform you what "Tier 4" means. It means you're going to mortgage your future by handing over an obscene amount of money to some soulless dean in exchange for a piece of paper that couldn't be worth less if it was a page in a kids coloring book.

9. I am currently Waitlisted at Southwestern and I got accepted into TJSL. I am going to put down the deposit for TJSL but Southwestern is my dream.

Martin Luther King's dream was a united brotherhood of man. Your dream is being admitted to a law school that can't even crack the top 100 (which is pretty weak). Too bad once you graduate, you won't wake up from this nightmare.

8. Yea actually I am debating between widener and TJSL, and I am still waiting on southwestern. I happen to have some time to do a lot of researching of places, neighborhoods, apartments etc. so I would suggest you do that. maybe pick out 1 or two apartments you would like for both cities, I am sending in two seat deposits as well to buy myself more time...if you want any more info let me know

Instead of researching neighborhoods and apartments, perhaps you should take some time to research your future job prospects. I guess you can think about that when the law school apologists are denouncing you for not doing your research in three years.

Sending in two deposits is good idea. Choosing whether you want to destroy your life by going to a crappy law school or by going to a really crappy law school is a decision you don't want to rush.

7. Earlier in my cycle (when I was still considering these three [DePaul/Loyola/Kent]) I began talking to people in the Chicago area about this. They all said the three have made good names for themselves in the Chicago area. Obviously it would be harder to obtain "big-law" jobs from these schools as opposed to Northwestern etc. But from what I understood, it is very possible to reach your goals (considering they are realistic) coming from any of them. I would encourage you to visit each school and decide which you fit best with.

Reach your goals? As long as they're realistic? Well, unless your goal is work in some of the finest document review sweat shops in Chicago, I'd stay away from these second tier diploma mills. Oh, and that's assuming the economy improves. If it doesn't, your goals better include relying on state assistance in order to survive.

6. You don't have to go to a school in the DC area to get a job in Washington; nor do you have to go to a T14 or T20. I've had friends who went to TTT-type schools who have scored DOJ and other nice attorney gigs in the federal government.

Unless your friends went to Regent Law during the Bush administration or have some incriminating photos of an attorney general, I'm pretty incredulous. If you go to a TTT because somebody claims he knows somebody who got a decent job in DC, I think you'll find that to be the case as well. Too bad if you wait until you graduate to come to this realization, that lesson is going to come at a high price.

5. The state of Ohio is boring and too far from a beach. Villanova is better than PSU in Philly. Philadelphia is a world class city and is an amazing place to live. Nova has a great rep in the city and grads do well in the Philly market. Which is a huge market. Go to nova u will like the mainline area and Philly is fun and a change of pace from Cali. It's a great catholic school with a beautiful campus.

Like, man, you totally need to go to law school near the beach, dude! Plus, the amount of fun you have in law school is totally going to determine your job prospects afterward!

Clearly sage advice.

4. Are you serious? I go to a tier 4 and know plenty of people doing well for themselves, someone even agreed to pay me pretty well this summer. I don't know if you are even in law school or not, but either way what you are saying is B.S. [In response to one compassionate soul telling the lemmings not to jump off the cliff.]

You got a summer job? Wow! Actually, that is kind of impressive. Nevertheless, those $10 you're making per hour aren't going to be much consolation when you can't find a job paying more than $40k as an attorney (if you're lucky).

You're right, though. Why wouldn't anyone pay sticker at a fourth tier school? I mean just because tier 1 students are struggling to find jobs doesn't mean that the lower half of law schools are going to be a risky investment.

Oh wait...this can't be a serious post. Thanks for checking in, Dean Matasar - you almost got me!

3. I just got accepted into Seton Hall but via the LEO summer program, does anyone have any information on this program, or attending this fall?

I think Nando has some advice. You couldn't even get into Seton Hall through the general admission process? Game over, man. Game over.

2. I'm officially a class of 2013 Brooklyn Law student!

I just got off the phone with Miss Cleo, and she predicts you're going to be considerably less excited in 2013.

1. I have a low LSAT Score (143) and I was admitted into the Summer Conditional (AAMPLE) Program through Florida Coastal. Can anyone give me their opinions on this program.

Res ipsa loquitur


Notice how nobody on these boards (not limited just to the above quotes) announces that they want to work in document review, or do cut and paste work for $40k for a personal injury firm, or end up in an entry level position unrelated to the law. Compare that to the number of graduates (even pre-recession) who ended up in such positions.

Oh, but it won't be you, my prelaw friend. No, your second tier diploma is special. There's something about your 45 percentile class rank at a TTT that sets you apart. Your lower ranked first tier has something magical about it just because it's placed in the top 50 even though it's surrounded by five similarly ranked schools in its region.

That's right. You're exceptional, and I'll look forward to reading your exceptional anti-law school blog in three years.

Student Aid Reform Bill: Nothing Special

This weekend Congress will not only address the controversial health bill that has been championed by President Obama, it will also pursue passage of a bill that seeks to reform the student loan industry.

At first blush, this seems like a great idea. After all, the student loan industry is an inefficient mess. Moreover, critics of the industry are hailing the measure while our friends at Sallie Mae and Access Group are fighting tooth and nail against the legislation. What's bad for Aunt Sallie has to be good for everyone else, right?

Maybe. The key component of the bill is to eliminate the "middle man" in the process of dispersing and administering federal student loans. That is, instead of private companies like Sallie Mae receiving subsidies to handle the student loan process and having the loans guaranteed by the government, the Department of Education will just handle the process itself.

From the standpoint of irate borrowers who have been harassed by Aunt Sallie and her partners in crime, this may be welcomed news. Such a reform could bring some of the private student lenders to their knees and even portend their eventual destruction. From a spiteful standpoint, many may see this as sweet revenge.

There will also probably be some more immediate benefits to those seeking loans. For example, many of these companies charged high fees for initiating loans. This was one way many lenders made money. Without the profit incentive, the government may be willing to allow borrowers to borrow the amount requested without skimming a little off the top for themselves.

Aside from possibly eliminating some absurd fees and sticking it to our unscrupulous creditors, the bill really doesn't help matters too much, however.

While the bill does push the private lenders out of the federal student loan industry, it does nothing to address the private wing of the industry. Many borrowers who are facing the most trouble don't just have federal loans - they also have private loans. In fact, if the federal student loan portion of the business is ripped away from the lenders, they're probably going to start turning the screws even harder on their private borrowers to try to remain solvent.

Sure, intervening too much with the private lending market may be constitutionally and even economically dubious, but the government doesn't have act quite so radically. All it needs to do is allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy - like pretty much all other debt.

If the administration was truly serious about taking on student lending interests, this would be a far more productive battle to wage than simply playing musical chairs with the process for facilitating federal student loans.

The pending legislation also incorporates a partial expansion of the IBR. It, however, seeks to implement the expansion in the worst possible way.

According to The Project on Student Debt, the proposed changes to the IBR (capping payments at 10% of discretionary income and forgiving all debt after 20 years) will only apply to loans originating on or after January 1, 2014. That means current borrowers who have already snared themselves with student loans will not benefit. In fact, anyone enrolling in law school this fall will only have a semester during which this proposal will bear any fruit.

Now, of course, I have a self interest in seeing the change be made retroactive. Nevertheless, that's not my biggest problem with the proposal. I personally find the 15%/25 year plan currently in effect to be reasonable.

The problem with the change is that it departs from the purpose (or what should be the purpose) of the IBR. The IBR allows students who have already sunk themselves with debt to have the opportunity to live somewhat normal lives while paying back a reasonable portion of their incomes.

By delaying the implementation of the new IBR program, the only effect will be to encourage future borrowers (who currently are not saddled with debt) to enter academic programs knowing they may not be required to pay back the balance of their loans. This creates incentives (or at least eliminates disincentives) for students to pursue all sorts of worthless degrees while allowing the law school and other higher education leeches to continue sucking down student loans dollars with relative impunity.

Why don't we really eliminate the "middle man" and just have the government mail checks to these hucksters directly?

What remains to be seen is just how zealously the government will seek to collect on loan repayments. On the one hand, there is no profit incentive, so the mafia-esque techniques employed by the dons at Access Group may no longer be necessary. On the other hand, student loan repayments are a source of revenue for the government, and the IRS has never been known to shy away from using gestapo tactics of its own.

The IBR is bound to become popular and almost certainly will cost the government money. Hopefully, this means that the feds will be more forgiving about making timely repayments.

Here's hoping some government drone eventually loses my student loan paperwork and the Dept. of Ed stops demanding payments.

Esq. Never urges a vote of "Who Cares?" on the pending legislation.

It's Payback Time!

No, readers, Esq. Never isn't about to go out and settle the score with the law school deans and their apologist sycophants once and for all as the title may suggest. Instead, I'm writing about repaying student debt. Specifically, I'm writing about the new Income Based Repayment Plan (IBR) that allows graduates with federal loans to make payments based upon their annual incomes.

I have mixed feeling about the IBR. I definitely appreciate most of its provisions. After all, if it wasn't for the IBR, I'd probably be writing Escudero Nunca from Costa Rica right now. I do, however, fear that it may create some new problems down the road.

For those of you unfamiliar with the IBR, it's a new loan repayment plan that ONLY applies to federal loans (excluding Parent PLUS loans). It DOES NOT apply to private loans.

The one nice thing about graduating in 2009 from law school (and I do mean the ONE nice thing) is that we were the first class that could borrow the entire cost of attendance via both Stafford and Grad PLUS loans (both part of the federal program). This means, that the entirety of our educational debt for law school is subject to the IBR.

The key provision of the IBR is that it allows graduates to pay back their federal loans as a percentage of their income. Moreover, for repayment purposes, one's income is considered to be one's adjusted gross income less 1.5 times the poverty level (based upon family size). The statutory percentage is set at 15%, but because the income that is being assessed is less than one's actual take home pay, the effective rate for most people is around 10%.

If one's income is low enough, it's actually possible to have monthly payments of $0. Moreover, income is determined based upon a person's tax return. In lieu of using a tax return, a borrower can also petition the lender (and can always consolidate with the Dept. of Ed.) to use an alternative method for assessing one's annual income.

This can be particularly useful if a person's income declines over the year and is not properly reflected by past tax returns. It doesn't appear, however, that if a person's income increases over the year that he is obliged to report the higher income until the next annual assessment.

Aside from people with incomes that may fluctuate wildly (usually those who are self employed and independent contractors), these repayment terms are very favorable and will allow many debtors to enjoy a pretty normal lifestyle without the crushing penalty of debt.

There are some problems with the system. Married couples must either use their jointly reported incomes or file separately to use the IBR. (Filing separately can cost some families more in taxes than they would otherwise pay.) This marriage penalty seems unnecessary since it should be easy enough to separate each spouse's individual incomes particularly since the Dept. of Ed. permits borrowers to prove their incomes via other means besides using past tax returns.

The other problem is that interest continues to accrue (but not compound) on all loans except for subsidized Stafford loans (and the subsidy lasts for only three years). This means that one's debt can balloon considerably over time if one sticks to just the minimum payments. This can make getting future financing for something like a house more difficult in the future. (Not because your credit rating will be hurt if you make timely payments under the IBR but because your debt to income/asset ratio is going to be uglier than Dean Matasar wearing a Speedo.)

As I joked in A Law School Carol, the IBR is great...as long as you don't plan on getting married or owning a house for the next 25 years.

These, however, aren't my biggest concerns about the IBR. The marriage penalty is unfair, but it's not like most of us TTT losers are going to get a chance to get married anyway. (Driving your old '87 Ford Taurus back and forth between your "job" earning $15.25 straight at the local doc review sweatshop and your mom's basement isn't exactly the best way to woo the opposite sex.)

As for the accruing interest, the choice is left up to borrower as to whether he wants to just make the minimum payments or wants to try to pay down his debt before the Battle of Armageddon takes place. Moreover, if a person goes into public interest work, he can have his debt forgiven in ten years and can see his debt forgiven after 25 years (possibly 20 under a proposal by President Obama) if he works in the private sector.

The real problem with this system isn't that it doesn't provide relief to borrowers. It does. The problem is that it continues to perpetuate the current corrupt system. The only difference is that it begins to shift the burden from the borrowers to the tax payers.

The law school deans (and their higher education cohorts) aren't necessarily evil; they're greedy and self important. By that, I mean that they don't necessarily relish seeing their former students thrust into poverty thanks to high monthly loan repayments and unhelpful degrees. If that is what it takes to allow them to rule over profitable educational empires, so be it, but if they can have the same results by sponging off a less visible source of revenue (the US Treasury), then they'd probably prefer that.

Save the IBR, we could otherwise be witnessing the destruction of the law school scam. Tuition at some schools (even some absolutely horrendous schools) is approaching $50k a year. Throw in living expenses, and it's hardly unreasonable to believe that plenty of students could graduate with debt closing in on $200,000 or more in just principal.

On top of the debt, the legal market is still collapsing. Firms aren't hiring summer classes. Those who do get hired are getting deferred. Federal jobs are getting record applicants. States are having trouble funding their DA and PD offices. Small firms are hardly hiring and are offering starting salaries south of $30k a year. Document review work has all but dried up in most cities (and many projects require years of experience).

This combination of absurd debt burdens and limited (if not non-existent) job opportunities is a recipe for mass defaults on students loans. That's the sort of thing that could get a lot of attention and force the law schools and their phony statistics to come under greater scrutiny, which would either force most of these dumps to close or require some massive reform as to how law schools (and probably other areas of higher education) operate.

The IBR, however, is going to provide an escape hatch for most entry level attorneys who are getting hit the hardest by the collapse of the legal market. It'll also provide a bit of a cushion for those with a mixture of private and federal student loans. In fact, the ABA recently proposed helping out older borrowers by encouraging the federal government to buy up their private debt and allow the borrowers to pay it back as Grad PLUS loans (and thus benefit from the IBR).

Over the long term, the low monthly payments are going to deprive the government of significant revenue. Moreover, the hit to the treasury is going to be even harder when the government needs to write off all of the forgiven debt (either under the 10 or 20/25 year plans).

Of course, the real effect of the IBR won't be felt by the taxpayers for decades, which, of course, buys the law school cartel and their buddies plenty of time to continue jacking up tuition and churning out worthless degrees with relative impunity. If they can actually get the government to assume to the private debt, they'll have muted the only constituency that's still is at serious risk for default.

With manageable monthly payments, the law school industry is rightfully banking that most of its graduates will just grumble about their experiences but end up finding other work and moving on. If the economy picks up, all the better. The mistake of going to law school won't hit individuals as hard as it used to while the law schools and allied companies will continue to be able to feast on the continuous flow of student loans.

For those who love to throw out the canard that law schools should be absolved of their behavior because students should have done more research, this is something that should be of concern to you. In the past, you guys claimed that we should have to pay for our educational myopia. Thanks to the IBR, now you'll also have to pay for our mistakes and what we call the Law School Scam.

Bad Dreams

Recently, I haven't been one to post twice in a day. In fact, I'm lucky if I post twice in one week, but I just couldn't pass up commenting on this:

An anonymous commenter tipped me off to the University of Dreams. Apparently, it was also recently profiled in the Chicago Tribune.

With a name like "University of Dreams" you'd have to believe that this is just another silly on-line school trying to get a slice of Aunt Sallie Mae's pie. You'd be wrong, however. No, the "University of Dreams" is much worse than that.

It's a program designed to let you buy your way into a summer internship program. No, it isn't just a consulting service to help you land a good internship. It actually guarantees you an internship. All for the low, low price of several thousand dollars. (More than a semester's tuition at some schools.)

Yes, people are now desperate enough to PAY to work for someone. Remember that Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Bart that in the nation of "Rand McNally" hamburgers eat people? That fib was even less strange than this.

Look, I'm a chump. I bought the law school snake oil. I even paid my own transportation costs to commute to an unpaid legal internship or two. Still, paying several thousand dollars to do work for someone else? That's just absurd.

I remember that when I was in college, students would settle for unpaid internships while most would try to finagle at least a minimal hourly wage. People are now actually parting with the big bucks just so they can say they did something interesting over the summer?

It used to be a bad joke on JD Underground that the market for attorneys was so bad that pretty soon we'd be paying practicing attorneys to work for them. After learning about this program, I'm not so sure that day is too far off.

Maybe, I should start "Attorney Dreams". You can work for a plaintiff or insurance defense firm for $2,000. Criminal defense and wills and trust law is going to cost you $5,000. If you want to work in the skyscrapers that house the major corporate firms, it's going to cost you $10k. (Please add $2,000 if you want to work in entertainment or sport law.)

I wouldn't even need to collect all the money upfront. I could offer installment plans or even loans. "The University of Dreams" offers both. You only need to put up $900 to be approved for their generous financing plan, and then it's only payments of $248 a month for the next three years!

Unless, I'm now living in a bizarro world where someone is also going to pay me to watch TV and play video games, I'd like to thank "The University of Dreams" for reminding me what a nightmare the higher education system in this country has become.

(NB: Anyone who is interested in the Esq. Never internship program, please e-mail me ASAP. It's only $10,000 per person. I won't even make you do anything. Act now!)

Unnecessary Enemies

Over the past year, the number of news articles and blogs that have been published in order to draw into question the wisdom of going to law school has been impressive. The popular legal tabloid, Above the Law, consistently urges people to stay away from law school while at least eight blogs do the same on a daily basis. The National Law Journal, the L.A. Times, and the Wall Street Journal (among other publications) have printed stories or op-eds assailing the ABA and the present law school system.

While much of this coverage has been met with strong support by those who have been wronged by the law school industry (and a number of neutral observers), there has inevitably been a bit of a backlash.

Obviously, this exposure is unwelcome news to those who profit off of the industry, but there has also been some criticism from those who are (at least allegedly) detached from the law school profit machine.

Most of these people are satisfied, practicing attorneys. To them, these attacks are foreign to their own experiences and are offensive to the career that they enjoy.

In some cases, these are just those at the top of the legal food chain taunting us with what amounts to little more than "Nya, Nya, a boo boo! I got a 170+ LSAT score and yooouuu didn't!" In other instances, it's simply the reality-challenged response of some old codger who graduated law school back when he could also go to the county fair and get cotton candy, a soda pop, and ride the Cyclone and still get change back from his nickel.

Admittedly, however, there are a few legitimate voices out there of people who truly enjoy practicing law. They didn't necessarily go to the best schools or get the best grades. Nonetheless, they were able to make it as attorneys and couldn't imagine doing anything else.

While they may not appreciate some of the commentary from the anti-law advocates, I don't think these people should necessarily be opposed to us.

Why? Well, I think most of us would agree that the world needs at least some lawyers. Our criticism is really aimed at how legal training is currently provided.

If anything, the prevailing system makes it more difficult for people who truly want to be lawyers to actually realize their dreams. The heavy debt load and glut of lawyers makes finding reasonable entry level work quite difficult.

What good does it do for anyone (save the law school industry) to throw so many attorneys (many of whom just want a job not a calling) onto the market with such punishing debt loads?

What sense is there in defending a system that doesn't even train budding attorneys as to how they should practice their future craft?

Aren't plenty of potentially good attorneys and caring advocates flushed out of the back of the law school toilet because they weren't able to pull off a top LSAT score or nail straight A's on a bunch of theoretically focused exams that bear little resemblance to the actual practice of law?

Why should those with a passion for the law have to compete with reams less interested graduates who went to law school in search of high starting salaries, stable careers, or versatile degrees - based upon the distorted statistics and information provided by the schools?

I had no business going to law school. Some people do. That's fine, but wouldn't we be better off with a system that taught these people how to be attorneys and didn't try to rope the rest of us into handing over our student loan dollars only to have all of us fighting over the limited number of entry level positions?

Updates

As most of you know, I'm usually not one for short posts, but until I find out how this recent job prospect turns out (one way or the other), I don't think I'm going to have time for any "feature" posts. I'll try to provide some shorter posts (like this one) until then.

Also, I know that my posting rate has declined remarkably from about once a day in November to about once a week this month. When I first started this blog, I was trying to sort out how I was going to proceed with my job search now that I was convinced I didn't want to be an attorney.

I, therefore, had a lot more time to post articles, create youtube videos, etc. Recently, I've become a lot more proactive with my job search and other endeavors, so I've had less time to invest in this blog. It isn't that I don't have a lot to say, it's just that I don't have as much time to invest in writing as I used to.

Moreover, I really prefer writing long, detailed or creative articles, so it sometimes takes a while for me to create publishable material. I probably have about half a dozen partially completed articles on everything from insurance sales to my bar prep experience sitting in the queue.

In any event, I want to thank everyone for their well wishes regarding my upcoming interview. It will be held later this week. I don't want to give too many details rights now, but I promise to share as much information as possible as I move throughout the process.

Some questions were, however, raised in the comments section of my last post that I'm willing to address:

• I did work, full time for two years before enrolling in law school
• The job is in the computer industry - It isn't a development role, but it does require a strong quantitative and computer background
• I applied via a listing on an on-line job board - no special networking connections - I did submit both a cover letter and a resume
  

As mentioned, I will be sure to update everyone on my response to the "Why law school?" question in addition to any other pertinent information.

Also, Esq. Never may receive some additional media exposure in the near future. I'll be sure to keep everyone apprised.

The Free Rider Problem

Recently, my less-than-computer-savvy mother somehow downloaded a nasty piece of malware to her PC. This bugger is what is often referred to as a "rootkit". Without wasting too much time with the details, it's essentially software that's so malicious that even experienced systems administrators often times don't bother trying to remove it. Instead, they just back up all necessary data and reformat the hard drive and reinstall the operating system.

This sort of malware usually disguises itself as a benign program (a trojan) and then when installed proceeds to wreck havoc. If not properly removed, it will usually install all sorts of annoying programs, compromise the security of the system, and cause the OS to operate slowly. If it's improperly removed, the symptoms may not be evident for a while, but the infection will eventually begin to pose problems once again. Essentially, it's a "gift" that keeps on giving.

I think this is a pretty good analogy for law school. It seemed like a good idea at one point. It was probably a dumb idea to go through with it, but the administrators did everything they could to dupe you into attending just like the virus' programmers are able to snooker unwary users into downloading their software. Now that you've loaded yourself up with the debt and wasted three years, it is virtually impossible to put this menace behind you. Sadly, however, there's no option for reformatting and reinstalling in the real world.

Moreover, law school is definitely the "gift" that keeps on giving. First, you get to spend three miserable years learning from some pseudo-intellectual professors (i.e. people who have the same worthless degree you have) about theoretical concepts only tangentially related to the practice of law. Then you leave school realizing you owe more in student loans than some people do on their houses. Then you have to spend even more money learning how to take an exam that's required of you before you even have the ability to practice. After that, you learn that even with a degree/license, there are few (and mostly low paying) jobs for attorneys. Then you learn that non-legal employers aren't exactly thrilled about hiring people with your "advanced" credentials.

This isn't an exhaustive list of the miserable revelations many law graduates are sadly forced to discover. Some of you may think, can it possibly get any worse? Well, if you've experienced (or are yet to experience) all of the above, let me assure that the curse of law school isn't done doling out its punishment quite yet.

No, as if unemployment, a life time of debt, and losing every shred of dignity you once held isn't enough, almost all law graduates have to deal with another nuisance: The Free Rider Problem.

The Free Rider Problem is manifested in every moocher who comes out the wood work as soon as it is revealed that you're now a licensed attorney (and often times even beforehand). It's kind of like when people get hit up by friends and relatives after they win the lottery. The only difference is that as a law school graduate, you just won Beelzebub's lottery and all you have to share is ignorance.

Maybe if you're a 1L and someone solicits your advice for the first time, it feels kind of good. You feel proud that people look to you as an authority. Well, guess what? You're not an authority. Chances are the average legal secretary could offer better advice than you can, and she isn't going to have to explain to the bar why she once engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if she ends up giving advice to the wrong person.

Things don't really change once you're an attorney. The only thing that may change is that you can get your licensed yanked or face a malpractice suit for letting the moochers push you around.

Just because the stakes are higher, doesn't mean that the parasites will leave you alone (even if you politely explain your professional obligations). No, in fact, once you're a full fledged attorney, it's open season.

I can't tell you the number of times people have just assumed I'm their personal legal question and answer database. I guess this must be what it's like to be an attractive female who has to endure the unrelenting and untoward advances made by the dregs of the male gender.

People have asked me how to file a complaint with the state's consumer fraud division. (I was actually asked this by a paralegal - "You'd know better than I would, my friend.") I have been hit up for advice on changing one's name, analyzing a child custody agreement (that I hadn't even seen), and getting dual citizenship. People have asked me to write their wills and sue their landlords. One person even thought I could give her a lecture on how HIPAA works while another wanted me to write a threatening letter on her behalf.

This sort of thing must be particularly annoying to practicing attorneys. Unless they can parlay this free advice into getting retained as a paid attorney, talking about work probably isn't what they want to do during their free time. (Maybe I should try to become friends with an executive at Sallie Mae and try to convince him to write off some of that debt 'cause buds help each other out.)

In my case, however, I don't even know what the heck most of these people are talking about. Okay, maybe I usually understand the theory behind some of the dilemmas they're having, but I certainly don't have the practical knowledge to help them out even if I were so inclined.

Personally, I think it would be funny if I could get away with just doling out a bunch of bad advice. "Sure, Ralph, getting into a street fight with your friend sounds like a great idea. You can guys can definitely disclaim liability for any injuries that result"; "I, Esq. Never, certify that Mr. and Mrs. Smith hereby devise all of their assets to the Workers World Party and give custody of their children to Big Bird."

The state bar or the court that decides the malpractice suit against me may not be quite as amused.

Some of you may be thinking, "Wait, Esq. Never, you dummy, why don't get off your duff and try to learn some of this law and procedure, so you can't actually do something productive instead of sitting around complaining."

First, of all, do I come over to your blog and heckle you? (Well, usually, I don't.) Secondly, here's my three part response. 1) I really don't want to be an attorney. 2) Setting up a solo operation and learning the ropes isn't an easy feat. 3) Most of the people who are looking for advice are looking for free advice - hence the "Free Rider Problem". As soon as I mention a fee agreement, they'd make a run for it like an ABA president runs from an honest debate on the problems with her organization. (Hey, maybe, this is a good tip for ridding yourself of free loaders.)

Of course, don't feel bad, fellow barristers. I recently read an advice column about a garbage man who kept getting hit up by friends to help dump their over-sized refuse for free. He just worked for the garbage company; he didn't even own the truck!

Well, if garbage men don't have to do pro-bono trash collection, I don't see why we need to give away advice for free. Particularly, when most of recent law school grads don't have any advice to give away in the first place.

I Was Once Like You

The Legal Dollar is a great blog. For those of you who sometimes (or often) think the "Scam Busting" blogs are too filled with hyperbole for your taste, TLD is less geared towards law school bashing and more towards personal financial decision making for lawyers/law students. (Though the best financial advice would probably be don't go into debt in the first place to attend law school.)

Recently, the blog had a good post about the financial risks associated with enrolling in law school. One thing that caught my eye was the following anecdote:

When I mentioned that I worked with a lot of young lawyers and the job search was becoming more difficult, one of the potential students interrupted me and said very loudly and bluntly "That's not true." (Wilson's outbust of saying "You lie!" during an Obama speech had happened not too long before, so I got a little sense of something like deja vu.)

I assured the student that I had been working with recent graduates for several years and the task of helping them get jobs had indeed become more difficult in recent years. They countered by saying that my comments were not in accord with what they were seeing in law school admission materials. To this I suggested that they might want to drill down a little with regard to what a "90% employment rate after graduation really meant."

They also preferred to believe the numbers put out by the law schools with regard to starting salary. They did not even want to believe the NALP median numbers and started trying to suggest to me reasons why the NALP numbers must be wrong.

Ah, the arrogance and naivete of the prospective law students. How sad that one day, with their hopes of living a stable lifestyle thanks to an advanced degree dashed, they too will lash out at the scam only to be admonished for their "lack of research" and "entitlement mentalities".

Nonetheless, I can only be so harsh towards these sorry lambs being led to the slaughter. You see, sadly, I too was once like them. I don't think I ever thought that six figures was in the bag just because I was able to sign my name to the check for my seat deposit (and a subsequent promissory note). I did, however, believe the data about the median starting salaries. I thought the employment figures were accurate. I even believed that my law school was interested in providing practical training and that its proximity to many large firms and businesses would give me numerous employment options.

Most embarrassingly, I even believed that my school's career service office had any real interest in helping me actually secure a career.

It's really a good thing I'm not a woman. Otherwise, I'd probably take every half soused goon at his word that he's really an internet-start-up tycoon even though he drives an '85 LeBaron and lives in a studio apartment on top of a bowling alley.

More than just accepting the distorted marketing materials produced by the schools (and industry publications), I also never really liked the occasional naysayers that popped up on discussion boards like Law School Discussion.

Back when I was applying, there wasn't nearly as much anti-law school information as there is now. It wasn't until after I started school that the infamous Wall Street Journal article came out where Law is 4 Losers and Loyola 2L were quoted and where a number of law school administrators admitted their statistics were based upon partially reported data.

In fact, I don't think it was until after I was already enrolled and taking classes that anti-law school advocates starting aggressively encouraging students not to attend law school (particularly the TTT's). This is when I was exposed to the infamous chart I printed earlier (reporting high salaries for some, low salaries for many, and middle range salaries for few). This is when I first heard about students from tier 2 and even tier 1 schools struggling to find substantive legal work (pre-recession). This is also when I first heard about the subterranean document review sweat shops.

As I mentioned, I was pretty incredulous of these claims. Surely, I thought there couldn't be that many students who resent going to law school. Those who were in document review must have just gotten in over their heads with debt and/or wanted an easy way to make some quick cash. It couldn't be true that so many students who missed the OCI cutoff had few other options for permanent employment other than toilet law or abandoning the field altogether. Surely, those people who took low paying, miserable firm jobs were people who were unwilling to leave the greater NYC metro area.

Moreover, the few anti-law school advocates with whom I came into contact did not come across well. One poster on Law School Discussion who went by the moniker "Wiimote" (referring to the Nintendo console) repeatedly posted on the message board that anyone who goes to law school is going to get hosed. I don't really disagree, but he never bothered putting his remarks in context. (Did he even go to LS?) He also never bothered engaging anyone who had any serious questions for him.

I don't know if 0L's currently deal with people employing similarly ill-advised tactics. Perhaps some of them see current anti-scam bloggers that way. When I've (rarely) ventured into the pre-law forums, I have tried to be as non-combative and charitable as possible. Nonetheless, like a sober man trying to deter an addict from continuing in his vice, I've been swatted away by the very people I'm trying to help.

Despite my differences with the OL's, I recognize that I was once like them. Still, for those of you considering law school, please realize that you can one day be like me.

It's easy to be incredulous of the idea that law jobs are hard to secure outside of OCI. You may be convinced that you'll never end up in document review. You might believe that you'll have the skill and savvy to go solo from the start, and of course, if all else fails that you'll know how to spin your law degree to help you land a solid non-legal job.

It may seem that way from where you're currently sitting. I thought so too.

Now, however, I know that going to CLE's and receptions gets you at best "well wishes" and at worst brushed off - certainly not solid leads for jobs. I've diligently scanned the job boards finding plenty of positions for legal assistants but precious few for practicing attorneys (and almost all at pay well south of $50k). I've personally investigated going solo from the start only to realize the expense of starting a legitimate practice and the difficulty of independently learning the necessary law and procedure while making enough to survive.

I've been referred to attorneys only to either get blown off or to learn that they simply can't/won't hire additional associates for their small firms because it's not economical. I've been unable to work with other contacts because their firms/organizations simply won't hire me because I didn't go to the right school or make the top 10%.

Right now, I'm even being strung along by temp agencies with the possibility of getting hired for JUNIOR document review positions.

Of course, I've sent reams of resumes and cover letters to non-legal employers with nary a response. Not only do I have an undergrad business/econ degree and a tech background, but I also worked for two years. I've applied for a number of positions that were actually related to my responsibilities at my former job and couldn't even get interviews.

Also, if you think I didn't have much of a candidate profile before law school, you're wrong. As I've mentioned before, I only searched for jobs for a few months post-college and had a number of interviews, multiple offers, and accepted a job for a position in which I was one of a hundred candidates. I don't say this to brag; I say this to assure you that the "x-factor" here is my law degree/three year experience gap.

Obviously, when I "open up" like this, I'm inevitably going to get a comment about "whining". I don't say this to elicit your pity. I say this because this is the frustration I (and many, many other law graduates) have experienced first hand. I didn't believe the warnings before or even during law school. Now I have no choice but to believe them. I'm living them.

Unless your personal goal is to also have an anti-law school blog on blogger.com one day, trust me this is a warning, not whining.

Even if You Win, You Lose

Anyone who reads this blog knows that Above the Law it isn't. That is, Esq. Never tends to focus on life on the wrong side of the legal industry train tracks rather than the world where associates get annual bonuses worth more than my car and would never dream of purchasing a suit off the rack from Goodwill.

No, usually we focus less on attorneys whose large corporate clients allow them to own nice downtown condos and more on "attorneys" whose court referred clients help them pay to heat their vans/homes parked down by the river.

Today, however, let's take a look at those who have "made it" in the legal profession. No, this isn't a sour grapes post. I'm not sure if working 90 hours a week performing associate level grunt work is exactly my thing. I do, however, know that actually having a job that's affords me a modicum of dignity while earning a salary that may give me a shot at paying off my debt some time before the sun implodes most certainly is "my thing".

Besides, I fully accept what I've been told a number of times: Those T-14 kids who reflexively understood that the LSAT passage about Harriet Tubman was a "whimsical analysis of an iconoclastic figure from Antebellum American history" are clearly our superiors. We're really quite impressed by you guys - honest.

Nonetheless, is a legal career that doesn't require one to click a mouse in a windowless basement like a retarded chimp really all that it's cracked up to be?

I'm actually not going to dedicate this post to the insane hours big firm attorneys need to work or the dry nature of most of their tasks (reading over SEC documents, etc.). I'm also not going to pick on the court room aspect of a successful practice - hauling oneself from court to court and dealing with obnoxious and annoying clients.

Instead, let me turn to an organization called Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. For those of you unaware of this organization, it's essentially a support group (found in most states) for the multitude of attorneys each year who fall under the sway of the bottle, pills, or seriously consider offing themselves (probably much to the glee of the lawyer-joke spewing populace).

Congratulations, everyone, we've selected a field which not only requires three years at overpriced, fraudulent "trade" schools and taking on more debt than the Democratic Republic of the Congo but that also likely ends with a trip to the Betty Ford Clinic.

What? You think this is just an isolated group that caters to a small segment of the profession? Perhaps you can then point me to "Systems Administrators Concerned for Systems Administrators"? Can you explain to me why every law school orientation I've heard about has a presentation by a representative from LCL before students even have their first classes? How come the freakin' number to their hotline is on the back of my Bar ID card?!

I still remember the poor schlub who was responsible for the presentation at my orientation session. I assume he had to further shame himself by sharing his story with us as part of his community service plea agreement. Apparently, the stress of law firm life had led him to become such an addict that he had resorted to drinking mouthwash!

You see - the long hours, demanding and arrogant firm partners, absurd clients, stressful court sessions, insufferable colleagues, and everything else adds up to a create a career that isn't too fun. In fact, it's so "not fun" that it drives an inordinate number of our "brothers of the bar" to depression, substance abuse, and even suicide.

I don't recall thinking, "Gee, I really think I'd like to join a profession where after driving myself deep into the red to face bleak job prospects, I'll also have the elevated chance of my family finding my body in a near catatonic state after sucking down a bottle of Listerine all night."

Yet, here we are.